Lords Sitting of 18 July 1968

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

SHORT-SERVICE COMMISSIONS AND INDUSTRIAL CAREERS
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: 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 the Army's "Joint Short Service and Industrial Career" scheme may be extended for the benefit of officers holding Short Service Commissions in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the scheme to which the noble Lord refers, which was announced last week, has been introduced to enable young men selected for an Army three-year short service commission to be considered for employment by firms at the end of their Army Service. When the introduction of this scheme was under consideration last year the other two Services were kept in touch with developments by the Army and both concluded that they did not wish to take part in it at present, because their requirements for short service officers differs in nature from that of the Army. In the case of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, the length of initial training makes it impracticable to offer a commission as short as three years; and secondly, short service officers are encouraged to extend their length of service. I should like to stress that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines attach the greatest importance to assisting their officers, including short service officers, to resettle in civil life when they leave the Service.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that
438
reply. May I ask him whether the nationalised industries are participating in this scheme and also whether he could inform the House about the number of firms which are participating?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give that information straight away, but I will get it and let the noble Earl have it.

HOSPITAL LOSSES THROUGH PILFERING
LORD SORENSEN: 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, in view of the substantial financial loss incurred by some hospitals and other public institutions through pilfering, despite vigilant supervision and the activity of security officers, whether any estimate has been made of the probable total cost of this loss, particularly to the hospital service; and whether Regional Hospital Boards have considered means by which this malpractice can be discouraged as a serious offence that causes embarrassment and indignation among the vast majority of the staffs serving the hospitals.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, discovered losses and deficiencies of cash, goods, equipment and stores in the hospital service from all causes amounted in 1966–67 in England and Wales to just over £100,000. This was between 0·01 and 0·02 per cent. of the total revenue expenditure of close on £700 million. It included losses by fraud, fire and storekeeping errors as well as by theft. I regret that I have no separate information about losses by theft. Hospital authorities are fully aware of the need to discourage pilfering, and adopt many different ways of doing so.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that when he refers to the discovered or discoverable losses, inevitably a much greater amount than seems indicated by that phrase must be lost annually to the

439
hospitals, and indeed to the nation? Is my noble friend further aware that there are some people who assume that it is a less heinous offence to steal from public authorities than from individuals? Would it not be worth while considering the publication of tactfully-worded notices drawing attention to the fact that so much is lost by this means and that this imposes a debt upon all those who try to lead honest lives?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it does not follow that the true losses are necessarily in all respects higher than the discovered losses. Some of the storekeeping errors may have been the other way. I fully agree that it is equally heinous to steal from a public authority as to steal from a private one, and the Ministry of Health have in the past issued several circulars about methods of preventing theft. These circulars are about to be consolidated into one, and I will bring the remarks of my noble friend on the subject of posting notices to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this pilfering is far more widespread than is generally realised? I feel that the putting up of notices in hospitals warning staff of the dangers of this sort of habit is rather urgent. A general circular which is sent round is no good at all. This matter has come to my personal notice, and I support the noble Lord in the Question which he has asked.

NIGERIA AND ARMS SUPPLIES FROM BRITAIN
3.10 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 how many small arms, semi-automatic weapons and fully automatic weapons have been supplied to the Government of Nigeria in the past twelve months.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs told the House on January 29, in answer to a Question about Nigeria, it
440
is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to disclose details of arms exported to other Governments.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does this mean that the Government have no record, or does it mean that it would be merely inconvenient to let the public know what is happening? May I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that there is a feeling, which may be right or wrong, that about 60 per cent. of the small arms, semi-automatic and automatic weapons in Nigeria have been supplied by this country? If this is so, is it to be expected that full confidence in the efforts of Her Majesty's Government can be felt by the Government of Biafra?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course there are records of these arms sales, and this is not a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of policy which has been followed by successive Governments, and is continuing to be followed by this one. In regard to the figure which was mentioned, I think that the noble Lord has exaggerated it. We do not supply anything like 60 per cent., or anything like half, of the small arms and other ammunition going into Nigeria at the moment; but, as I have said, the policy that is being adopted is a continuation of the previous policy. We believe it to be right to continue this in the present circumstances, when delicate negotiations are going on about the whole future of the Nigerian civil war. I continue to believe, as I have said before, that the influence which Her Majesty's Government bring to bear on this issue would not be increased, and might be diminished, by any change of policy at this moment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord expect the Biafrans to have confidence in the efforts of Her Majesty's Government if they are continuing to supply arms?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that the question of confidence in the efforts of Her Majesty's Government is only one of the factors which apply in this case. We have only a certain amount of influence and a certain amount of concern in this matter. This is an international concern. I would point out that much of the movement towards sensible negotiation is being made by the Federal

441
Government of Nigeria, which we regard as the legitimate Government. A good deal of the intransigence and reluctance to negotiate seems to be coming from the other side. I do not believe that this is any function of confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, while I accept what the noble Lord has said about a continuation of policy, may I ask whether it is a continuation of policy to shop armoured Saracen vehicles, about which we have recently heard. And is that going to open up a mercy route, or a route to finalise the death of Biafra?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the second part of the noble Viscount's question does not arise, because the answer to the first part is "Yes".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is a fundamental difference in approach to these matters between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, could my noble friend tell me why we follow the same policy as the previous Government?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I was not emphasising that in respect to the supply of arms we follow the same policy as that of the previous Government. What I was saying was that we follow their policy of not disclosing the details. We are following now the policy that we have been following towards the legitimate Government of Nigeria, and we believe this to be the right thing to do.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the volume of arms shipped in the last twelve months has been materially stepped up, or whether, as previous answers have indicated, it has been kept at a steady level?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can confirm that it is being kept at a carefully controlled and steady level. There has been no substantial increase.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while it is the policy of the Defence Ministry not to give details of this matter, may I ask my noble friend whether the Press is not frequently reporting that aircraft have left Gatwick with arms for the Nigerian Federal Government, and does this not undermine the attitude of the
442
Ministry of Defence in this matter? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether there is any hope, either of the relief of starvation or of a ceasefire being influenced by the British Government while they continue to provide arms to one side in this conflict?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's question I would say that I am not responsible for Press reports. I cannot confirm them or deny them. So far as the second part is concerned, I believe that there is a fundamental difference of approach here. The approach of Her Majesty's Government can, I think, be summed up like this. If we were at this moment to change our policy and stop the supply of arms to the Federal Government, that would in no way affect the power of the Federal Government to do evil: it might, however, affect our influence upon them to do good.

NIGERIA: UNITED NATIONS AND RELIEF OF SUFFERING
LORD ROWLEY: 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 in view of the recent statement of the United Nations Secretary General, U Thant, they will make a further statement on the Nigerian situation.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the Secretary General's initiative to use the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations to channel help through the International Committee of the Red Cross to suffering civilians in Nigeria. A copy of U Thant's message to General Gowon of July 13 has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We very much hope that this initiative will be acceptable in Nigeria, and particularly that Colonel Ojukwu will respond to the Secretary General's appeal so that the peoples under his control may benefit to the greatest possible extent from international relief efforts.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while also welcoming the declared intention of the United Nations to help in solving this

443
tragic problem, may I ask my noble friend to what extent food and medical supplies are reaching Biafra? Secondly, in view of the many misapprehensions that exist, would he clarify the position of General Gowon as to the transportation of supplies to the people of Biafra?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, yes. A certain small amount of relief supply is reaching the Ibo area. It is indeed reaching Nigeria on both sides of the fighting line. I cannot give exact details, but there is a small trickle of relief supply arriving in the Ibo part of Nigeria. So far as the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, as I have said before to-day and as I have said before in your Lordships' House, the Federal Government of Nigeria have offered to make land routes available, they have offered to place those land routes under international supervision and they have done everything in their power to achieve the conditions in which supplies could reach the suffering people in the Ibo part of the territory. If, indeed, there is any difficulty about those supplies reaching the Ibo people, then I am afraid I must say that it is the fault of Colonel Ojukwu and not of the Federal Government.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would take a step further? What is the position with regard to supplies by air? That is the point.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the position with regard to supplies by air is that if the Federal Government can be assured that the aircraft are not being used for purposes not connected with the supply of relief material for the people of the Ibo part of Nigeria, then they will allow them to go through. But I would make the point that, even if that were the case, relief supplies by air could only touch the very fringe of this problem. Land routes are needed, and the Federal Government are prepared to make them available.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's statement that the Federal Government have said that an air-lift would be possible if it were guaranteed international supervision, may I ask him whether it is not the fact
444
that the Biafran administration has offered this and has been prepared to neutralise an airstrip which would not be used for the purposes of arms? Secondly—and it is urgent—has my noble friend's attention been drawn to the resolution of the Organisation for African Unity committee yesterday in favour of a joint air-lift and road method, and of a cease-fire? Will Her Majesty's Government give their fullest support to that hopeful gesture for peace?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course we are sympathetic towards the efforts of the O.A.U. to bring about a settlement of this dispute. A ceasefire and an end to this war is what we all want. I would point out that not only is this initiative going on: there are efforts going on by the Commonwealth Secretariat, there are efforts going on by the Secretary General of the United Nations, and there are efforts going on by this Government, through the agency of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I would suggest to your Lordships' House that while all these delicate negotiations are going on it would be unwise to press this issue and inject too much heat into it at the moment.

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.20 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement about the Summer Recess. Subject to the progress of business, it is hoped that it will be possible for the House to rise on Thursday, August 1. It is proposed that we should, after the Summer Recess, return for two days in the week beginning Monday, October 7 —that is to say, Monday, October 7 and Tuesday, October 8—in order to take the Report stage of the Transport Bill. In order not to clash with the Conservative Party Conference, we should then adjourn until the end of that week and resume again on Monday, October 14.
In making this Statement I should say that I am fully aware that, subject to an announcement which may be made in another place, and of which I have no official cognisance, this means that your Lordships will in the next few months sit for nearly a week longer than another

445
place; and that we shall be asking your Lordships to come back for two days, again subject to announcement in another place, before the other place reassembles.
Representations have been made by a number of noble Lords asking for reasonable intervals between the various stages of the Transport Bill. I hope that the arrangements I have outlined will meet the convenience of the House. Perhaps I might add that, although we shall be sitting for a week longer than the other place, we shall none the less be rising at the usual time, and, indeed, somewhat earlier than on some other occasions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must say that I find it rather ironic that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in his usual agreeable way, is asking those of us on this side to co-operate by sitting nearly a fortnight longer than the House of Commons. We are abused by the Prime Minister; he breaks off diplomatic relations with us because we have been naughty boys; he uses rude and exaggerated language; he calls us backwoodsmen, racialists and Heaven knows what!; and the Members of the other place who belong to the Party opposite are equally offensive and equally inaccurate. Now, in a voice of sweet reasonableness, we are asked to help them out of the mess they have got into. And this mess they have got into by bad planning—and that, for a Socialist Government, is rather good!—and because of their incapability of understanding that one can get only a certain number of Bills through Parliament in a given time in a given Session. I think the Government are making a great mistake if they think that the British public is entranced with the amount of legislation churned out by the House of Commons and the House of Lords during the last year.
But, of course, as the noble Lord knows, we will co-operate, because we are responsible people and we are not obstructive. All I ask is that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, conveys to the Prime Minister and his friends our resentment at what he and others have said about this House, and that perhaps he would explain in words of one syllable to those who sit in another place
446
what exactly would have happened to the Government and their timetable if we had been unreasonable and obstructive.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would prefer me to speak to your Lordships in a disagreeable fashion. It must be obvious to your Lordships that whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, diplomatic relations have not been broken off within this House. This is something we have managed to avoid. It is worth pointing out that there have been days in the course of this year when we have not been sitting and when the House of Commons has been sitting. I cannot accept for one moment the suggestion that because the Government of the day (the noble Lord may or may no think that the legislation we pass is the kind that lie wants) regard this legislation as being in the national interest, it is wholly unreasonable to expect the House of Lords to co-operate and to do their duty as they see fit on the Floor of the House and to meet when necessary.
I should like also to make clear to the noble Lord that my noble friend Lord Beswick, as well as myself—but particularly Lord Beswick—work almost miracles of co-operation in trying 10 meet the convenience of the House. This is as it should be; but it is not an easy job for him. I must say that, thanks to his efforts, business has been going a great deal more steadily and easily than many noble Lords feared. We have been sitting for long hours; but at least it has been in an orderly fashion. I would only say that, while the noble Lord may be sensitive about things that may have been said by the Prime Minister, I only wish the noble Lord had heard what the noble Lord, Lorth Boothby, said about the things Mr. Heath had to say about the Prime Minister.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when my noble friend conveys these sentiments to another place, would he be kind enough to call the attention of certain Members there who stated publicly that this House does not sit after dinner, that this statement is true only on the numerous occasions when we have sat until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night with no dinner adjournment?

447
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear! Hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there seems to be unanimity in this House on that point. I can say that I have taken particular pains to point out the facts mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. I am afraid that I missed her point about the dinners.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) (No. 2) ORDER 1968
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords your Lordships will remember that on June 17 I moved in this House that the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, be approved, and I then explained to the House the reasons why, in the Government's view, it was necessary to approve that Order. In the event, the Motion was defeated by a narrow majority, but I think it was understood on both sides of the House that Her Majesty's Government would be obliged to replace the Order so as to give effect to their international obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said:
"If it is quite clear that the people of this country are either in favour of the Government's policy or not interested, or are uncertain: or if it is reflected in another vote by the elected Chamber, then so far as I am concerned I do not think your Lordships should persist any further".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 576]
The Order now before the House has of course already been approved by the other place.
I should now like briefly to explain the ways in which this Order differs from the Order which was before us on June 17 and 18. The differences between the Orders are not differences of sub-
448
stance but arise from the replacement of the earlier Order by the new Order.
I should first point out that Article 1 of the new Order revokes the earlier Order, thereby anticipating its expiry. All the other Articles are therefore one higher in number than in the revoked Order. My Lords, the other differences are as follows. Article 2, paragraph (1), differs from the corresponding Article in the previous Order in that it prohibits the importation of goods exported from Southern Rhodesia after the commencement not of the Order itself, but of the revoked Order. This is to ensure that in a case where there is a time-lag between the various elements in an offence, in which one element occurred when the revoked Order was in force and another after the commencement of the new Order, the continuation of the prohibition is not stultified.
Article 13, paragraph (1)(b)(ii), differs from its predecessor only to the extent necessary to include the revoked Order among the previous Orders to which this Article refers. Article 19 deals with the other more general transitional matters and saving provisions. Things done under the provisions of the revoked Order will have effect after the commencement of this Order as if they had been done under the corresponding provisions of this Order, and the continuity of restrictions affected by previous Orders which are listed in Schedule 2 and repeated in this Order is maintained notwithstanding the replacement of earlier Orders by later ones.
My Lords, on June 17 and 18 we debated every conceivable aspect of this subject for 14 hours. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the brief way he introduced this Motion and Order and pointed out the differences between this and the last Order. Your Lordships will no doubt notice, that, in spite of the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, we have here, in essence, exactly the same Order as we discussed a month ago, with just enough alteration

449
to make it possible for it to be re-laid. On that occasion we had a very long debate about the merits of the Order and I, for one, have not changed my mind in any way about the Government's policy in Rhodesia, or the merits of this Order, or my action in voting against it. The Government's policy seems to me to be wrong and incapable of successful achievement. I do not believe that sanctions will bring Rhodesia to her knees, certainly not while South Africa and Portugal ignore them and while other countries tacitly allow trade with Rhodesia to continue.
In this view I have not only the support of those who sit on these Benches but also that of President Kaunda who, on arrival in this country, said that sanctions had failed and that they could not work unless they were universally applied by everyone. They are not being, and they will not be, applied by everybody, for if Portugal and South Africa applied those sanctions and the sanctions were successful, then the sanctions would be applied against those two countries.
The conclusion that President Kaunda draws from this is that the only possible alternative is force. I am glad to think that this solution is rejected by the Government, who have said so on a number of occasions, and I believe them. My conclusion is, and always has been, that the only possible solution to this problem is by negotiation; and it is still the view of Sir Alec Douglas-Home that a settlement on honourable lines is possible. The vote of confidence in Mr. Smith and the rejection by his party of Mr. Harper must, I think, be a moderately encouraging sign; and it may be that this test of strength and the victory that Mr. Smith won may enable him to adopt a more positive line if negotiations are resumed. At any rate in my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to try to get a negotiated settlement, and the sooner they set about doing it the better it will be.
The news this morning about the possibility of a new Constitution and the declaration of a Republic I think makes it all the more necessary that we should resume negotiations as quickly as possible before things go too far and before it is too late. Therefore, my Lords, for all the reasons I gave on the last occasion, none of which has been altered by the passage of time, I am convinced that the Government's policy is wrong; that it
450
was right that we should declare it to be I wrong and that none of us who did so need have any regrets on that score.
But there were, of course, other issues besides the question of Rhodesia, and it may be interesting if, for a moment, I trespass on your Lordships' time and examine the repercussions of the Government's defeat in this House last month. The Prime Minister's immediate reaction was to lose his temper and conjure up a constitutional crisis which existed only in his imagination. Of course, when a Government are unpopular, and divided, and unsuccessful, and losing by-elections, it is very convenient to find an issue with which to unite and create a diversion. But, if I may respectfully say so, if only the Prime Minister had read my speech before he lost his temper, he might have seen that so far from those of your Lordships who voted against the Order doing anything unconstitutional, they were doing precisely what a Second Chamber should do, which is to give the Government an opportunity to think again. As I said during the course of that speech, I do not believe that on an issue of this kind, when international commitments are at stake, this House could possibly in the last resort overrule a decision of the elected House. However, it was convenient for the Prime Minister to stir up, or try to stir up, a constitutional crisis.
In my view, he has been conspicuously unsuccessful. His reaction in breaking off the talks on House of Lords reform has been universally condemned, and I do not wonder. Perhaps the kindest,, thing one can say about it is that the decision must have been taken at a moment when the Prime Minister was rather emotional. And he does not seem quite to have got over it. I notice that in a speech he made in Newtown on July 6 he referred to those of us who voted against the Order as "a small minority of racially-minded Peers". My Lords, I should like to say that I greatly resent that remark, even allowing for the fact that it was made at a Party rally. Perhaps the most charitable explanation of it (and I am a charitable man) is that after the Prime Minister's successful farewell television performance at the time of devaluation he went into hibernation, and on re-emerging in July, after what was rather a prolonged winter's sleep, he no doubt felt that he should pull no punches or his reappearance might not be noticed.

451
As the summer wears on one hopes that he may get better, but, as I said on the last occasion, if it is possible for agreement to be reached on the future composition and powers of this House, of the new House, the behaviour of the unreformed House is totally irrelevant. We are now promised a Bill to reform your Lordships' House which is to be presented, as I understand it, in the near future. If, as has been said, the inter-Party Conference were near agreement about what the new House should look like, how will the Government's proposals differ from those to which they are said already almost to have agreed? And why should they differ? And if they do not differ, why should they break off talks? My Lords, all I can say is that I think it was a very regrettable decision on the Prime Minister's part, and the sooner the Government returns to common sense the better it will be. I think—
LORD BOWLES: Talk about Rhodesia.
LORD CARRINGTON: Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt me?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord must know that the debate is about Rhodesia, not about the Prime Minister's speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I notice that when the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, interrupts from a sitting position I am saying something about which he is a little sensitive. Perhaps he will allow me to continue and to make my own speech in my own way, without being called to order about the Rules of this House by the noble Lord.
My Lords, one of the things which struck me most forcibly about this episode was how it underlined the need for a reform of this House. Those who voted against the Order did so because they believed that the Order was wrong and that the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government about Rhodesia was mistaken. Very weighty arguments were advanced to support that proposition, but in no single case have I read a leading article or comment on the merits of the decision that was taken by the majority of your Lordships. No one has argued about the Government's Rhodesian policy, about the rights and
452
wrongs of that policy. The whole of the discussion has centred round the "constitutional crisis" and whether this House, composed as it now it, has a right to take a view about anything. However correct and courageous or however wrong and foolish the decision taken by the House might be, no one will ever discuss the merits but always the question of the House itself and its composition.
As a result, it seems to me that the House is not performing one of its proper functions as a Second Chamber, and I should have thought that this made it doubly important to reach agreement on reform, particularly so from the Labour Party's point of view, unless they wish to see—and I am sure that they do not —the Second Chamber continually hamstrung by virtue of its defects. And everything that has happened in the last month shows that reform is necessary.
One thing that struck me—if the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will be good enough to allow me to go on speaking about the Rhodesia Order and the effect that the rejection of it has upon this House—is the rather sanctimonious attitude of the Liberal Party. In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Byers, told your Lordships how wrong he felt it would be if the House defeated the will of the elected representatives of the people. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, in a radio programme in which she frequently takes part, telling listeners (I hope that I do not paraphrase her unjustly; she will correct me if I am wrong) that what we did was a manœuvre by the Conservative Party entirely for Party advantage. Well, I wonder when the action of voting against an Order is Party advantage and defeating the will of the elected representatives, and when it is not. Is it only when the Conservative Party do it and not when the Liberal Party do it? For, in the last few years, the Liberal Party has on numerous occasions voted against Orders. In 1967 the noble Lords, Lord Airedale, Lord Barrington, Lord Carnock, Lord Gladwyn, Lord Ogmore, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Rea, Lord Stamp and Lord Terrington, who was then still a member of the Liberal Party, all voted against the Plymouth Order 1966, and two of that number were Tellers. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was away. I am told on reliable authority that the operation was under the personal

453
direction of Mr. Jeremy Thorpe from a Gallery above.
Then on two occasions in 1966 the Liberal Party voted against Orders, one on Weights and Measures, in which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, voted with the Liberal Tellers, and one on the Prices and Incomes (Commencement of Part IV) Order, 1966, when again there were Liberal Tellers, and both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, voted against the Order. Were they voting for Party advantage? Could the fact that the West Country is a stronghold of Liberalism have something to do with it? Could the electoral unpopularity of the Prices and Incomes Bill be connected in some way with their action? Or were they voting on principle? Is it only the Liberals who are allowed principles? Or are they going to tell your Lordships that they voted only because they knew that they could not win and that the impotence that the Liberal Party has in this House gives them an opportunity to indulge in irresponsibility and to jump on every bandwagon which looks as if it might be popular? Just one moment and I will let the noble Lord, Lord Byers, interrupt. I should like, if I may, humbly to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, that they should look after the very sizeable beam in their own eyes before they bother too much about other people's motes.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is enjoying himself, and we have joined in with him, but I think that he is not being fair. I made it clear that the difference between the Orders he has quoted and the ones we were debating on Southern Rhodesia is that the Government were obliged under a resolution of the United Nations to carry out this Order. The suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the Government had to bear in mind whether it could get an Order through both Houses was totally unacceptable constitutionally. That was the difference. I am sorry that I have spoiled the noble Lord's speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that one will not do. Is the noble Lord then saying that on all the Orders which are not mandatory Security Council's resolutions your Lordships have a right
454
to defeat the will of the elected representatives of the people?
LORD BYERS: If the Government have no mandate, certainly. May I say to the noble Lord that I hope that this will be part of the arrangement for the reform of the House under the new powers?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows very well, the difficulty is that the Parliament Act does not apply to Statutory Instruments and Orders. What the Liberal Party were trying to do was to upset another place in a decision which was freely reached by the elected representatives of the people. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should subscribe to that, coming from the Liberal Party with their well-known history on the question of the House of Lords and the will of the people. This is something which we shall remember for a very long time.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is a most fascinating business, the ability of the noble Lord to avoid saying anything about Rhodesia. I congratulate him. I do not want to hold him up. I would tell him that he is doing extremely well. But there is one reason he did not give as to why the Liberals might have taken the action they did. They did not do it in order to achieve Party unity, which the noble Lord notably failed to achieve.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was just coming to the noble Lords opposite.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the Liberal Party, may I ask him what second thoughts he believed the Government could have had when they were bound by a United Nations' resolution?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we discussed at considerable length on the last occasion whether Parliament was a rubber stamp for decisions taken by the United Nations. I do not believe it is. I think that Parliament has a perfect right to reject an Order of this kind if they do not agree with the action taken by the United Nations.
I shall now leave the Liberal Party—even if they will not leave me—and turn to noble Lords opposite. If I may say

455
so, their conduct has been a good deal more consistent. I think that in recent years there probably has been only one occasion on which the Labour Party has opposed an Order. In 1963, on the Prison Commissioners (Dissolution) Order under the leadership of that unlikely revolutionary, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the House was divided. I think that all of us know how deeply the noble Earl feels on matters of this kind, and no doubt he felt this was an issue of principle which he could not let go by. But what about the will of the elected representatives of the people in another place? Did that come into the noble Earl's thinking? And what would have happened if the Order had been rejected? Or was it also that he knew that it was unlikely that his action would be successful and therefore he could safely vote for his principles?
The attitudes of all three Parties should give us all cause for reflection, and reflection, too, on the very difficult situation that occurs when your Lordships feel strongly about something and are inhibited from making their decision known because of the anomaly of the Parliament Act and the composition of this House. As I said in June, if the Government refused to think again—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has quoted me—if public opinion did not express itself as being against the Government in this matter, and if another place once more voted for this order, I would certainly not ask your Lordships to vote a second time. Partly for the reason I have mentioned—that is, that the discussion has centred round the composition and powers of this House rather than on the merits of the Order—there has not been very much public opinion expressed one way or the other; and I am sorry about that. The other place has voted once again for the Order, and I do not believe that in matters of this kind, particularly when international obligations are involved, this House should be the final arbiter of Government policy.
Thirdly, the Government have declined to think again. Those of us who voted against the Order are on record as warning the Government that their policy towards Rhodesia is wrong and will not solve this tragic problem; indeed, it will make it more difficult to solve. The res-
456
possibility for ignoring this advice, and the responsibility for continuing along their path, lies firmly with Her Majesty's present Government. We have done what we believe to be our constitutional duty; the consequences are of their making.
3.50 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I may return for a moment to Rhodesia, I had prepared a speech which I hoped and thought would be a powerful one to deliver to your Lordships this afternoon, but I am afraid that what I had intended to say would no longer be appropriate in the light of the news from Rhodesia which has reached us this morning. I shall, therefore, be commendably brief, and will only say this. There must be many of us, in all parts of the House, who must have been deeply saddened by the statement issued by Mr. Smith and his colleagues on the eve of this debate.
It is, of course, for the Rhodesian Government, and not for people like me, to decide what should be the future course their country should follow. Moreover, we must all, of course, realise the difficulties with which the policy of the United Kingdom has faced them. I am bound to say that I think what has now happened has amply justified the warnings that we constantly gave as to the danger of delays in settling this unhappy dispute. It may well be said that the Rhodesian Government have been driven into the position which they have now taken up. But, my Lords, I have always believed that loyalty to a Common Crown constitutes the one enduring link between the nations of the Commonwealth, and so the decision of the Rhodesian Government—if it is their final decision—to sever that link has come as a bitter blow.
If what I have read in the Press is not modified by further explanations, I feel bound to say that though my own affection for Rhodesia remains as great as ever, and my views on sanctions have not changed in any respect, yet the sympathies of some of us, at any rate, who are her warmest friends in this country will have been deeply wounded by this newest declaration of her present Government. I will not say any more this afternoon except to register once more my deep personal grief at this news we have just received, and my hope that even now—and

457
here I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—some means may be found, before it is too late, to reopen negotiations on the basis of the terms brought back by Sir Alec Douglas-Home after his last visit. I cannot believe that the loyal Rhodesians would reject it.
3.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, like the noble Marquess, I also had prepared a speech, but I do not propose to scrap what I had prepared, though I shall, of course, refer to what happened yesterday in Rhodesia. On the occasion of the last debate I was not able to speak, but I abstained from voting. Unlike a silent vote, a silent abstention carries no weight, and unless it is explained in the proper way, one might abstain simply because one had gone to see a cricket match or for some unworthy reason. So I felt I ought to explain to the House and, particularly to my noble friends, why I was not able to supp art them on the occasion of the last Division. I feel particularly anxious to give my noble friend this explanation because I have always been a loyal and devoted servant of my Party, and have even, at times, voted with them when my heart was not with them at all. But on this particular occasion I felt that I just could not support them.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me a few personal notes explaining my interest in Rhodesia. I have not hitherto taken part in arty debates on Rhodesia, and I feel that I ought to explain how I came to be interested in this particular problem. Last September my wife and I were in Rhodesia, intending merely to pass through on our way from a holiday in South Africa. Unfortunately for me —or fortunately—I was taken ill suddenly and had to undergo an operation in Rhodesia. I was fortunate in one sense, that the particular surgeon who carried out the operation turned out to be a very old friend of my family, who used to visit us when he was a boy. That made life a little easier for us. But the result of my illness was we were compelled to stay in Rhodesia for longer than we had intended, and I spent part of my convalescence in meeting a number of people, people of interest and importance in the subject, and discussing matters with them generally, and in studying the condition of the country as a whole, and what people were feeling.
458
I saw many Rhodesians, Africans and Whites, and I was thus able to get some insight into what is going on, both in Salisbury and in the country generally. I saw no member of the Rhodesian illegal Government, certainly not Mr. Smith, nor Sir Humphrey Gibb. I felt that on a private visit I had no right to give any impression that I was there for any purpose except the one for which I was actually there. I gave some of my remarks in a speech which I made last November in this House on the gracious speech from the Throne. In that speech I spoke about sanctions in the then modified form, and expressed the view that they were apparently ineffective and that I was opposed to them. My views on sanctions have not changed. I am more than ever convinced that the principle of sanctions is wrong. This method of forcing a people to accept a particular point of view, however right that view may be, has never in history succeeded. All it has done is to make people more resistant; and so far as the white population of Rhodesia are concerned, who are almost entirely British, there is no reason why their reaction to sanctions should be any different from what it would be if sanctions were, unhappily, at any time imposed on this country. We all know that it would merely have the effect of stiffening us to further resistance.
Sanctions are a very blunt instrument; they do not more particularly affect the people against whom we desire to impose sanctions. The people who suffer most are the people whom we least want to suffer, and whom in fact our whole policy is designed to help. One result of sanctions so far has been to throw 50,000 Africans out of work, causing immense suffering to them and their families. This number will greatly increase as sanctions become intensified. Surely this is not what we want. Admittedly, sanctions will affect, and are affecting, the tobacco trade, the base metal industries, such as asbestos and chrome, and others. But as the noble Lord said, Rhodesia will still retain trade outlets with South Africa, Portuguese West Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, and possibly others. But, of course, her trade is bound to go on suffering.

459
The Government have throughout contended that they will not in any circumstances use force—meaning, I suppose, military force. But I can see no difference, in principle, between the use of military force which kills people quickly and, if it is successful, starvation through sanctions which kills people slowly. Both are equally iniquitous as a means of enforcing one's views upon another people, especially people of one's own race.
For these reasons, I am opposed to sanctions, and in the recent debate on the Order I abstained. I should Like to say to some of my noble friends who have expressed resentment, though not to me personally, that in another place, owing to the enlightened policy of the Government Chief Whip, Labour Members who are conscientiously opposed to the Government on particular items of policy coming before the House are entitled to abstain; and I should hope that we in this House are equally tolerant. I realise that on the occasion when the Order was last discussed we were committed to the passing of the Order, having ourselves submitted the matter to the United Nations. It was for this reason that I did not vote against the Order.
If I am asked: What would you do instead? Do you support or condone the actions of Rhodesia in declaring U.D.I.; in the detention of large numbers of Africans without trial; in the rigorous Press censorship; in their recent affront to Her Majesty in the exercise of Her prerogative; in the number of equivocal statements made by Mr. Ian Smith, including his interview with Mr. Ian Waller of the Sunday Telegraph; and his attitude to the Whaley Report?—I say, "Of course not". But it is no answer to a problem to put forward as a so-called solution something which does not and will not work effectively, and which is morally wrong.
I am sure that discussions are still the only hope of an ultimate solution. I am afraid that the alternative is violence and bloodshed, which may continue for many years. But I have every reason to believe that, although there have been many negotiations in the past which have been unsuccessful, and in spite of the news
460
reported to-day, to which the noble Marquess referred, that Mr. Smith and his supporters have come out in favour of a declaration of a Republic, further talks may well succeed now. The announcement of the proposed declaration of a Republic should not have taken us by surprise. After all, the imposition of sanctions is intended to strike a mortal blow to bring Rhodesia to her knees. What did we expect her to do? Surely we did not expect her to climb down unconditionally immediately sanctions were imposed, or to sit still and quietly starve to death. This is a perfectly understandable reaction to the imposition of sanctions. However, if the declaration goes through, it will be a serious matter for better race relationships, and will create a solid bloc in South Africa, with Africans facing whites in hostility and probably violence for many years to come. We must do everything possible to avoid this happening.
As I have said, my Lords, I still believe that the only solution is negotiation. It will come to it in the end. Even if we have to wait ten or twenty years, the end must be some form of negotiations. It will be no easier then than it is now. Why not talk now? It has been said that there have been 12 talks already which have been unsuccessful. I still say: "Try again, and try again, until we do succeed, and avoid the misery of bloodshed which looks like being the alternative."
I speak, my Lords, with some ground for hope. I have retained by contacts with people in Rhodesia, who are themselves in the closest touch with Mr. Smith and with the Governor General, Sir Humphrey Gibb. I realise that there are a number of apprehensions about Mr. Smith, which have been strengthened by to-day's news. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, thinks that it is useless to negotiate with Mr. Smith at all. On the information that I have, I respectfully disagree. One cannot enter into the heart and mind of another person and know everything that is motivating him, but it is my belief that, in spite of everything, there has been a considerable change in the outlook of the Government of Rhodesia and in the mind of Mr. Smith himself. His sacking of the extreme Right Wing member of his Government, Mr. Harper, is some evidence.

461
I think that the people of Rhodesia themselves have always been ready to arrive at a reasonable solution. They appear to me to be passsionately desirous of maintaining their tie with Great Britain. There is some apprehension about the effect of a majority of Africans on the electoral role, but in the long run most people regard it as inevitable. But to-day I have it in specific terms that Mr. Smith is prepared to accept the Six Principles upon which we have been insisting, and also the proposals put forward by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, although there are some particular matters which will need negotiation and clarification. But there will be no argument, I understand, about the Principles themselves. I have asked my informants whether assurances can be provided that once an agreement has been arrived at such agreement will not be varied or modified, and still less abrogated unilaterally later on by the present Rhodesian Government or by some future Government. I am assured that Mr. Smith is prepared to give the most solemn assurances on this, and to agree on a built-in guarantee in the new Constitution.
Lastly, I asked whether the Rhodesian Government would be behind Mr. Smith in any negotiations that may take place. I am told that at the Cabinet meeting which took place very recently Mr. Smith was given complete support and encouragement to enter into fresh negotiations. I am given to understand, also, that the terms put forward by Sir Alec Douglas-Home are acceptable in principle, and they, together with the Six Principles, could well be a starting point for the fresh talks, though the new Principles will need some amendment. I think that Sir Alec Douglas-Home accepts that. I was also assured that Mr. Thomson, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, made a very favourable impression in Rhodesia and would be welcome once more as a negotiator on our behalf.
What encourages me most of all is the willingness to face up to ultimate majority rule—and that may surprise some of your Lordships; to make steady progress to that end, and to encourage every possible action towards bringing this about at the, earliest date. For my part, I hope that we shall not be too precipitate and press for African political
462
equality before the Africans are educationally and emotionally ready for it. We have learnt, I hope, the lesson of granting independence too early. If I am right, there is nothing standing in the way of fresh negotiations which could bring about an agreement providing for the end of sanctions, the abrogation of U.D.I. and a new Constitution and steady progress towards equal rights of all peoples of all colours.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend. He is making a number of important statements of a kind that would suggest that the barriers to an agreement between Her Majesty's Government here and the illegal régime are not serious. It has been the difficulty all along that when one came down to brass tacks, and particularly on the blocking third, one could never gel that positive assurance. Since he is making these rather positive statements, I hope he will not think it unfair of me to ask for the authority with which he is actually speaking.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can only say—and I hope your Lordships will take it from me—that I am speaking with considerable authority. I would prefer at this stage not to disclose the actual source of my contacts, but I hope the House will believe that I do believe what I am talking about.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, again may I interrupt? Has my noble friend disclosed this particular source of his authority to my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have disclosed the source of my information to the very highest quarters in this country. But I was asked on all sides, from the point of view of both the contacts and here, to be rather cautious in making these personal disclosures; and that is why I am not stating the source of my contacts.
I look forward to a Rhodesia which is free from the racialism which prevails in a great many of our new Commonwealth States. After all, peoples of all colours have many interests in common and ideas which unite them as human beings socially, morally and economically, and which are stronger and more

463
important than the colour of their skin which differentiates them. They all have the same desire for the welfare of the people as a whole. When the vote was extended in this country to working people it was feared in some quarters that they would be the masters, would dominate Elections; that we should never again see a Conservative Government. Unfortunately, this has not happened. I should like to hope that when so-called majority rule takes place in Rhodesia, what was feared in this country will not happen there, but that white people, Africans and coloured people will all be able to work together harmoniously with one consideration and objective in mind: the welfare of their community as a whole as they see it. Indeed, I hope that, with good will on all sides, it may well turn out that Rhodesia will be a model for the whole world of a State free from racial conflicts and prejudices of all kinds. Rhodesia is a beautiful and potentially most prosperous country. We fell in love with it —one of the best to live in in the world. The people have the possibility of leading a peaceful and happy life. Let us hope that this possibility will not be destroyed by the folly of man in not facing the inevitable: equality of rights of all the people of Rhodesia.
4.15 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, since I came to this House not very long ago I have found it a rather surprising place in many ways. When I was contemplating what I would say to your Lordships to-day I was trying to see how the debate might develop, but I must confess that I did not foresee that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would engage in an attack upon the Liberal Party. The noble Lord was acting upon the old Parliamentary principle that if you have a good case then propound it, if you have an indifferent case attack the Government, and if you have no case at all attack the Liberal Party. The thought passed through my mind, as I listened to his invective being directed towards us, that the state of the health of the Tory Party would be better to-day if the noble Lord had ever used language as forceful towards the illegal régime in Rhodesia as he used towards us. But I intend to emulate the noble Lord in one respect
464
in that I propose to refer only parenthetically to the matters we are supposed to be talking about.
I wanted, my Lords, to make one or two observations upon the position which has been taken in this matter, this tragedy of Rhodesia, by the Tory Party in general and by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in particular, because the decision which he has announced to-day, that he is not going to advise his noble friends to carry this matter to a vote to-day, is of course in accord with what he told us on the last occasion; that is what he said he was going to do if the Order was relaid in the House of Commons and was there reaffirmed. I did not understand the logic of that attitude at that time, and I do not understand it now.
At the time of our last debate on this subject back in June the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition rested his case upon a tripod argument. The question, then, is why it was necessary to divide this House and if possible have an adverse vote against this Order. He put the case on three grounds. He said that in his view this Order was wholly bad; he expressed himself in very vigorous language. He said that the Order was bad, that it was wrong, and in his view was likely to be disastrous for black and white alike in Rhodesia. My Lords, he has reaffirmed this afternoon that that is still his view to-day. So that leg of the tripod for carrying this matter to a vote still stands.
Secondly, he expounded and explained to us the reason why constitutionally it was perfectly proper for this House to reject the Order if it was minded to do so. As I understand it, the constitutional position remains the same to-day, and it is perfectly within the constitutional proprieties of this House to reject this Order by a vote if it is minded to do so. And the noble Lord rested his argument upon this third plank. He said that it would be wholly wrong if this House was prevented from carrying this matter to a vote out of consideration of what the effect might be upon the proposals for the reform of this House and the inter-Party negotiations which were then going on.
If I may, I should like to quote the words in which he put it, because he spoke with some passion on that occasion

465
and I was impressed at the time. He said:
"I am as keen as anyone to see that reform should take place, but, my Lords, what sort of people should we be—what sort of a person should I be—if, because of my wish to see a reformed House, I trimmed my sails on every issue which I regarded as being of major importance? I think that people outside would be justified in saying that a body composed of people like that is not worthy of reform or of perpetuation as a Second Chamber."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 574.]
That is what the noble Lord said, and his meaning was perfectly clear. He was saying that it was not sufficient for members of the Tory Opposition to express their denunciation of this Order. It was not sufficient, to uphold the dignity of the House and the reputation of the House, simply to express their verbal opposition; it was necessary to uphold their reputation lest they should be accused of trimming their sails by not carrying this matter into the Division Lobby.
As I said before, I did not understand his attitude then, and I do not understand it now, because the noble Lord knew then, and he knew perfectly well, that what he was inviting his friends to do, was to engage in an empty gesture. He knew perfectly well, with absolute predictability, that the Order would be reaffirmed by the House of Commons; yet he invited his noble friends, for some reason, to go into the Division Lobby against it. He said it was essential that they should carry this matter to the vote, even if the adverse vote could be achieved only with the assistance of so many of those noble Lords that we do not often see in this place.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: Oh, the Bishops !
LORD FOOT: My Lords, what I do not understand about the Leader of the Opposition is this. If it would have been trimming his sails to fail to vote against this Order in June why is it not trimming his sails to fail to vote against this Order in July? If it was cowardly then, and bringing the House into disrepute, not to carry it to a vote—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. Since he was kind enough to read out most of my speech on the first occasion perhaps he would read out the second
466
part of it, in which I went into this matter in great detail.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am perfectly aware of what the noble Lord said on that occasion. I have done him the honour of reading his speech with great care, and it is perfectly true that towards the end of his speech the noble Lord gave the reasons why he thought it right to carry the matter to a vote, and he explained then why, if the House of Commons reaffirmed the Order, he would to-day advise his friends and colleagues not to oppose the Order. But if it is a mistake not to oppose the Order to-day by way of a vote, the mistake is not cured by the fact the noble Lord is able to say "I told you a month ago I was going to make this mistake when the Order came up again". All that has happened since then is that the Order has in fact been reaffirmed, as was absolutely predictable and as a result the noble Lord is to-day advising his colleagues and his friends to do the very thing which he said was unthinkable a month ago: he is inviting them to trim their sails.
The only difference in the situation is this: that to have trimmed their sails a month ago, in the boisterous conditions which prevailed in this House at that time, might have been excused as an emergency nautical operation, but the trimming of the sails which is taking place to-day is a calculated and deliberate nautical manœuvre carried out in the calm seas which prevail in this House at this time.
The whole story of the Tory Party's participation in this Rhodesian business has been a story of trimming their sails from the beginning. They supported the original sanctions; they supported the oil embargo—and I was interested to listen to the explanation which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition gave in this House on the last occasion as to why he had supported sanctions in the first place. May I read the words to your Lordships?
"Reluctantly we agreed with the official sanctions imposed upon Rhodesia. I, for one, though with considerable misgivings, felt that it would have been difficult for Britain to ignore Mr. Smith's actions and do nothing whatever to mark her disapproval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 567.]
That is pretty remarkable language, is it not? I wonder whether the noble Lord is very proud of those words?

467
Here we had an illegal seizure of power in order overtly to perpetuate a white supremacy of a minority in Rhodesia. Here we had a rebellion against the Crown, with no such excuse as was available, for example, to the American Colonies when they rebelled and when they proclaimed that they were standing for the cause of self-government and the equality and the dignity of all mankind. This was a rebellion to maintain a racial domination by a minority, and in what language does the noble Lord condemn this?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord again? I do not want to emulate his noble Leader and interrupt too much, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was a Member of this House in the times when we were originally discussing Rhodesia and the first sanctions, and unless he has read the speeches which I made on those occasions, he has no right whatever to say that I condoned, or did not use language, about the illegal régime.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am not suggesting that the noble Lord may not, on other occasions, have used other language, but this was the language which he chose to use in this House to explain why he had been in favour of the original sanctions, and the words used by the leader of the Tory Opposition—the Party which is supposed to believe in the Crown and the Constitution—were these:
"I thought that it would be difficult to ignore Mr. Smith's actions and do nothing whatever to mark our disapproval."
That is the sort of language that would be suitable, woul dit not, to reprove some minor peccadillo; that is the sort of language one might hear from a headmaster who was reproving a delinquent schoolboy.
My Lords, I suggest it is the authentic voice of the trimmer. Nevertheless, the noble Lord went along with the sanctions in the first place and now, when under this Order it is proposed that other nations should be brought in to share the burden of the sanctions that are imposed upon Rhodesia (the same sanctions that we have been imposing for the last two years); when it appears that the sanctions may have some reasonable prospect of working, then it is that the noble
468
Lord is not content to say that there may be faults in this Order but condemns it out of hand as absolutely disastrous to black and white alike.
On the last occasion the noble Lord succeeded in persuading 192 of his friends to join him in the Lobby. He would not have it, of course, that they were backwoodsmen; he insisted that he knew every one of them by name. One does not know whether to congratulate him on the range and the catholicity of his acquaintances, or whether to commiserate with him that his "buddies" so rarely come here to foregather with him. But he claimed that they were his friends and the noble Lord said: "What sort of person would I be taken for?"—in certain circumstances. May I very respectfully say to the noble Lord what I take him for? I take him for a person who has been driven, against his better judgment, into a false and untenable position. I do not know why he was driven there. He spoke just now of some occasion when apparently the Leader of my Party was up in the gallery, directing operations below. I suspect that the operations of the noble Lord over this business of Rhodesia have not been so directly controlled, but they have been controlled by remote control from another place. I do not know how far the position that the noble Lord has taken is due to his deferring to the worst and most atavistic elements in the Tory Party.
I would say this to the noble Lord, in conclusion. If he supposes that what took place in June, when we had more people in this House than have been seen for many years—and no doubt, more than we shall see for many years to come—was a routine meeting of the paid-up members of the "Carrington Friendly Society" he was making a mistake. It was a meeting of a friendly society of sorts. It was a reunion, and I predict that it may be the last reunion of the Ancient and Antedeluvian Order of Dinosaurs. And the pity of the occasion —and it is a matter of regret to me—was this: that the noble Lord, by gratuituosly putting himself at their head, and by encouraging them in a futile gesture and by the aid and comfort which he gave and they gave to Mr. Smith, and by attempting, however, ineffectively, to thwart the United Nations resolution and to denigrate the authority of the Security

469
Council, the noble Lord succeeded in doing quite a lot of harm to the interests of this country and in the process did not add to his own political stature.
4.32 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I think it is quite obvious from the speech to which we have just listened that my noble friend Lord Carrington has got under the skin of the Liberal Party. It is a very entrancing thing to follow, but I do not propose to say very much about it except just this; when we come to trimming sails, I shall watch the Liberal Party in the future with great interest, particularly when they have an Amendment down against the Government on some Bill which they are passionately supporting. I shall wait for them to say, "We must not press this to a Division. We know it will be reversed in the other place, and therefore we shall be accused of trimming our sails". It will be very interesting to see their attitude in the future to Amendments in which they are interested, in view of what they have said to-day.
I think it is the mood of the House that almost as much as is possible has been said upon this Order, and as I have troubled your Lordships on previous occasions upon Rhodesia I will not detain your Lordships for very long. But it is said that almost everything has been said and I would stress that word "almost", because there are just one or two things which I think have not been said and to which I would like to refer to-day. Like my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, I have seen with sorrow the announcement that it is the intention of the Rhodesian Government to go forward to a Republican constitution, but like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has addressed the House and has now left, I was not in the least surprised, because I take the view, and I think a number of people do, that it is Her Majesty's present Government with their persistent policy of sanctions which has driven the Rhodesian Government into taking that course. I quota the Preamble to the announcement just made. It says:
"In the knowledge that Her Majesty's advisers in the British Government have denied us the Queen of Rhodesia we have no option but to submit for your consideration the following proposals for a Republican Constitution of Rhodesia".
470
I think it is a tragedy that it has come to this, but I still cannot help hoping that perhaps that final decision will not be taken by Rhodesia.
I think that there has been a great deal of use, in the debates which have taken place in this House, the vote that we gave, the two votes which hale been taken against this Order by Her Majesty's Opposition in the other place in that we have at least shown to the people of Rhodesia that it is not the case in Britain that every man's hand is against them, and I think that that is important. I have here a heading which indicates the depths to which the propaganda against Rhodesia will go. Here is the heading: "If you support Rhodesia you are denying Christ".
I think that is a disgraceful headline but it is typical of some of the propaganda which self-righteous people try to whip up against, I will say, our own kith and kin in Rhodesia, and I think it is disgraceful. But I can well understand that there must be a good deal of contempt in Rhodesia for a Britain which in its self-righteousness says, "We intend to 'clobber' Rhodesia into submission in order to support the African", and at the same time they say, "Under no circumstances will we do anything to confront South Africa", which practices apartheid while Rhodesia does not. The only principle in that is that the British Government is saying on behalf of Britain "We are prepared to 'clobber' a little nation for our selfrighteousness because it will not hurt us too much, but a large nation which does far more in the direction which is contrary to what we believe to be right we will not touch because it will hurt us much too much". What moral justification is there for that? Absolutely none at all. And that is why the selfrighteousness of people who are opposed to Rhodesia I find so nauseating.
As I say, I do not want to detain your Lordships. Her Majesty's Government so long as they have a majority in the House of Commons can adhere to this sanctions policy. All one can hope is that it will be realised in Rhodesia that it is not the policy of all Britain and I would say that, if it is put to them, there is a majority of Britons who would say that surely we can have talks before the final decision is taken for Rhodesia to be

471
declared a Republic. We remember our comradeship in the last war. I only hope they will think that if they can exercise a little patience—they certainly will not give in—the day will come when there is a Government in this country who can give them a decent and honourable settlement of this issue. That being the case there is no object in asking this House to divide again. We have made the position perfectly clear and I hope it will not be lost upon Rhodesia.
4.38 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, all I have to say will be said in a very few minutes. I have nothing to add to the points I made in the debate we had on the earlier Order last month. I would confine my remarks principally to what we are to do with this Order and the constitutional position. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, and what he said in this respect in his most forceful speech, and those of us who do so strongly disapprove of these sanctions, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carrington does, will regret the final indication at the end of his speech to his noble friends that they should not take part in a Division. The Conservative Opposition in another place voted against this Order earlier this week and were defeated by the Government majority, and to-day this House is now presented with the alternatives of a Division in which many of your Lordships may not take part, or in letting the Order pass.
I do not quarrel with the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. This cannot have been an easy one to take under all the circumstances, and I recognise that to continue to thwart in this House, month by month, the foreign policy of the Government of the day can only be undertaken in the most extreme instance.
For myself, strongly held as my opinion is, I shall not ask the House to divide again. The vote on sanctions was taken on the first occasion, and Her Majesty's Government know fully of your Lordships' disapproval and, as I believe, the growing disapproval of the electorate over the whole policy of sanctions. I am as convinced as ever before, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carrington,
472
said he was, that these sanctions will fail in their target and will lead to most deplorable and possibly unforeseen consequences.
It is now plain that no settlement of this dispute will take place while the present Government holds power in this country. Inevitably, Rhodesia will continue on her own way and, alas! according to to-day's reports, finally decide her constitutional future as a Republic. This is a sad moment, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in his most moving speech this afternoon. But I hope with all my heart that that future will be one in which men and women of all races will have an honourable and worthwhile part, secure in common justice and freedom to live happily and prosperously, and secure from all external threats and ill wishes. Eventually, as Lord Grimston has just said, another British Government will alter present policies and have the sense to repair the damage of sanctions, and actively encourage, as in the past, those multiracial principles and practices on which Rhodesia was founded and under which, I believe, it still seems possible that she may well flourish.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a few brief comments on the Motion before the House. Before doing so, I should like to say how deeply I appreciated the courageous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in so honestly placing before this House the views that he obtained from a personal visit to Rhodesia. I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time with a detailed repetition of my views which have been ventilated in your Lordships' House over the past three years. But I feel in honour bound to record my deep regret over the impenitent obduracy of Her Majesty's Government, supported as they are by certain other Members of your Lordships' House.
My mind turns to the recent emotional appeal concerning Nigeria and the starvation of thousands of Nigerians. In that connection, we were told by certain Peers that political questions are irrelevant in face of the overwhelming importance of providing the means to keep alive innocent sufferers, no doubt per se a creditable sympathy with human needs and human suffering, however much it

473
ignores, in that case, the realistic appreciation of the facts which have caused this tragedy and which perhaps obstruct its immediate relief. With Rhodesia what do we see? On the other hand, we find the intervention of the United Nations, solicited in an act incidentally, of dubious legality, to enforce mandatory sanctions. And what do those sanctions mean in fact? A deliberate attempt to strangle the economy of over 4 million people, black and white alike, and to ruin their means of livelihood. The indirect encouragement of murderously trained saboteurs, specially termed "freedom fighters", is another feature of this policy. I am appalled by this selective perversion of humanitarian principles.
In passing, it may be worth while to show the views held outside this country. These are the views of a distinguished American, Dean Acheson. These are just two sentences from an address which he delivered in May to the Bar Association in America. He said:
"It will surprise some of my fellow citizens, though hardly anybody here, to be told that the United Nations is to-day engaged in an international conspiracy, instigated by Britain and blessed by the United Nations, to overthrow the Government of a country that has done us no harm and threatens no one. This is barefaced aggression, unprovoked and unjustified, by a single legal or moral principle."
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? Can he tell me whether that reference was made to Rhodesia or to Vietnam?
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, it was in reference to Rhodesia. We have been repeatedly reminded by the Press that this is an age of double thought and double talk. But we still have the right and the duty to express our disagreement with this regrettable dissent from straightforward recognition of realities. We have already done that in this House in our rejection of the Motion now before us. Mandatory sanctions are not a civilised method of warfare any more than the use of poison gas is a civilised method.
I appreciate that we in this House cannot at the present moment stop this reckless method of compulsion and this vindictive interference in the domestic affairs of a country whose Government's only offence is the desire to manage its own affairs in a way that insists upon the retention of the powers of Government in
474
civilised hands, whatever may be the colour of those hands. It is no use, in these circumstances, maintaining the strange theory that there are norms of civilised conduct, universally accepted by all Members of the United Nations, which warrant and can be used to dictate such a breach of civilised action as the imposition of mandatory sanctions.
I have said nothing—enough was said in our previous debates—about the squandering of our own slender resources in the pursuit of so ignoble and unrewarding an end. I remain unconvinced by the arguments of those who defend this stillborn policy, and I can only conclude by saying that if the Government still refuse to resume or reopen negotiations, I regard our debate to-day as just a memorial service for the demise of statesmanship.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, the developments in Salisbury during the past 24 hours do not affect the points I have prepared; in fact, they make them more urgent. All I intend to do this afternoon is to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor two questions. First, do Her Majesty's Government really wish to settle this impasse by negotiation and, if so, with whom do they expect to negotiate? The noble and learned Lord stated in this Chamber on June 17 (column 322) as follows:
"My Lords, the problem of Rhodesia is one which the Government have always thought and said, and I have always thought and said, has only one right solution, and that is the solution of agreement by negotiation."
And again, in column 324, he said:
"If I am right in thinking that the only right solution is a settlement by negotiation, then no doubt in those negotiations there will be questions of principle and questions of detail. On all questions of detail I would hope that everybody concerned would always he prepared to compromise to the greatest extent possible."
I wish, with the greatest of respect, to challenge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on those statements, because I believe that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to negotiate at this time. If he can convince the House to-day of the sincerity of the statements I am sure that most of your Lordships would take a different attitude to the whole position.

475
My second question is: With whom does Her Majesty's Government expect to negotiate? There is to-day only one person with whom anyone can negotiate in Rhodesia, and that is Mr. Smith, the Prime Minister of the de facto Government. One may not like or agree with Mr. Smith, but that is not the point. He, and he alone, is the person with whom a final settlement has to be worked out. The leading article in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday of this week emphasised that the ranks are closed up behind Mr. Smith, and he now has received an almost unanimous vote of confidence from the ruling Party.
Again, one may dislike and violently disagree with the Rhodesian Front but. my Lords, we must face facts; the Party which Mr. Smith leads to-day governs Rhodesia and is recognised as the de facto Government by such fair and honourable men as Sir Hugh Beadle. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really desires to negotiate a settlement, would he tell us this afternoon with whom he expects to negotiate? At the same time, he could advise your Lordships of the current position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to NIBMAR. It is no good saying that you consider the only solution is by negotiation if you are not prepared to put those words into action and negotiate. I there-for urge Her Majesty's Government to have one more serious try to settle this problem by negotiation before it is too late.
4.56 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I did not trouble your Lordships when the first Order came before the House, and I do not think I would have troubled you this afternoon had it not been for a reference which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in the previous debate, a reference to the "Rhodesia Lobby", a reference with which he was good enough to couple my name, a reference which I thought offensive and which I thought was intended to be offensive. In the context in which the noble and learned Lord used the term it is an American importation, and it means, broadly speaking, that members of a Legislature represent some interest outside which is separate from the general public interest and which is
476
probably opposed to it. I therefore feel that I am entitled to declare my interest in Rhodesia.
My interest in the Rhodesian problem is simply this: I passionately desire a settlement which will lead to the social, economic and political advancement of all the peoples of Rhodesia; and I believe that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if it has not made that settlement impossible, will make it impossible unless that policy is changed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who made such an impressive speech earlier this afternoon—a speech which one would hope might influence the obdurate obstinacy of Her Majesty's Government —I think Rhodesia is a lovely country. I think it held, before U.D.I.—and still holds, if only the policy of Her Majesty's Government would change—the possibility of a multiracial society in Africa which exists nowhere else in Africa today.
When I visited Rhodesia, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and this is some years ago—I felt that the African in Southern Rhodesia had a far better chance of advancement, had far deeper hopes for the future than the African in the Colonial Office territories to the North, and all that hope, if it has not been destroyed, is being destroyed by Her Majesty's Government. There was one point on which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I do so with deference because obviously he was speaking with authority. I must say that he surprised me as much as he surprised the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he said that Mr. Smith was now willing to accept the Six Principles. All I know is that if I were Mr. Smith I would not be willing to accept them.
I simply cannot understand, my Lords, from where these Six Principles derive their sanctity. To hear the Prime Minister talk of them one would think that either he or his predecessor had ascended Mount Sinai and received them graven on tablets of stone from the hands of the Almighty. But that is not so. I do not know where they came from. I suspect that they emanated in the Commonwealth Relations Office—that storehouse of political wisdom and sagacity which has given us such treasures as the banning of the ploughing match in Rhodesia, or the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's

477
passport, or the vesting of the Government of Rhodesia two and a half years ago in Mr. Bottomley, or the appointment of Sir Sydney Caine as Governor of the Rhodesian Bank. I think that it must have come from there.
If I were in Rhodesia, and I think that if most of your Lordships were in Rhodesia to-day, and if we had built up that country, when we looked North and saw what was happening in Nigeria, when we looked even nearer, to other countries to the North, when we looked at what had happened in the Sudan or in Zanzibar, or in Kenya, I think that there is not one of us who would give an unequivocal pledge that, come what may, however things might go, we would never retreat from the principle of unimpeded advance to majority rule. I am sure of that, and I think that it is sheer humbug for us to pretend that we would. But I may be wrong: it may be that majority rule has done better in Africa than it seems to have done.
But on one thing I am quite sure that I am not wrong; and here I join completely with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am sure that you cannot bully British people. You cannot bully them whether your name is Bourbon, or Bonaparte, or Hohenzollern, or Schicklegruber—or, for that matter, Wilson. We talk derisively about those who describe the white Rhodesians as our kith and kin, but they are the same stock as we. They inherit the same tradition; they have the same spirit, and they simply are not going to be bullied. The most the Government can hope to do by continuing this process of bullying is to wreck central and southern Africa. They can never hope to get their way by these tactics.
We shall hear in a moment from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, about the high moral purpose which animates the United Nations. We shall no doubt hear how it is impossible for any right-thinking human being to go against that purpose. For my own part, it would be an impertinence for me to say that I was one of the architects of the United Nations, but I think that I can say that I was an assiduous and dedicated bricklayer. Twenty years ago I believed that in the United Nations we had created an international organization
478
which was freed of the weaknesses of the League and which had strength of its own. I have now learned that that is not so. It is true that the United Nations has more power than the League had: it has more power for mischief. But the League at least had a moral basis: the United Nations now has none; it is without any moral basis whatever. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made that clear in an earlier debate, when he said that a threat to peace was simply what the Security Council decided was a threat to peace.
The Security Council, at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, has decided that Rhodesia was a threat to peace. Yet every single Member of this House knows that Rhodesia has threatened nobody. It is a travesty of words and is an example, not of "doubletalk" but of "double-think" to pretend that Rhodesia is a threat to peace. President Kaunda takes that view—and, indeed, it is exactly the same view that Hitler took about Czechoslovakia thirty years ago, and that Mr. Kosygin takes about Czechoslovakia to-day.
What we are doing in supporting the United Nations in this, as I believe, humiliating exercise is simply discarding any pretence at all to moral credence. It is not only a question of the morality of the thing. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said it the previous debate what a triumph of diplomacy had been achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in somehow persuading the Afro-Asian and the Latin-American nations not to kick over the traces altogether. What we hay., to realise about the United Nations is that now the dog, if there ever was a dog, is wagged by the tail. One of the reasons why the United Nations has fallen into such disrepute is that the people who are running it are those nations which most of all lack political experience and political judgment, and those nations which are least of all able to run their own affairs. If there are some of us who look down on the United Nations, it is not because we do not want an international organisation: it is because this international organisation has been debased; and it has been debased very largely by Her Majesty's Government in this Rhodesian issue.

479
Burke has often been quoted in our discussions, and I should like to remind your Lordships of one thing he said. All of us in this House deplored at the time the unilateral declaration of independence. I think we all deplore, with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the possibility, to put it no higher, that Rhodesia will give up her allegiance—I still believe against her will. But I will remind your Lordships of what Burke said in a similar context:
" The question is not whether their spirit deserves praise or blame, hut what, in the name of God, shall we do with it?"
That is a question to which the Government have given their answer:
"… cry havock! and let slip the dogs of war."
It is true that so far the dogs have been muzzled, but muzzles sometimes have a habit of working loose. That is one reason why the policy of Her Majesty's Government is so very dangerous.
But surely, my Lords, there is a better answer to the question than that. Is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to show, even now, a quality which they have never shown in this issue—the quality of magnanimity? Is it not possible for them to show some understanding of the predicament of the white Rhodesians? Is it not possible for them to realise that the African Rhodesian, by comparison with any other African on the Continent, is not oppressed? Is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government, even now, to hold out the hand of friendship and trust? If they did so, I am quite sure that it would not be rejected.
5.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CARADON): My Lords, it is certainly not my intention to go over all the arguments which were used when this matter was debated last month in this House, or indeed to comment on the vote which then took place. Perhaps that is best forgotten. But since I have been engaged and concerned in this matter of Rhodesia over a period of some years in the United Nations, I should like, if I may, to speak to your Lordships shortly about the policy of my Government, and indeed the actions of the United Nations in this matter. I would not wish to detain your Lord-
480
ships unduly, and therefore I shall not attempt to deal with the speeches which have been made to-day beyond making a general comment.
I have spent the bulk of my working life in Africa, in Arabia and in the West Indies, and I have been brought up over many years to believe that the interests of the inhabitants should be paramount. I think that I can perhaps speak with a knowledge of the policies we have pursued in our colonial territories as well as anyone in this House. All I would ask of this House, and particularly of Members of the Opposition, is: I beg you to allow the Africans to speak for themselves. Let me assure your Lordships that something which is intolerable to the Africans, both in Rhodesia and elsewhere, is that Members of the Opposition in this House, in their condescending manner, should speak on their behalf. Let them speak for themselves. They are in concentration camps. They are prevented from political association.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made a speech which I am sure we all admired —and we appreciate the sentiment with which he spoke to us. But when he says that the Africans suffer most from the sanctions—ask them! And if you can get their voice from the concentration camps you will find that they are not supporting the votes of the Opposition in this House. It is well worth remembering that one of the main principles we refer to—
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say how many Africans there are in these concentration camps?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I do not know the exact numbers, but I know that the leaders of the political Parties of Rhodesia are in concentration camps at this time; I know that political Parties are forbidden; I know that free association with political Parties is not allowed in Rhodesia and has not been allowed for a considerable period.
LORD COLERAINE: Petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails are forbidden, too.
LORD CARADON: I go back to the point that one of the Principles—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he aware that ten

481
times as many Rhodesians were in concentration camps before U.D.I. than there are now?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I am not going to quarrel with the noble Marquess on questions of detail and of numbers—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD CARADON:—but I tell your Lordships that the leaders of the principal political Parties—and the noble Marquess cannot deny it—are in concentration camps and are prevented from expressing their opinion. One of the principles to which we refer so lightly—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
LORD BARNEY: In other countries in Africa there are probably more people in concentration camps than in Rhodesia.
LORD CARADON: The noble Lord is entitled to make his point when his time comes, but it is not to be denied that the political leaders of Rhodesia are not permitted to participate in the political life of their country.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who is making this particular point about the leaders of the Opposition Parties in Rhodesia being in prison whether he will please tell the House why those leaders were put into prison?
LORD CARADON.: All I can tell your Lordships is that freedom of political expression and an opportunity for political leadership in Rhodesia are denied to the African people of Rhodesia at this time. This is well known and is indisputable.
I would go on to say that one of the Principles of which we so frequently speak—a principle which is basic to the whole of our policy—is that, whatever solution is recommended to this Parliament, it shall be a solution that is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Therefore I should like to hear a little more talk of consultation with the African people. We get very little reference, except the condescending
482
reference to the Africans from others. I should like it to be borne constantly in mind that we have an absolute obligation to the 4 million and more of the African people of Rhodesia.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY. My Lords, would the noble Lord prefer the situation in Nigeria and Biafra to-day, where the African people are in complete control, to what it was before the white man left?
LORD CARADON: We talk about each subject separately, and I am quite prepared to talk about Nigeria, in which I have myself served. We are all greatly concerned about the situation in Nigeria, but it is not possible to draw a conclusion about Rhodesia from the situation in Nigeria.
I wish to refer again to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because it is one of my main concerns that the African people must be given an opportunity to express their view. When the noble Lord asks about negotiation my answer is: Yes, of course we are in favour of negotiation. There is ample evidence of readiness to negotiate. It is a question of on what you negotiate. If you talk about negotiating on the Six Principles, I reply: Yes, negotiation has taken place, can take place, and I even hope will take place. But it is a dangerous thing when you say that it must be negotiation at any price. It is a very dangerous state to let your mind get into, when declarations have been made by Mr. Smith to the Press and elsewhere that he in fact believes in the perpetuation of white supremacy. Are you going to negotiate on that basis? It is a question of the basis on which you are prepared to negotiate. We are prepared to negotiate. It has been said so often that it does not need to be said again: we are prepared to negotiate on the Six Principles and all the Six Principles, including, particularly, the principle that the rights, needs and wishes of the African population must have due regard given to them.
I was sorry that I could not be in your Lordships' House when this matter was first debated. I was anxious at that time to come and report to your Lordships what had taken place in the Security Council, but in the United Nations at that time we were dealing

483
with three questions of great importance and great urgency: the Middle East, Cyprus and the Treaty for the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—all matters of some consequence, in spite of the slighting references to the United Nations which have been made by the Opposition. In recent months we have been able to win overwhelming or unanimous votes on all those three matters. We were also able to secure in the Security Council a unanimous vote on Rhodesia. On all these questions, which rightly give rise to intense feelings, I am glad to be able to report that it was proper for the British delegation to take a leading part in achieving agreement.
Here I should like to re-state and to confirm if your Lordships will permit me, what we consider to be our duty as representatives of our country in the central forum of international diplomacy, in the new Parliamentary diplomacy of the United Nations. Others make disputes, others make conflicts; it is our duty at the United Nations to contain them if we can; it is our duty to resolve them if we can; it is our duty to seek to understand the views and needs of others, to ease tensions, to remove grievances, to stop fighting; to find, if we can, common ground of agreement. That is what we are trying to do all day and often most of the night. That is our object wherever there is a dispute or a conflict. At the same time, we search for agreement in the wider field of disarmament, and all the time we are seeking to improve and strengthen the international effort in economic and social advance. Those are our duties: to find common ground on which we may advance together. That is our purpose. We do not always succeed; but we keep on trying.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, if it is the purpose of the United Nations to seek agreement and to get understanding why is it that the Government of Southern Rhodesia was not allowed to put its case at the United Nations? Surely that is an elementary principle of justice?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, the régime in Southern Rhodesia, as the noble Lord well knows, is illegal and has not been recognised by any Government in the world—
A NOBLE LORD: Just by the Tories.
LORD CARADON: It certainly could not be recognised at the United Nations.
My Lords, we are searching for agreement on common ground on these many and difficult matters and even where we do succeed we are seldom satisfied. Compromise, respect for the sincere opinions of others, mutual concession—these are the essentials of international negotiations. Among the 15 members of the Security Council, the 124 members of the General Assembly, we can seldom, if ever, expect that the British case will be accepted in full. Nor, indeed, will be the case of the Russians or the Americans or of any other group or country. But, nevertheless, we search—and it is a continuing search—for agreement and common ground. If it were not so we should not he playing a worthy part as members of the international community; we should forfeit both respect and the hope of leadership; we should not help in containing and resolving disputes; we should have no prospect of contributing to peace or of making the peace tolerable.
We have constantly in mind our national interest. We do our utmost to serve it but it may be necessary to state that national interest and international interest do not conflict. To pursue the so-called national interest and to have no thought to international interest is to harbour a most dangerous delusion. It is my conviction—and on this I would not expect there to be any disagreement in this House—that no country in the world has as great an interest as ours in international understanding and international co-operation, in the cause of preserving the peace and the economic and social health of the wider world. These propositions are surely self-evident.
My Lords, I apologise for taking the time of the House to re-state what is obvious, but nevertheless it seems necessary to do so; for while we were working in New York for agreement there were those doing the reverse. They were apparently advocating three things. First, that we should flout and frustrate the unanimous decision of the Security Council; secondly, that we should break our word to more than 4 million Africans —indeed, to all Africans; thirdly, that we should strike at the root of the Charter of the United Nations by denying

485
the obligations of Article 25 of the Charter which states that members of the United Nations agree to accept and to carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. There were those who sought at one blow to destroy international confidence, to destroy reliance on British good faith and to destroy the Charter itself to which all Parties in this country gave their solumn undertaking of support. If such an act of abnegation was in the national interest then all I can say is that our national interest would have sunk to the lowest level in history.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the political repercussions in this country of the vote in this House. I am not qualified to speak on that subject but I would report, sadly, I must say, on the repercussions of the vote in this House in the international community as I saw ii. at the United Nations. I am sad to say that it was, to universal bewilderment, assumed that a majority of your Lordships wished to comfort and support a régime of racial domination which is in defiance of this Parliament and of the Crown. It was assumed that a majority of your Lordships were prepared to betray pledges solemnly given to the Africans and to the Commonwealth. It was assumed that a majority of your Lordships was intent on dismantling and destroying the structure of the international organisation. I do not under-estimate the damage done by that vote. My only consolation in trying to explain in New York what had happened here was that there were sufficient people in other countries who understood something of the strange constitutional impediments of this country.
I am glad to say that they realised that the destructive policy advocated by that vote was the very opposite of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Some of your Lordships may well say that such assumptions were unjustified and unfair and that few, if any, Members of your Lordships' House were, in fact, supporters of white supremacy. I trust that is so; but nevertheless I have to report the impression and the reaction caused in the international community by that vote. It was an impression and a reaction caused not only among those who often disagree with us; it was the same
486
impression and reaction among those most friendly to us.
My Lords, against that general background let me summarise the choices which we faced and the action which we took at the United Nations. We had stated the principles for a settlement; they were stated also by the preceding Government. We had given due warnings of the consequences of an illegal declaration of independence; so had the Government before us. We, and they, were bound by our pledges, and their pledges, to all the people of Rhodesia. There have since been those ready, even eager, to see the British Government break their word and abandon the principles and the pledges. Such a shameful course apparently appealed to some. It did not appeal to us. On the other hand there were those who advocated the, use of force. This course has been urged upon us by Africans and Asians. It is not altogether surprising that they should do so; for Rhodesia is a British Colony and this Parliament is responsible for all its people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, Rhodesia is not a British Colony and has never been a British Colony. The noble Lord is showing an utter ignorance of the earlier history of Rhodesia which is quite improper in the positior he occupies.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CARADON: My Lords, we argue on a question of fact; and I leave it at that. I say that Rhodesia is a British Colony. I have checked the matter and it is as I say. I have nothing more to say on that.
My Lords, we have not hesitated to use force elsewhere in British Colonies where rebellion has been threatened. The Africans and the Asians could not understand or accept that in Rhodesia we should fail to establish our authority by whatever measures might be required. I do not agree with them. For very good reasons we rejected the road of force and violence. We could not disregard political reality. We could act only within our clear capacity. We sought from the beginning, and we have maintained throughout, that our purpose should be to bring about a settlement by peaceful means. I have emphasised it in every

487
speech that I have made at the United Nations. I have no doubt that we were right, but I am even more convinced that to have surrendered would have brought about a disaster to our international interests and our international standing, and to our reputation with the new nations of Africa and Asia, and especially to our relations within the Commonwealth.
I ask the indulgence of the House to repeat here what I said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the Security Council on May 29 when the unanimous vote was achieved. I was speaking for my Government and for my country and, I trust, for most Members of this House:
"What we have to do is to show a steady determination to succeed in the end. We have to show perseverence of sound principles. We have to convince those in the illegal régime that the course on which they embarked on November 11, 1965, is hopeless. We have to convince them that their rebellion can lead nowhere hut to economic stagnation and political isolation. We have to convince them and everyone else that the only way out of the dead end is a return to the highroad of legality and democratic advance."
That was the purpose we stated. I went on:
"It is in accordance with those principles that a quarter of the population of the world previously under British administration has advanced to independence. We have no intention of abandoning those principles now, nor have we any intention of betraying the principles of the Charter which states that the interests of the inhabitants shall be paramount. That is the core and the basis of our policy."
My Lords, that was the position and the policy which we advocated and defended in the Security Council and it is the position and the policy which I advocate and defend here.
Your Lordships have been patient and I wonder whether you will permit me to add a personal word. I have, as I said, for most of my working life been engaged on the task of working in the Middle East, in Africa, and in the West Indies to give effect to the principles of which I speak, the principles of democratic government and self-determination and racial equality. I have throughout accepted the principles stated in the Charter, that the interests of the inhabitants, of all the inhabitants, shall be paramount. I have done so under successive British Governments—Conservative and Labour Governments. It has been my consolation
488
and comfort to believe that these principles are principles on which the British people, of all Parties, are in broad agreement. I did not find it unnatural to graduate from the school of colonial administration to the university of international affairs, and in both I have defended the same principles. I did so when i was responsible to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, when he was Colonial Secretary. I did so when I was responsible to Lord Home (as he then was) when he was Foreign Secretary. I have the highest regard for them both. Neither, I am sure, has anything but respect for the principles which I have stated.
Earlier this week I listened to the debate on the Race Relations Bill and I was heartened to hear one speech after another, from the other side of the House as well as from mine, condemning racial discrimination in all its manifestations. I would not expect to find in this Parliament support for white supremacy. I was encouraged, moreover, to read the account of the recent debate in another place on this subject when Sir Alec Douglas-Home said, in answer to another of my brothers, that advance to majority rule in Rhodesia must be certain—that was the word he used: "certain".
A great deal is at stake, my Lords: our proud record of converting a subject Empire into a free Commonwealth; our good faith in meeting our pledges; our reputation in international dealings; the relationship with all the new nations; the future of the Commonwealth—all are at stake. To waver or weaken now would. I submit to your Lordships, be a denial of all we have worked for in overseas policies for a quarter of a century. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said last month in this House, it would make it inevitable that the solution of the Rhodesian situation would be achieved by force. It would close the road to a return to legality and democratic advance. As the noble Lord, Lord Snow, said last month, Rhodesia has become the symbol and emblem of the greatest divide in the world, a divide between north and south; black and white; rich and poor. To falter or to fail in the exercise of our responsibility in that great issue would be to lead straight, so I submit to your Lordships, to a national disgrace and an international disaster.

489
My Lords, I trust I shall be able to go back to New York from this House carrying the confirmation that we shall not now, or in future, abandon the pursuit of an honourable settlement in accordance with the principles and pledges we have stated and so often repeated, and which we are determined to honour.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it would be natural that members of the Government should think it unnecessary for anybody else to speak from this side of the House. I personally feel that after the admirable speeches that have been made it is really superfluous for myself, or anybody else, to speak from this side. I particularly associate myself with the speech of my noble Leader who so effectively set out the position of the Conservative Party which is united against sanctions, and I would entirely associate myself with the speech which we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
My Lords, I am speaking because I feel intensely on this subject and I exercise the privilege we have of expressing our thoughts. But there is another reason. I believe that bringing in an Order of this character for a second time is most unusual. Certainly in the more than 35 years during which I have sat in this House there has been no precedent and therefore I speak about it now. I have also reason to speak because, with all modesty, I may say that I know something about Rhodesia and also about South Africa, but I admit not as much as some of my noble friends, on this side, who have spoken. But, with the knowledge I have, I am convinced that the Order about which we are talking is completely wrong.
My Lords, we have just listened to a powerful exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who spoke with all his long experience and his conviction that what he was saying was right. He told us a great deal about what might happen to the reputation of this country if we did not seek to exert this persecution of Rhodesia. I will explain. All my life I have tried to be a good Conservative. I have believed in the Commonwealth and the Empire. This is a British matter which ought never to have been handed to the United Nations. Therefore
490
all the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has made is irrelevant because the matter ought never to have been handed over when it was a British matter.
My Lords, I remember, when I was very young, the bitter partisanship between Liberals and Conservatives over Home Rule. I remember the spring of 1914, when this House was vehement in its denunciation of the attempt of the then Government to coerce Northern Ireland. I sat in the Commons with the Irish. The Government of the day capitulated to Rebellion. Incidentally, there are not many in your Lordships' House who were then there, but my eye rests on one, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whose long and distinguished service to the Crown we all recognise and whom we are always glad to see active with us.
I am convinced that the United Nations acted contrary to its Constitution. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on a previous occasion that it had acted only by usage and practice, and not by its Constitution. I should like to associate the noble and learned Lord with that great international lawyer, Mr. Dean Acheson. In a speech to the Bar Association at Washington, he emphasised his belief that this action is illegal. I would quote one sentence:
"The central issue involved in the assault by the United Nations and the United Kingdom against Rhodesia is a patent illegality, despite a layer of bland sanctimony."
My noble friend Lord Coleraine made good reference to the sad past record of the United Nations. What contribution did they make to preventing the loss of life in the Sudan and Ruanda? What action was taken to prevent the loss of life in Hungary? Perhaps we are on the threshold of a repetition in Czechoslovakia of that bloodbath. Would the United Nations go to the aid of Czechoslovakia to relieve them from the oppression of Russia, a ruthless colonial power, the oppressor of many countries in Eastern Europe? But still the United Nations does nothing about that.
Rhodesia, I contend, has been self-governing since 1923. It would be illogical to expect them to accept being brought under Whitehall now. To refuse to negotiate appears to put us on the level of the Arabs, who refused to recognise the

491
reality of their humiliation in the six-day war. This monkeying around with passports is a bad example to the world. To lessen travel and the opportunities of people getting to know each other is folly.
I believe sanctions to be wicked and vindictive. They have never succeeded, and they will not succeed now in destroying Rhodesia's economy nor the de facto Government of the country. What are sanctions going to do? It is the Africans who will be hurt. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, referred to the 4 million Africans. Two million of them are under 17. He should be more careful about his inferences. The Africans are going to be hurt more by drought than by sanctions. There is likely to be a greater distress in Rhodesia by the action of the British Government than in Biafra by their own actions with civil war. Are not the Africans living in the kraals in Rhodesia on a normal subsistence basis and to whom an act of God has sent this drought, entitled to the same charity as is rightly forthcoming to Nigeria and Biafra. My fear is that if negotiations are not proceeded with, the alternative is force. That would bring a confrontation with South Africa, and we just cannot afford that menace to our industry and to employment in this country. Emotional ideology is out of step with practical reality.
5.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like to be permitted to comment on one remark in the exceedingly powerful but perhaps not altogether fair speech of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. That was his remark (if I do not misquote him) that Rhodesia had not been summoned or allowed to appear before the Security Council because of her status as an illegal régime and therefore outside the law. I feel that to forbid an alleged criminal to come to court to plead in his own defence and give evidence on what he has done is as far as one can go in denial of ordinary elementary justice.
It is clear that to continue to oppose this Order would serve no useful purpose, but it does not follow that it should be allowed to go without remark, particularly if that remark is intended to
492
be constructive. I have such a remark to make, and I would make it in the form of a plea to the Government. I daresay they will take no notice, but as I am convinced that in that case their Rhodesian policy has no chance of success, I conceive it to be appropriate and even a duty that I should make this plea.
My plea is this. Will they please return to the so-called Six Principles which, no matter how much they may talk about them, they have in fact abandoned? I refer to them as the "so-called" Six Principles because there are not really, and never have been, six. The term is misleading. There is only one, the first, to which the remaining five are subordinate. One may think of them as sub-principles or pseudo-principles, or simply as rules of procedure which carry out the first. One can call them what one likes, each according to his own point of view. The first is paramount—"Unimpeded progress towards majority rule." That is the ultimate objective, upon which all Parties claim to be agreed, and it is this that I say has been abandoned. The agency of its abandonment is that other Principle—"No independence before majority African rule", or NIBMAR. This also is a sub-principle or pseudo-principle, but so long as it holds the field—and it still does—the true principle remains in cold storage. Moreover, being a somewhat tender plant in the soil and climate of Rhodesia, if it remains in cold storage very much longer it will die. Indeed, I think it is clear from this morning's newspapers that it is already very near to death.
It may be helpful to notice that both the Principle and NIBMAR divide quite neatly into halves—the Principle into "unimpeded progress towards" and "majority rule" and NIBMAR into "no independence before "and" majority African rule". If we set the two against one another, half against half, perhaps we may be startled by the result of the exercise. That is the exercise I propose quickly to perform.
It goes like this. "Unimpeded progress towards …" In this we all believe, but against it we now have to set "No independence before …" The moment we do that we see that the original positive assertion is gone and a stultifying negative has taken its place. The answer

493
to this particular criticism, I suppose, is that the stultifying negative is necessary in the circumstances of the moment, and in any case is only temporary. Whether it is necessary or not is a matter of opinion, and I am not concerned to express an opinion about that. What I am concerned to do is to show that it is not temporary, it is permanent. Oh, I know the Prime Minister himself has said that NIBMAR is not sacred, but, my Lords, when he said that he was referring to the "NIB" rather than to the "MAR".
Let us now turn to the second halves, "majority rule" on the one hand and "majority African rule" on the other. The only difference between the two, of course, is that the latter contains the word "African", and I have heard it said that it makes little or no difference. Does it not! If anyone believes that, I can assure him it makes all the difference in the world—and quite possibly to the world. Majority rule means rule by an electoral majority, and is the fundamental principle of democracy. Majority African rule means rule by the ethnic majority, and as a political principle it is not democratic at all, it is racial.
At this point, perhaps a little tiresomely, my argument has to make a choice between diverging directions, because I do not think there is any very precise agreement on what really is meant by "majority rule" in any case, qualified or unqualified. I take it as clear, however, that there are only two things it can mean. "Majority rule" must have one of two possible meanings, or conceivably both. These two possible meanings are, first, rule by the majority of the electorate, operating through a free and universal suffrage. Secondly, the alternative, rule by the Parliamentary majority that has been elected under such a system. In fact, in practice it probably means both these things, since it is to be expected that the majority in Parliament will reflect and correspond to the majority in the country. However, it is necessary to consider these two possibilities separately, because they produce different results: and in order to do this it is necessary also to be clear about two things. First, African rule means rule by Africans (and "Africans" in this context can mean only black Africans, otherwise the adjective could have no meaning
494
at all, since I do not suppose the Government could have been so childishly silly as to put it in solely in order to provide a vowel for the second syllable of NIBMAR) and, secondly, of an African majority one thing can be said with absolute certainty: that no non-African can belong to it. If that were possible it would be only a predominantly African majority, which is a different thing.
May I return to the question: electoral majority, or elected majority? Majority in the country, or majority in Parliament? My Lords, of course I do not dispute that eventually under a free and universal suffrage the African majority in country would presumably elect an African majority in Parliament. But I do not see the justification for insisting that they must elect an African majority in Parliament, whether they want to or not. By making this the law we shall be making possible the situation in which a black majority would wish to elect a white man to Parliament, only to be precluded from doing so because of the fact that it would in effect turn the Parliamentary majority from black to white. To that some may reply, "Exactly; that is precisely what we do intend".
If that is intended, I would ask you to pause and consider very carefully exactly just where you stand, and for three reasons. First, this is at variance with the principle of free and universal suffrage, because it forbids the elector to vote for the candidate of his choice. Secondly, I do not see that it would be any more respectable to forbid a man to stand for Parliament in Rhodesia because he was not black than it would be to forbid a man to stand for Parliament in England because he was not white. Thirdly, because the majority in Parliament is, and ought to be, a majority of Party, and not of colour or race.
I incline, myself, however, to the view that majority rule means rule by the majority of the electorate. In that case, the first and instant effect of saying that the African majority must rule, is the automatic disfranchisement of all non-Africans. If any noble Lord doubts the truth of this, I would ask him to consider the position if we had such a law in Great Britain. Suppose the law was that rule must be by British majority, "British" meaning British by race. What a great losing of votes there

495
would be among the Irish and among all citizens of other descents who appear at present on our electoral roll. And so it would be in Rhodesia. No white man would have a vote. I dare say he might be allowed to stand for Parliament, but I cannot easily see anyone electing a candidate who was so second class a citizen as not even being allowed to vote.
I hope I have made it clear why I say that even if the "NIB" of NIBMAR were dropped—that is to say, if for some good reason the Government abandoned their insistence on a return to legality before all else—the principle of unimpeded progress towards majority rule would still be in cold storage. Until the word "African" is dropped, the impediment to progress remains inflexible and unbreakable. For, what white Rhodesian, what brown Rhodesian—and, for that matter, what enlightened black Rhodesian—is going to accept a Constitution that puts all power permanently into the hands of one section of the population, however large that section may happen to be? The whole idea is opposed to our basic ideas of democratic government, of morality, of justice and of common sense. It offends, moreover, against two of what I choose to call the "sub" or "pseudo" principles, No. 4 and 6 in the full list of 6.
The Sixth Principle is:
"Regardless of race, no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority."
I hardly think this can be guaranteed under a system in which political authority is reserved to the most numerous race. The fourth Principle is:
"Progress towards ending racial discrimination."
All I have to add to that is an exclamation mark.
My Lords, majority African rule is a principle that explicitly and deliberately entrenches racial discrimination into a country's Constitution, prohibits the emergence of a multiracial society, makes for a lowering of the quality of the Legislature, and handicaps the country as a whole without conferring upon the African any benefit that he would not enjoy without it. It should go, and go at once.
496
I do not think the Government can refute in detail what I have said. They can, of course, refute it in toto by saying that they never had any intention of insisting on African majority rule. If so, I should naturally be delighted, and so would many of my noble friends. But I hope that they would also make the fact publicly known, for that certainly is not known. Only a fortnight ago, for example, on July 4, The Times newspaper stated in a leading article that the first of the Six Principles is:
"Unimpeded progress towards African majority rule."
My Lords, what do the Government hope to see in Rhodesia: rule by the majority, or rule by the African majority? We are entitled to ask for an answer from Her Majesty's Government to that question, if only for the information of the people of Great Britain, of the United Nations and of Rhodesia itself, who will have to pay the bills.
5.58 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I will detain the House for only a very few minutes. Two speeches have been made in this debate that certainly merit comment from this side. In common with the rest of the House, in all quarters, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, deeply wise and courageous. I was sorry that it proved impossible for him to make a speech on the last occasion, when the first Order was debated, and I should like to think that my encouragement to him to speak on this occasion might have brought some credit to me, if I did not well know that he would have done it in any event, even without encouragement.
By an extraordinary coincidence he was immediately followed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who made from the Liberal Benches one of the most curious speeches that I have ever heard. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, explained why he found it perfectly impossible to support the Government by approving the previous Order. I should have thought that, whatever else struck one about Lord Silkin's speech, it could not be described as antediluvian. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, described anybody who is unable to accept the wisdom of this Order as taking an antediluvian attitude.

497
My Lords, I now come to the other brother, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, from whom I differ with greater reluctance because, although it has never been my experience to have any direct dealings with him, perhaps he will believe me when I say that for much of his previous career I have, in common with many of my friends, a great deal of admiration. I do not feel any such admiration for his conduct of the Government's policy at the United Nations or for that policy itself; and in so far as he prompted that policy, I am quite unable to congratulate him.
The one point on which I agree with the noble Lord completely is that this Order raises a great moral issue. Where I differ from him is in my profound belief that considerations of morality are against this Order, and not in its favour. Your Lordships have only to read the Order to know that its intentions and objects are to ruin the Rhodesian economy, and to bring about the breakdown of law and order in that country. Let me say at once, as I have said before, that one sometimes has to do cruel, horrible and, at first sight, even wicked things, if one believes that that is the only method to bring about some greater good. But in order to justify in morals doing some cruel thing, such as this Order seeks to do, it seems to me that you must have some reason for believing that some good will follow from it. Much has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, about the Six Principles, but not a single word was said by him to show that the accomplishment of any one of those Principles will be brought about by this Order.
LORD CARADON: I must interrupt the noble Lord. First of all, his description of the purposes of the Order bore no relation to the Order. Secondly, I have never said one word in favour of disorder or in support of disorder. I must ask him to be more careful when he is putting words into my mouth.
LORD CONESFORD: I certainly was not putting those words into the noble Lord's mouth. I did not say that he said these were the objects of the Order; I said that it was obvious to any reasonable man, if he read the Order, that they were the objects of the Order. If the noble Lord wants to know why I
498
argue that, I would refer him to my speech on the last occasion.
LORD CARADON: I am very familiar with the Order. I had some hand in framing it, with others, and I am fully prepared to take responsibility for what the Order says.
LORD CONESFORD: I have no doubt that that is so; and that is why I am attacking the noble Lord. I say that you have only to read the Order to realise that it is designed to bring about the breakdown of the Rhodesian economy. I do not know whether the noble Lord denies that.
LORD CARADON: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord further, but I fully deny it. The purpose of the Order is set out in the Order: to return to legality and democratic advancement.
LORD CONESFORD: To do that by ruining the Rhodesian economy, or to bring the régime to their heels by the threat to do it. If the noble Lord is seriously suggesting that this is not designed to injure the Rhodesian economy, I can only say that his reasoning faculties are not what they were. It is, as I say, quite demonstrable by reading the Order that those ale the objects of the Order. I fully accept that Her Majesty's Government claim to expect that, as a result of this, there will be a surrender by the present Rhodesian Government that either the present Rhodesia Government (or maybe it is preferred to call it a régime) will surrender, or it will give place to some other régime which Her Majesty's Government will find more agreeable. All I say is that there has never been any argument put before this House to indicate that there is the least possibility of that result flowing from this Order. If there is no possibility of that, then I say that by any ordinary consideration of morals this is an immoral Order.
My Lords, when it was first suggested that Her Majesty's Government should go to the United Nations and seek an Order on these lines, I at once asked a Minister in this House, if that were so, whether Her Majesty's Government would do all they could to see that the Rhodesian régime should at least be heard I y the Security Council. I found the answer given by the noble Lord on that occasion very puzzling. He said that it was an

499
illegal régime. So it may be in certain respects. But it has been held by the courts of Rhodesia— and I do not think there is any contrary decision by any other court anywhere—that it is the de facto Government of Rhodesia. Secondly, the present Prime Minister, immediately after U.D.I., asked the civil servants in Rhodesia not to desert their posts.
My Lords, how in the face of that can we treat the Rhodesian régime as though it had no importance whatever as a body? Whatever else this Order does, an Order of which the noble Lord is so proud, I do not think he would deny that it is aimed against the present Rhodesian régime. In fact, that appeared from his whole speech. But, if it is so aimed against that régime, who had a better right to be heard? There is nothing to limit the power of the United Nations to hearing only legally established Governments, or only those who are members of the United Nations. Of course, the United Nations had power to hear the Rhodesian Government; it was obviously not only not contrary to the Charter, but a requirement of natural justice.
Since I have made my views clear on previous occasions, I am not going to repeat them now.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CONESFORD: I am glad that that gives so much relief. I am glad, also, that those who are expressing such relief should know that some noble Lords on this side share their view that moral issues of the deepest importance are raised by this Order. The point on which we fundamentally differ from them is that they regard the policy embodied in this Order as moral, and some of us here regard it as utterly immoral.
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will be gratified to hear that I do not propose to reply at any length to this debate. It was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who, if I may say so, made a good start by saying that this was a problem which could be settled only by negotiation. As that was the very first thing which I myself had said in opening the previous debate, I naturally wholly
500
concur. He then, however, turned away altogether from Rhodesia, first to deliver the usual Tory personal violent abuse against the Prime Minister, and then for some reason or other he delivered himself of terriffic onslaught on the Liberal Party; and he did not return from that until his final sentence, when he said that he did not propose to advise the House to divide against the Motion.
I was very saddened, if I may say so, by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. When I first came into this House I regarded him as my mentor, and there is of course no member of the Party who has a more distinguished or a longer record. But I am afraid that, having gone to Rhodesia and having, I know, fallen ill, and having been most kindly treated by some of the white settlers there, he is under a misapprehension. He referred to assurances he had had from Salisbury that Mr. Smith and his colleagues were ready to accept a settlement based on the proposals brought back from Salisbury by Sir Alec Douglas-Home earlier in the year. My Lords, if that proved to be the case, the inadequacies of these proposals have already been explained by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the Rhodesia debate on March 27. In particular, he explained that they did not provide for an adequate blocking mechanism. I can assure your Lordships that Mr. Smith has given no sign at all that he is prepared to accept any adequate blocking mechanism. Indeed, he has made a clear statement in public to the contrary. Of course, if he is ready to do so, let him say so, but he has not said so and up to now he has even refused, as also has Sir Alec Douglas-Home, to make public the proposals to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred.
My noble friend then painted an unhappy picture of the effect of sanctions on the Africans, and I can only, with respect, echo what my noble friend Lord Caradon said; namely, why not ask the Africans? Of course, I have discussed these matters with Mr. Nkomo, the leader of the majority Party, with the leaders of the Sithole Party, and I can only echo what my noble friend said. Instead of white people learning from other white people what the Africans think, why not ask the Africans? And, indeed, the African Leader of the Opposition in the Rhodesian Parliament has himself said

501
how greatly they prefer sanctions to losing the prospect of majority rule.
My Lords, we have had speeches which I recognised as very sincere from those who are sometimes referred to as "the Rhodesia Lobby": the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. Lord Grimston of Westbury, Lord Wedgwood, Lord Milverton, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, Lord Coleraine, Lord Barnby and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. We have heard their speeches, if I may say so, many times before, in every Rhodesia debate. We recognise their sincerity, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my replying to them in general. The noble Marquess referred to the news—what the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, called the "announcement of the Government"—that they intend to go forward with a republic. My Lords, this is not known to my Government, and the noble Lord did not tell us where he got it from. All I know is that there are newspaper accounts that certain proposals have been put before the branches of the Rhodesian Front Party. This is a very long way indeed from any announcement by any Government; and in any case, of course, no announcement, if there were one, that Rhodesia has become a republic makes it a republic or has an effect in law at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, asked me to explain why the Government do not adopt exactly the same attitude to South Africa as they do to Rhodesia. The reason is a very simple one. We are not responsible for South Africa. We are not the Government of South Africa. We are responsible for some 4¾ million people in Rhodesia, and we are the legal Power. Then the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, told us what he wanted Rhodesia to be, and that is what we all want Rhodesia to be.
I must say something about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, because he particularly asked me to answer two questions. The first was: Do the Government want a settlement by negotiation?, to which the answer is: Yes, they do, as I previously explained on the last Order. And, secondly: With whom do they intend to negotiate?, to which the answer is: Whoever is in power in Salisbury. He
502
was good enough to quote something I had said before. I said, and I repeat, that I hope when there are negotiations everybody will give way as much as possible on details. But I went straight on to point out what he did not read: that there were principles which we had taken over from our predecessor; and pledges which we must keep. I painted out the reasons why at the present moment it is quite clear that Mr. Smith and the illegal régime are not prepared to accept those principles; and it is of course one of the objects of sanctions to bring them to the view that on the whole it is better to settle with this country than to go on and on in the condition in which they are.
What I said last time apparently did not remove from the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, the delusion that we control the United Nations. When an African country puts down a resolution before the Security Council, which it is entitled to put down, it is really no good talking about our having handed over Rhodesia to the United Nations. I am now going to please the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, very much—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would permit me to say so—and I apologise if I am wrong—I have frequently understood it to be stated that the Prime Minister had gone authoritatively on record as saying that it was his intention to han3 the Rhodesian problem over to the United Nations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has never said that he intends to hand Rhodesia over to the United Nations.
Then, I am going to please very much the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, because he will be pleased to hear that there is no such policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government as "no independence before African majority rule". If he will be good enough to read what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, and to read what my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary said, he will find that in every case the words are, "majority rule", not "African majority rule". It is only because the Opposition will go on calling it "African majority

503
rule" that even some of the newspapers are coming to believe that that is the policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, addressed a passionate plea that he should be told what good might be done by the Order, and he said that nobody had ever suggested what good was going to be done by the Order. Of course, the 14-hour debate we had was a very long one, and it would be quite unreasonable for me to expect that the noble Lord had read what I said. But I really did my best. I pointed out how, pursuant to sanctions, and only since sanctions, the leading businessmen were for the first time saying publicly to their colleagues, "We cannot go on like this. We must settle this with Britain"; and how I hoped that that would spread.
My Lords, of course that brings me to what is, after all, the only real effect of this Order and the resolution of the Security Council behind it; namely, that it puts on other countries a burden which so far only we have assumed in relation to the totality of the matter which it covers, and even in relation to those things which are covered by the previous resolution, which in the main was followed by us rather than others. This is the second time this week that we have discussed a problem of race relations. Last time it was the 2 per cent. of immigrants here; to-day it is the 7 per cent. of immigrants in Rhodesia—and of course the native people as well. It has always struck me as rather curious that the Right Wing of the Conservative Party, who tend here to say, "Immigrants go home" do not make a similar noise in regard to the British in Rhodesia.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me to make a comment on that? Is it not a fact that the great bulk of what he calls the "immigrants" were in Rhodesia before the Africans who are there now, and that it was the work done by the white Rhodesians in building up the economy that drew the African there?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords; I should say certainly not. I know the noble Lord's great knowledge of this subject, but to suggest as he did, if I understood him rightly, that most of the immigrants in Rhodesia had been
504
there before the Africans is really absurd. Quite a small proportion of the white settlers now in Rhodesia were there before the war. Somebody like Mr. Smith, who was born in Rhodesia, is a fairly exceptional person. Most of them went out after the war because they did not like the Labour Government, and to suggest that they were there before the Africans is, I respectfully suggest, quite wrong.
My Lords, I am not going to say any more. My noble friend Lord Caradon has addressed us with such authority and knowledge of this subject that I think it would be an impertinence on my part to say more. All I can say is that if the House does not divide against this Motion, it will have done something to repair the grave damage to the reputation of our country which was done by the hereditary Peers on the previous occasion.
My Lords, the Question is: That this Motion be agreed to.
LORD GREENWAY: Not-Content.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

MEDICINES BILL
6.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment of Medicines Commission]:
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) The Ministers shall also appoint at least one member capable of representing consumber and welfare interests."
The reasons for this Amendment were well stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in the Second Reading debate. There are I think only two conceivable arguments against it and it would probably be less discourteous for me to state them and refute them rather than wait for my noble friend to state them and then refute him.
The first argument is that the Commission is a technical body and there is no room for laymen on it. This is refuted by the fact that at the Report stage in the Commons an Amendment was agreed that the words "except so much of it as relates to retail sale" should be deleted from paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of Clause 2 as the retail trade would not necessarily be represented under paragraph (c). It was made clear by the Minister that it is certainly his expectation that the retail trade will be represented on the Commission. The Amendment accepted was put forward on the ground that a large part of the Bill relates to advertising, labelling and marketing. If the retail trade is to be represented on the Commission we think the consumers, the buyers, should be represented too, and at any rate it does prove it is not a technical body.
The second argument is that it is impossible to select people who are generally representative of the consumer interest in this sort of subject. We have no less than three bodies professionally engaged in this work, the Patients Association, the Consumers Association and the Consumer Council. If your Lordships do not like any of those, it is quite easy to select any worthy citizen unconnected with any vested interest, who is not a nature cure addict or herbalist, and appoint him or her as representative of consumers. There is no difficulty about this, but the bureaucracy is in league with business to keep the customer out because he can so easily and properly be a nuisance. We think the consumer
506
should be represented on this Commission. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I think it might be of help to the Committee if I were at this stage to say what course the Government urge upon it in respect of this Amendment and the next two Amendments, because they hang together. First of all, let me assure my noble friend that bureaucracy is not in league with business—at least, if my right honourable friend or I come across any who are, they will hear about it. This Amendment says that the Minister shall appoint a consumer person (to use shorthand) to the Commission. The next Amendment, No. 2, says that the Minister shall consult with appropriate consumer organisations about membership of the Commission, and the third Amendment says, in effect, that the Minister shall consult with consumer organisations about membership of the committees.
To put it in a nutshell, the Government's view of the best solution to this is that there should probably—and I emphasise probably—not be a consumer person on the Commission, became the Commission's work will in the main be directed towards purely scientific and technical questions of a pretty abstruse nature in which the advice of a consumer person, however valuable it will be elsewhere, will not be of the foremost relevance. The view of the Government is that on the other hand the specialised committees, the Clause 4 committees—or some of them, the relevant ones—could contain consumer persons. The committee concerned with labelling will probably be one that should; probably the one concerned with the general list should, and possibly if there is one concerned with unconventional medicine, herbals and so on, maybe this also should contain a consumer person. It is the intention of my right honourable friend to consult with relevant organisations in this field before making appointments to the specialised committees.
To sum up, the policy that the Government think it would be right to adhere to would be no consumer representative on the Commission itself, but consumer representatives on those specialised committees which are relevant to this field; and that there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve the latter part

507
of this purpose, for they will consult and will appoint without amendment of the Bill. This is an assurance I can give the Committee, and I would urge the Committee to invite the movers of these Amendments to withdraw them all in view of the assurance I have given.
LORD AUCKLAND: I think that on balance the Government's case here is probably the right one. I yield to no-one in my belief that the consumer should be represented on any body of this kind in some form or other. As Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents I believe that anything involving pharmaceutical products and any other products which are dangerous if ill-used or mismanaged should have the maximum protection available. What rather worries me about this Amendment is the very wide terms in which it is drawn and the equating, as I read it, of welfare and consumer interest. When it comes to medicine and medicinal products we are of course all consumers, whether we manufacture the product, market it, retail it or anything else.
Therefore I feel, and I think I probably speak on behalf of most of my noble friends, that rather than have the actual Commission itself represented by consumer interests, to quote the words of the Amendment, it would seem probably better either to have co-opted members —because I presume this Commission has powers of co-option, but another clause may deal with this—or what the Government suggests may well be the right solution. What does rather worry me about the Amendment, as I say, is the equation of consumer and welfare interests. It would seem to me that the welfare interests would presumably deal more with the safety side, whereas the consumer interests would deal with pricing and that kind of thing. It seems to me questionable as to whether one representative, so to speak, or one body of representatives, could represent both interests, which are, so far as this particular matter is concerned, as I see it, rather widely divergent. I hope, for my part, that the Government's case will at least be fully considered.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I thank my noble friend for
508
his full and sympathetic reply. We are very used in the Consumer Council to getting rather less than we ask for. We are pleased to get something, and the concession made is I think considerable. If we can have consumer representatives on the committees a great part of our case is met. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Establishment of committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one short question on Clause 4. This concerns the special expert committees which are to be set up. I feel that it would be useful if one of these committees could deal specifically with animal feedingstuffs. This is a point that I do not think he mentioned when he was speaking just now, but I think that it forms such an important part of the Bill that it would be better to have a committee dealing specifically with this matter, rather than have it jumbled in with some other committee.
LORD KENNET: As the noble Marquess knows, the Bill leaves the Minister free to set up such committees as seem to him appropriate. But after consultation with the Commission the way he proposes to go about this is, as Mrs. Beeton would say, "First get your Commission"; then consult it on what specialist committees should be set up. He has done this simply because the point of having the Commission is that this will give expert advice on the whole field, and he feels that he should not go ahead to specify what specialist committees there will be until the Commission itself is set up. But he will take note of what the noble Marquess has said. This certainly seems to be a candidate for the kind of specialist committee which might be set up.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions as to Commission and committees]:
6.42 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND: I beg to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("Provided that the functions so conferred or varied shall be concerned with medicinal products or related matters.")
This is not intended to be in any way a wrecking Amendment, because as I said on Second Reading of this Bill, I, and I think the whole House—in fact both Houses of Parliament--have recognised the need for some form of Medicines Commission, since this is largely a consolidating Bill, serving as it does to carry out the well-needed action of consolidating medical legislation over the years.
The real purpose of this Amendment is to draw your Lordships' attention to what could be interpreted as the wide powers which this Medicines Commission has. We do not yet know the numbers of those who will serve on the Commission, and I certainly do not intend to press the Government to give this figure this evening because quite clearly it may well be that a Commission of this kind may have to add to, as well as to subtract from, its numbers. We do not know. But as I indicated on Second Reading, my own view is that the Commission, initially at any rate, should be concerned mainly with the safety and quality of drugs and pharmaceutical products, rather than with some of the far more wide-ranging matters which Part V of the Report of the Sainsbury Committee advocates, such as the control and marketing and sales promotion of drugs.
I am not saving that in the future there may not be a case if, by any chance—and I think it is a slender one —these particular aspects of the pharmaceutical industry do get out of hand, for having some kind of Commission to look into this matter. But I think it is fair to say that there are already powers to deal with any serious shortcomings in this particular aspect of the industry. I am not a lawyer, so this is a point which rather baffles me, even though I have studied this Bill closely. Will the particularised powers given to the Medicines Commission be subject to Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament,
510
particularly if any new powers, such as those I have mentioned, are added? I think this is most important, because we are embarking here on a new and novel procedure. As I said earlier, I do not say that it is in any way unwelcome, but I think that careful scrutiny should be given to the powers of this Commission so that it manages to cover properly and within a reasonable scope of time and energy the most important aspect of this matter; namely, to ensure the safety and quality of the products which they control. I beg to move.
LORD OGMORE: Before the Minister replies I should like to ask him a question. If this Amendment is passed, would it cut out from Clause 5(4)(b) any relation to veterinary products? As I read it, this Amendment refers only to medicinal products or related matters. It occurs to me, having regard to the wide scope of Clause 2 and also of the first Schedule, that it might well halve that effect, in other words to cut out any reference to veterinary products and matters. This would be most unfortunate.
LORD KENNET: That is exactly the sort of thing that we should like a little time to look into. It was only, I think, on Tuesday morning that we were first able to see Lord Auckland's Amendment. At first blush, I do not think it would cut out veterinary products because they are also described as "medicinal" elsewhere in the Bill. It is a general principle, accepted by the courts and by Parliament, that any changes effected by regulation or by order under the Bill shall fall within the four corners of the Bill; and there is no doubt that any changes proposed by the Minister in regard to the functions of the Commission would do so in the case of this Bill, as with others.
I am, incidentally, grateful to the noble Lord for not having raised the spectre which was raised in another place: that since one of the Ministers concerned with the appointment of the Commission is the Secretary of State it was thinkable that the Commission should at r later stage be empowered to declare war. This I believe is not so, and I believe that any power between the declaring of war and continuing to be concerned with "medicinal products or related matters",

511
in the noble Lord's words, is also unlikely to be conferred upon them. But of course, having said that, I have deprived myself of any grounds for arguing against the noble Lord's Amendment, since, if that is the situation, he may well say: why not write it into the Bill? What I would say to him is, that if he will withdraw this Amendment we will have a good look at the situation and see whether there are any objections to writing into the Bill something having roughly this effect, so as to make it perfectly clear that these extra functions must be related to the subject matter of the Bill.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his most courteous and reasoned reply to this Amendment, which I am quite prepared to admit is not perhaps as specifically drafted as it might be. With the assurances which he has given I have pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD OGMORE: Before we leave this clause may I draw to the attention of the noble Lord one point which was touched upon slightly by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I should like to have a further assurance from the Minister in this respect. He will notice that in Clause 5(5) these words appear:
"No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
I wonder whether the noble Lord can assure us that those words mean what they say. In other words, if we in this House, in our wisdom, wish to reject or refuse to give an Affirmative Resolution then we may do so, but shall not be told that in about the year 1832 the House of Lords abandoned, or was held to have abandoned, or by effluxion of time is considered to have abandoned, these rights. I myself feel that if Parliament, instigated by the Government of the day in this Year of Grace, 1968, gives a House of Parliament certain powers, that House of Parliament should be able to use them if it thinks fit and should not be faced by some huge constitutional crisis, and be
512
threatened with oblivion or extinction, if it acts in accordance with the powers which have now been given it.
I raised this point on another Bill, also affecting the Health Service, on Tuesday night. I am glad to say that on that occasion the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, with her usual great charm, assured me that the powers in the Bill would be exercised by the House of Lords if the House so desired after consideration, and that it could reject the Resolution if it considered it proper to do so. I ask now for a similar assurance from the Minister in relation to Clause 5(5) here.
LORD KENNET: If Parliament passes this Bill those words will become law and will remain law until they are amended by another law passed by Parliament.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [General provisions as to dealing with medicinal products]:
6.52 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("field trials") and insert ("medicinal tests on animals").
This Amendment paves the way to an Amendment to Clause 23 and to the introduction of the new clauses after Clause 30, and to a very large number of consequential Amendments thereafter. I would ask the Committee to agree to consider the whole nexus of the changes at this point, rather than later. If your Lordships are content with the rather extensive revisions brought into the Bill by the Government let us say so at this point, and let us then either carry in or not carry in the later ones, however bulky they themselves may be, without debate. Let us have the debate now. I think the Committee will agree with me this is the orderly way to do it.
This Amendment, the Amendment to Clause 23, and the five new clauses after Clause 30 which replace the present Clause 31, are introduced in the light of some very constructive criticisms and suggestions which were made in Committee in the House of Commons. One of the principal points of criticism of

513
Clause 31 in its present form has been that it did not sufficiently distinguish between the different factors affecting the use of new drags in trials in human beings and in tests on animals. So far as trials of drugs for human use are concerned, control under Part II of the Bill is first imposed when a new drug is to be used in a "clinical trial", that is, therapeutically, in circumstances where there is a doctor-patient relationship.
The "field trial", on the other hand, in Clause 31 of the Bill as it stands was envisaged as the equivalent therapeutic trial in animals, and under Clause 31 control was likewise first imposed at this stage. However, animal tests even at the pre-clinical stage can in some circumstances give rise to hazards to human or animal health if there are inadequate safeguards. Such risks can arise, for example, from undesirable residues left in animal products sold for human consumption. After full consideration my right honourable friends the Ministers of Health and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have concluded that further safeguarding provisions should be included in the Bill. In the proposed new clauses control of tests in animals is not limited therefore to those tests which have a therapeutic purpose, and the expression "medicinal tests on animals" has been substituted throughout the Bill for the expression "field trial" which is too narrow in its connotations to cover all the extended kinds of tests which ought to be covered.
Another criticism of Clause 31 as it stands—and this applies to both clinical and field trials; that is, in relation to both human and animals—is that in requiring only the importer of the drug or the person "responsible for its composition" to hold the certificate, it does not go far enough and would allow an entrepreneur, or even the manufacturer himself, acting through a third party, to conduct trials without a certificate. In the new clauses, the way to which is paved by this Amendment, this possible escape route is blocked. If the Committee will agree, I will leave it at that and move this Amendment, and ask the Committee to bear in mind that it carries a great deal of material after it throughout the Bill. If there is any further explanation or clarification I can give to
514
the Committee I shall, of course, be happy to do so. I beg to move.
LORD OGMORE: Do I take it from the Minister that we are not going to discuss at a later point the lengthy Amendments he has put down, and that he wants us to discuss the whole matter now? Is that what he proposes?
LORD KENNET: The Committee will, of course, do what they like, but I would urge that this is the moment to discuss the matter, because, supposing the Committee do not like the later clauses, and supposing we have carried this paving Amendment into the Bill and the Committee then wished to throw out the later clauses, we should be in a muddle. So it would be better if we could have the substantial discussion at this stage.
6.58 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: As the Minister has indicated, this is from many points of view one of the most crucial parts of the Bill after Clause 2. Your Lordships probably know that various stages have to be gone through before a product can be put on the market. First of all there is a very lengthy research programme, which is conducted in the laboratories in the pharmaceutical company concerned; or it may be in a university, or financed by the Medical Research Council. That is the research stage. Then, of course, comes a very important stage. At that time there have been probably a number of experiments on animals in the laboratory, and after that there comes another stage where there has to be a far more extensive application of the research principle. Finally, one has various development processes to go through, so a number of expensive and very lengthy processes have to be gone through before a product can be put on the market.
In this lengthy series of processes the trials to which the Minister has referred play a most important part, and whether those trials are held in the laboratory of the company or whether they are held, as is often the case, in a hospital or in a research institute, they are of vital importance. I should like to ask the Minister at what particular stage he envisages these licences will be applied. Will they be applied at the first stage, when there is research in a pharmaceutical company's laboratory, or will they be applied at a

515
research institute, medical school or university? Or, again, will they be applied when the process has moved forward from that preliminary stage to the next stage, what used to be called a "field trial," when very much more extensive trials have to be entered into?
When one is dealing with medical products rather than with veterinary products, there comes a time when one can no longer experiment with rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits or similar animals, and one has to begin to experiment on human beings. That is a very testing time indeed. That is when the pharmaceutical industry has to apply to the various hospitals, to the professors of medicine, and the like, to help them to conduct their trials. This is an important matter for the industry. Nothing should be done that might affect proper and reasonable powers of the pharmaceutical industry to experiment. I should like to quote what was said on this matter by Sir Derrick Dunlop, Chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Drugs, which is now being replaced by the Medicines Commission. He said:
"The pharmaceutical industry has made enormous contributions to our society. Professor Chain of penicillin fame recently recently reviewed the 66 most valuable compounds introduced to medicine since aspirin in 1889. His analysis showed that only nine of these came from universities and research institutes; the rest came from scientists in the pharmaceutical industry."
I have not consulted the industry on what they think about this particular series of clauses because, frankly, I have not had time. I received the Marshalled List only this morning, and there has not been time to get in touch with them. However, I imagine that they would want to be quite sure that nothing shall be done which would unduly restrict and hamper the research scientists in the pharmaceutical industry, or the researchers and scientists in the medical schools and hospitals who so often collaborate with the industry. When the company of which I am a director has a product which it wishes to put on the market, a product which has been carried through all its stages in our own laboratory, our own research centre, we look around to try to get the best possible research organisation, hospital, or whatever it may be, to assist us in the next stage.
516
I should not like to think that something was being imported into this process—which is a difficult, tedious and sometimes expensive process for the industry—which would be harmful in preventing the industry from making great advances. I am quite sure that the Minister will be sympathetic, for I know his interest in health matters. I am quite sure that he would not wish to see anything being done which would impede the pharmaceutical industry. It is a new and exciting industry, an industry developing new processes, new medicines, new drugs which will completely revolutionise the lives of the sick in this country in the next few years.
Already, as Sir Derrick Dunlop has said, the pharmaceutical industry, in conjunction with the medical research institutes and the hospitals, has been able to invent processes and patent new medicines which have had enormous effect. I am quite sure that in the next ten years or so that process will go on at an ever-increasing pace, and that many hospitals which are now full may be then emptied, or half-emptied, of their patients —in the same way that many tubercular hospitals have been closed because of the new pharmaceutical products, and that mental hospitals have been able to discharge many of their patients because of the new drugs which enable them to live practically normal lives at home. In this way the hospitals will be greatly relieved.
Although in principle I have no objection to this elaborate series of Amendments, I hope they will not unduly impair or hinder research practices and projects which the industry may desire to carry out in the future.
LORD KENNET: I am sorry that the noble Lord did not see this complicated series of Amendments until this morning. They were printed and distributed to Members of the House on Tuesday morning. I always try, as I think do most members of the Government, when introducing Bills and Amendments, to see that they are available two or three days before they are discussed, certainly if they are substantial Amendments.
LORD OGMORE: I have been a Member of this House for a good many years and if I can I always wait until I get the Marshalled List. One gets many

517
bits of paper coming in every morning, not only in regard to the Medicines Bill but a whole host of things, such as the Gaming Bill, the Theatres Bill and one thing and another. I feel that it is dangerous to pay too much attention to Amendments until one actually sees the Marshalled List; one can then see exactly in proper sequence what one has to deal with. Even if they were available on Tuesday, that is not very long. I was here on Tuesday quite late in the evening on another Bill, so I cannot see that one has had a great deal of time. Some of us, of course, have other things to do. We are not solely concerned with matters in this House.
LORD KENNET: I mentioned the point only because I should not like any members of the Committee to think that the Amendments appeared only this morning. That was not the case; they were available in printed form on Tuesday morning. The Marshalled List, of course, appears only on the morning of the Committee.
I fully admit that this is a very complicated matter and I will do my best to explain to the noble Lord at what stage the controls come in on each side of the fence—by "each side of the fence" I mean as regards human controls and animal controls. On the human side of the fence, trials on human beings, the matter becomes subject to control and certificate at the point where the doctor-patient relationship comes to an end. When doctors carry out a trial, that is the moment on the human side when controls come in. On the animal side of the fence it comes about earlier for the reason (this is contained in the Amendment) that the carcases of the animals concerned, which have been part of the population coming into the trials, may be sold for human consumption. Since there is no relationship or confidence or contract between a man and a beast of any sort, it appeared to the Government a good plan to bring these trials under control, in other words to ensure that if these animals had been subject to a trial they should not be sold on the market just like any other. That is where it comes in on that side.
Of course, there is no question of subjecting to control by this body of Amendments research in the sense of
518
"set it down and work it out on paper", or research in the sense of pure chemical work in a test tube. As to the labs., I am sure the noble Lord will have noticed that in these Amendments certain animals—guinea pigs, mice, rats and so on—are exempt from control, for the simple reason that they are common laboratory animals and that nobody eats them. One is simply seeking to subject to these controls cattle, sheep and so on which people do eat, and which ought to be subject to them.
On the general point that one dies not want unduly to restrict and hamper the development of the pharmaceutical industry's own research programmes, I of course agree and I am sure every Member of the Committee agrees, that it would be very bad to do this, but I think there is a danger of lapsing into a mode of thought which suggests that one is talking about whether or not to forbid a certain class of activity. Of course, we are not: we are talking about whether or not certain activities ought to be subject to permission, ought only to be lawful with the holding of a certificate to be issued by the certifying authority; namely, the Ministers, after this Bill is passed. Of course, they will not use their duty to certify what is safe to impede the development of the pharmaceutical industry's research programme. I think that is implicit throughout the Bill and throughout all the discussions at every stage so far. In conclusion, may I say that I was glad the noble Lord said he had no objection in principle to the bulky Amendments which we are introducing at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Exemptions in respect of herbal remedies]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: shall not detain your Lordships for mo e than a moment. I am completely ignorant on this. I hope I shall not be accused, as a Member sitting on the Liberal Benches, of jumping on a bandwagon, because all I want to do is to clarify my own mind about one phrase on which the noble

519
Lord, Lord Chorley, said he might introduce an Amendment. He has not done so, and I am quite sure he has looked into it. This clause deals with exemptions in respect of herbal remedies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I am not a herbalist, and I know nothing about herbalists, but there is one phrase that I do not entirely understand. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said that during the Report stage in another place some concessions had been made to herbalists, but at the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 this clause says that the restrictions imposed by Clauses 7 and 8 do not apply in certain cases, among them being where,
"the person carrying on the business sells or supplies the remedy for administration to a particular person after being requested by or on behalf of that person and in that person's presence to use his own judgment as to the treatment required".
The only phrase that worries me at all is, "in that person's presence". I am not quite sure what that applies to. I understand it means that the person who requires a prescription, rightly or wrongly, has actually to be present—not on the premises, necessarily, if whoever is prescribing it can come to them—when it is given. What I should like—and I would be absolutely satisfied by a word from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that this is either correct or will be looked into—is to make sure that this is not a law which would operate against people who, through no fault of their own, could not be present. Whether they are cranks or not is quite irrelevant to this. We have heard in debates on other Bills about one law for the rich and another for the poor. I want to be satisfied that this is not one law for the bedridden and one for the unbedridden. That is the only question I have to ask: whether a person has to be present; and, supposing that person is in a state of health such as to make him incapable of being present, what is the position?
LORD KENNET: The only thing that the herbalist has to do on his premises is to manufacture or assemble the remedy. He does not have to have the consultation on his premises. He can certainly go to the bedside of the sick person.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Then I am right in believing—this is what I hoped—that a herbalist can manufacture things on his own premises, but in order to prescribe them, as it were, or in order to deliver them to the patient, he has to go to the premises of the patient? Am I right?
LORD KENNET: No. The effect of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 12 is only that the consultation, or the event which one might call diagnosis in the context of conventional medicine, should take place in the presence both of the herbalist and of the patient; that they should be together. It does not matter where.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Provided that the patient has actually been seen by the herbalist who is prescribing the remedy then that is correct. I thought this was a point worth raising.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Transitional exemptions]:
7.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 21, after second ("description") insert ("sold, supplied or manufactured by, or assembled to the order of, that person")
This Amendment covers a fairly small point concerning transitional exemptions, and it is designed to limit the benefits of the transitional exemptions to those persons already selling, manufacturing or supplying products of the description in question. It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands it would appear that any person will now be able to introduce a product which was effectively on sale on the appointed day without recourse to a product licence if it is of the same description as some existing product. I myself feel that this is opening the door a little too wide. In any case, I foresee difficulties in finding out whether a product is manufactured to the same specification as an existing product. There may be difficulties in finding out what the specification of the existing product is, for example; and I think there will inevitably be a timelag which may prove very difficult considering that this is only a transitional question. Therefore, I

521
really feel that it would have been better to limit the exemption in the way that the Amendment sets out. I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I support this Amendment. The very word "transitional" implies that this is a concession to cover a limited period between the time when the idea is promulgated and the Act becomes operative. There seems to me to be a genuine risk here that during that period new products, untried, unproven, and entirely without the safeguards which apply to medicines even now, and which will apply much more under the Bill in the future, could slip in. Therefore, it seems to me that the words my noble friend moved are advisable and perhaps even necessary. It was said in another place that there was no intention to open the door to any risk of this sort. We in the trade think the risk is here and ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: It is true that in the House of Commons my right honourable friend resisted a suggestion of this sort, for reasons which he explained then and which I need not go into now: they will be familiar to all noble Lords in this field. But since then he has had more arguments laid before him, and these arguments, together with another matter brought to his attention by the Committee on the Safety of Drugs, have underlined the potentially dangerous situation which could arise if a manufacturer were to launch a new product during this transitional period with the licence granted on the basis of his own claims that his product is of the same description as another which was already on the market. So my right honourable friend, the Minister of Health, has decided that it would be right to accept this Amendment in principle. There are certain drawbacks in the present wording, however, and if the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment I will propose at Report stage a form of words which I hope will meet his purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application for licence]:
7.23 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE: I beg to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) The appropriate Ministers may by order designate classes of persons to whom a general licence may be granted for the manufacture, sale or supply of medicinal products specified in the order."
As the Committee know, I have an interest in some of the subject matter of this Bill as the director of a pharmaceutical company, one which also operates a considerable chain of pharmacies. This Amendment is one that I have beer asked by the Pharmaceutical Society to put forward. Its purpose is to make a little more flexible the licensing power under the Bill and to increase the flexibility without in any way detracting from the final authority of the Minister.
The present position, without tie Bill, is that any pharmacy in the country can make up—I was about to say "manufacture", but that is perhaps an elaborate word for what they do—familiar remedies such as Gee's linctus, zinc ointment, glycerine and thymol or glycerine and rose-water. These are not proprietary patent medicines; they are medicaments for which there is a demand and which, until now, the chemist has been free to manufacture in lots of two, three, four or half a dozen, and put them on his counter for sale.
Under the Bill, the chemist who does this and who has done this—for I suppose this practice has been going on for a century or so—would be obliged to go through all the procedure in Clause 18(1). That is to say, an application to make, say, Gee's linctus, must be made to the licensing authority and it must be made in such a form and manner as may be prescribed. There are probably 15,000 chemist's shops in this country and all are accustomed to making up these preparations. It would be an intolerable burden on the licensing authority if they were obliged to go through all this process for each one of the hundreds, perhaps, of pharmacists who might have to make them up. It may be that, apart from pharmacists there are others in a similar position who now make up simple preparations of one kind of another without doing any harm to anyone. They too would have to go through this elaborate

523
procedure. If the Minister can accept this Amendment they, as well as the pharmacists for whom I have spoken, would be covered. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. The Minister of Health agrees that there may be an advantage in arranging for licences to be available, as it were, ready-made for small-scale manufactured pharmacies of a limited range such as the noble Lord has outlined. I do not know if this meets the noble Lord's point. Rather than give a blanket exemption, which, anyway, one would have to define, it would be a better arrangement administratively to have these ready-made licences for small-scale manufacture which would be issued more or less on demand to persons of the right qualification, such as pharmacists. If this were so, these arrangements could be introduced without amending the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord and the Committee that, subject to the advice of the Medicines Commission, the Minister intends to work out this sort of arrangement as and when the licence scheme comes into force. If that covers the noble Lord's point, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
LORD COLERAINE: I am grateful to the Minister; I think it covers the point; but I am not absolutely clear. Do I take it that this would be a licence not for the product but for the manufacturer—for the chemist?
LORD KENNET: Those persons in general who want to manufacture something have to get a special licence for that something. That something must be defined in how it is composed and in what it is hoped to do. Persons like pharmacists who are qualified to manufacture simple things should be able to go along and ask for a licence to manufacture familiar, traditional, products. Such licences would be given more or less on demand, without further examination, provided that the Medicines Commission agrees (when it comes into existence) that this should be done. I can inform the Committee that it can be done under the Bill without the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his
524
Amendment—I am not without sympathy for the withdrawal—I should like to inject this thought. It may not be a simple, familiar product; it may be an entirely new one—simple perhaps, but new, and not familiar. A good many of the medicines which are now familiar were first started by a little chemist who sold to his neighbours in the village or town where he lived, and who then built up a local business and eventually became a manufacturer of considerable products with a great deal of value. I hope the Minister of Health will say, when he takes the advice of the Commission, that he will take account of this and will not stifle the initiative of the little man who may invent a new simple product—let us say a new cold cream—which somebody may find very useful.
LORD COLERAINE: In the light of what the Minister has said, and in spite of the argument of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Factors relevant to determination of application for licence]:
On Question. Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I should like to know whether the licensing authority is empowered in any way to inquire into the cost of research into a particular product. It seems to me that this is obviously something which would interest the general public just as much as the cost of promoting and publicising the product. I am not suggesting that the authority should have this power; I am trying to find out whether they in fact have it. Nor am I suggesting that the efficacy of a product bears any relation to the cost of the research.
LORD KENNET: Under this clause the authority inquires only into the safety, efficacy and quality, and not into the cost.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Special provisions as to effect of manufacturer's licence]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("or field trial certificates") and Insert ("trials and medicinal tests on animals")
This is one of the Amendments we discussed with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Scope of licence of right in different cases]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 25, leave out "section 99" and insert "sections (Appeal) and 99".
This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 44 and 82 hang together, and with permission I should like to speak to the three of them together. They cover an important point raised on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who, I am sorry to say, is unable to be present to-day. Briefly, the point is that there should be available to persons who are aggrieved by the refusal of the licensing authority to grant or renew a licence, or because a licence has been revoked or suspended, a right of appeal to an independent tribunal presided over by a judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
I am sure that the licensing authority will be guided by the advice of its expert committees, because that is why they were set up. It is also probable that the individual members of the Medicines Commission may be drawn from the same sort of professional ranks as the experts who advise them and whose advice they will have to take into account. These will be dedicated, levelheaded and unbiased men who will do their duty to the best of their ability, but there may be no one among them who is professionally trained in the techniques of weighing and assessing expert evidence. I think this is a role for a legally qualified person. It is also true that the successive stages through which an application for a licence will have to pass will constitute a valuable safe-
526
guard for any applicant. Nevertheless, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, pointed out, these stages will be conducted behind closed doors and among experts who are involved professionally in the matter.
I have heard it suggested that the Parliamentary Commissioner might be called in to deal with any question of injustice, but in addition to that being a rather cumbersome procedure involving Members of Parliament, I do not believe that it is quite what the Parliamentary Commissioner's job was intended to be. In my view, what is needed is the tight of appeal to an independent legally qualified tribunal. It is a right which I feel would seldom be used, but I think it should be in this Bill as it is in many other Statutes. It would in no way interfere with the smooth operation of the Act.
No doubt I shall be told—and I am perfectly prepared to admit the fact—that my Amendments are defective in some way. But even if they are, I suggest that without some sort of provision on the lines I have suggested the Bill would be even more defective. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will consider this suggestion sympathetically. I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I should like to support this Amendment. If a person who applies for a licence is turned down or another person has his licence revoked, they are bound to feel that the Minister has been judge and advocate in his own case, because the Minister is the licensing authority. The Minister appoints the Commission; the Commission appoints the expert committees, and one of the gentlemen appointed to these bodies will be the chairman and there will be a committee advising the Minister. It is upon that advice that the Minister will have turned down the application, and the applicant is bound to feel that the Minister has been judge and advocate in his own case. On a general principle of law, quite apart from the rights of the individual whose application has been turned down, I feel it is a good thing that we should try to make sure that the operator or manufacturer—the citizen, whoever he may be — has some right of appeal against arbitrary acts of Ministers.

527
Earlier in this Bill it was shown that the Minister has very great powers which may be extended at his will. If he does not like the advice of the Commission he can change the composition of the Commission at his will; he can increase or decrease its numbers. All these reasons make me think that justice would be done and, above all, would be seen to be done, were there this modest and simple method of appeal.
LORD ROWLEY: I have a measure of sympathy with the noble Marquess who moved this Amendment, but I think its acceptance would put a difficult qualification on the powers granted to the Minister. It is true that in some Acts of Parliament provision has been made for a right of appeal, but on looking at this clause I doubt whether it is necessary to go to the trouble of appointing a tribunal to hear appeals from an act of the Minister. The Minister has to assess the pros and cons of arguments put to him by experts, and it may be that some power of assessment is requisite. Although I should not be prepared to go so far as the Amendment proposes, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can satisfy the Committee that the Minister would have a legal mind at his service, someone trained to assess the arguments that are put for and against the granting of a licence or whatever it might be. Without going so far as to say that I would support the Amendment, I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would satisfy me that there is no case for a tribunal, because in difficult cases the Minister would have legal advice at his behest.
LORD KENNET: I can satisfy my noble friend on that point at once. Of course the Minister would do so. In every case legal advice is available and in cases which look like difficult ones he would rely heavily on this advice. The procedure in the Bill, without a tribunal but with various references to specialised committees and a Commission at different stages, has been carefully considered and constructed with the special field of medicines in view. It has been discussed with the Council on Tribunals, who are content with it. Although the Government admit that it
528
is unusual, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.
Let us go through what happens. The decision of the licensing authority is the final stage, but only after the applicant or licence holder has had two, or even three opportunities of making oral or written representations about the matters on which he is most likely to disagree with the final decision—that is to say, matters involving considerations of safety, efficacy or quality—first to the expert committee concerned, and then to the Medicines Commission as regards what he regards as adverse advice from the committee; and after that, if the licensing authority proposes to disagree with the advice of the committee or commission, he can be heard by a person appointed or have further representations considered by the licensing authority on this aspect. Where the grounds for proposed refusal are not connected with safety and so on, there is also a right to make written or oral representations. Not until then is the formal decision given.
If at the end of this he is disposed to do so, he would not find it difficult, if he did not wish to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, to have the matter raised in Parliament, to which the licensing authority is responsible. There is also the possibility that he would get the Parliamentary Commissioner to look into it. Although the noble Lord said that that was cumbrous, it: would not be half so cumbrous as appeal to a tribunal on top of what I have been describing.
Clause 99 of the Bill gives a right of appeal to the High Court on the ground that the licensing authority's act was ultra vires or that the requirements of the Bill relating to the matters in question had not been complied with. These cover the non-specialised and procedural aspects of such cases, but not the merits, which are scientific matters. The merits are concerned with judgments about safety and efficacy of the product, which if they are embodied in a decision regarded by the promoter of the product as "unfavourable" could, of course, affect the prospects of marketing the product very considerably.
The licensing authority is given the last word, because it is the Government's view that in matters of drug safety and

529
efficacy the decision ought legally to be by a Minister answerable to Parliament. The whole purpose of the licensing scheme is to ensure that the medicinal products marketed for use by practitioners, pharmacists and the public have been scrutinised by persons of authority and standing in their special fields, independent of the promoters and in whom the industry, the professions and the public have confidence.
The matter at issue would be the relative importance, in relation to the proposed use of the product, of safety, efficacy and quality as indicated by the data available at the time of examination. These are inherently difficult considerations to measure where there is no objective test and the decision would hinge on the weight to be attached to subjective professional opinions as to how certain facts should be interpreted in reaching a relative measurement of these three factors. This is a field regarded by professional opinion as a difficult one, even for experts. It is difficult to see how these can be appropriately decided by means of a judicial or quasi-judicial contest in which the appellant submits all the technical evidence afresh and calls his expert witnesses, and on the other side the Ministers as respondents call members of the expert committee or the Commission as witnesses, each side being no doubt expected to defend its own judgment with advocacy and rebut the other's judgment. The legal chairman and two professional or technical assessors, as proposed by the noble Marquess's new clause, trying to arrive at the best solution between the conflicting testimonies would have a most difficult task. Moreover, if the Ministers have done their duty in finding the best people to serve on the expert committee and the Commission, it is improbable that the assessors would be better qualified to advise the legal chairman on the merits of the opposing testimonies than the expert committee who have advised the licensing authority in the first place.
My noble friend thinks it right that the last word on the specialist scientific matters should rest with the Commission or the expert committee, as the case may be. It seems to be a field of such technical difficulty that the added wisdom which could be brought to it by a legal chairman, after it has been threshed out lower
530
down by the top people in the professions concerned, is very doubtful, and much as I sympathise with giving everybody a go, it seems to the Government that the provision in the Bill is adequate.
7.48 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I feel that what the Minister has said has some force, in that I believe that in the last resort, in every case possible, the Minister should be responsible to Parliament. I have always fought for that. But I am not entirely satisfied that the noble Lord has made a case for the situation up to that point. He has said that there are three safeguards. First of all, there is appeal to the High Court on a point of law. It is highly unlikely that any of the matters referred to in this new clause would constitute a point of law, because they are points on medicine and science. So that is out. Then he said that there was the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is out, too, because he is not concerned with such things as the safety of drugs but with whether civil servants have been obstructive or have done something to the detriment of the citizens.
So we come back to the third safeguard, Parliament. But Parliament, after all, is not a suitable body for discussing the matters referred to in this new clause. How could we in this House, and still less those in another place, argue technical points about the efficacy of some drug of which none of us have ever heard before and probably cannot pronounce anyway? That is the situation. You have to look at this from a practical point of view. We want to do something to meet the very real point of the noble Marquess, that is that people should feel that there is some sort of appellate situation, and that they can go to appeal. One must realise that in many cases the person or the company concerned has spent a great deal of time, and a great deal of money, in producing this new product—a vast amount of money. Their prestige, to some extent, and their good will would be involved. There is the standing of their research scientists, especially. It is once more a question not only that justice must be done, but that it must be seen to be done by everybody, not only by the public, but by those in de industry itself.
I do not think in this case justice will be seen to be done, because whatever

531
the Minister likes to say, the chap whose product has been turned down will have the feeling that it was turned down by the people who themselves were appointed by the Minister. That is true enough, because they were appointed by the Minister, and they are not independent people in the sense of an independent tribunal, they are there for a period of years; they will get into the way of dealing with matters for the Ministry, and for industry. In other words, they will become part of the Establishment. They will be Establishment figures, and will be regarded by the industry, especially by that part of the industry which has been turned down, as being part of, as it were, the Ministry's field of influence and responsibility, and that will be the case. No doubt people will say, "Oh well, we know so-and-so, he is looking for a knighthood". Somebody else is looking for an O.B.E.; somebody else is hoping for a job at a university. All these things may be said; no doubt they will be entirely wrongly said, there will not be an ounce of truth in them, but they will be said.
I think it would be better if one could spatchcock the two, and I should like to make a suggestion which might meet the noble Marquess and the Minister—interpose this appellate tribunal before the Minister's final say. In other words, that there shall be an appeal from the particular body which is dealing with the licences or certificates, as the case may be, and then if the applicant is dissatisfied with the result of his application for a licence, he can appeal to an independent tribunal. This can be either set up in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Marquess or in some other way. The point is they will be independent, looking at it from a broader point of view. They will not be concerned with day-to-day applications for licences; they will be specifically and especially brought into being for this particular purpose. Then the matter will go to the Minister, and he will be answerable to Parliament.
I should have thought—and I only make this suggestion as it has occurred to me while sitting here listening to the debate—that that would meet really everybody's just feelings in this matter, and would be a very practical way of that it has a right of appeal and at the
532
dealing with it; enabling industry to feel same time the Minister would have, in effect, subject to Parliament, the final word.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have not got the fertility of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to think of an answer to this. I am not sure that I agree with him that it is so difficult to get matters before the High Court on points of law in these sort of cases, as he may perhaps have thought. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if he can tell me this. I heard him say he had discussed the existing appeal procedure in the Bill with the Council on Tribunals. I think that is standard practice now with any new tribunal of this sort that is going to be set up. Could he tell me whether the hearing will be subject to the Council on Tribunals, and whether it is necessary to make an Order, if that is going to be done, and also whether a member of the Council on Tribunals, either in England or Scotland, will be able to go and listen to these hearings if they want to, in the way that they very often do? I do not know whether he has the answer to those points now; perhaps he would at some stage be able to tell me.
LORD KENNET: If the noble Lord agrees, I would like to write to him about the relation between the Committees and the Commission, and their hearings with the Council on Tribunals. I would just like to make one point. Nobody who has spoken in favour of this proposal has drawn any analogy with any existing procedure.
There is no appeal on merits from a decision of the Planning Ministers. There is an appeal on grounds of law to the High Court, but there is no appeal on merits from a decision of the Minister of Education about the local education authorities' plans. There is no appeal on merits from a decision of the President of the Board of Trade on an industrial development certificate, or an office development permit. Very often there is not even a hearing, and on none of these is there an appeal to a special tribunal on merits. I think we should be introducing a very odd animal indeed if we did so in the context of this Bill. In all of them there is an appeal on grounds of law, as there is in this Bill, and in all of them there is provision for hearings and representations on merits to

533
the Minister or persons appointed by him, and in the relevant ones there is provision for going to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and this Bill will be subject to him, too.
LORD OGMORE: I do not understand that reply at all. Does the noble Lord mean that because it has never been done before we should do it now? It seems to me to be a very odd sort of theory to put up. It is a completely new animal; we have not had one like this before, and, therefore, there should be completely new provisions. There is nothing like it in planning law affecting town planning. and things like that, drains and so on, and you are dealing here with a completely new product of a highly scientific nature, on which a great deal of time and money has been spent. As he said, it could be very much an expert examination, and in these circumstances I should have thought the suggestion I put up—I do not ask for it to be decided now—could be put to the responsible Minister, if the noble Marquess agrees. I would like to see whether the Minister would consider it, and at a later stage the noble Lord could let us know the result.
I do not think the noble Lord can reject something off the cuff because it has never been done before. It is a most extraordinary theory for a Left-Wing Government to put up! I should have thought the thing they ought to say is, "As it has never been done before, we will look at it". The Left-Wing Government's sole objection to a new idea, that it has never been done before, is, to my mind, quite extraordinary, and it only goes to show that the Labour Government are getting more and more conservative as they carry on!
LORD KENNET: If I might interrupt for one moment, the noble Lord's reasoning is really most engaging. If I said that I thought it was a good idea to do this, and the only reason against it was that it had never been done before, I should have been caught on the wrong foot. I did speak for about 15 minutes giving all the reasons why I thought it would be a bad plan in itself to do it; the fact that it has never been done before is simply an addition to all those reasons.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particu-
534
larly to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for his suggestions. I hope, the Minister may consider these seriously, and discuss them with his right honourable friend. I should like to thank him, too, for his very full and frank reply to my original speech. He has gone some way to convincing me that this Amendment is not quite so necessary as I thought it was. He has not gone the whole way. I should like if I may, to read more carefully what he said. There was a great deal of information and fact in his speech, and as I have been fortunate enough to have one Amendment accepted, I feel it would be very churlish of me to press on with this one. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
8.0 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Clinical trials
"—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall, in the course of a business carried on by him,—

(a) sell or supply any medicinal product for the purposes of a clinical trial, or

(b) procure the sale or supply of any medicinal product for the purpose; of a clinical trial, or

(c) procure the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of a clinical trial,

unless one or other of the conditions specified in the next following subsection is fulfilled.
(2) Those conditions, in relation to a person doing any of the things specified in he preceding subsection, are—

(a) that he is the holder of a product licence which authorises the clinical trial in question, or does it to the order of the holder of such a licence, and (in either case) he does it in accordance with that licence;

(b) that a certificate for the purposes of this section (in this Act referred t) as a 'clinical trial certificate') has been issued certifying that, subject to the provisions of the certificate, the licensing authority have consented to the clinical trial in question and that certificate is for the time being in force and the trial is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall import any medicinal

535
product for the purposes of a clinical trial unless either—

(a) he is the holder of a product licence which authorises that clinical trial or imports the product to the order of the holder of such a licence, and (in either case) he imports it in accordance with that licence, or

(b) a clinical trial certificate has been issued certifying as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section and that certificate is for the time being in force and the trial is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.

(4) The restrictions imposed by the preceding provisions of this section do not apply to a doctor or dentist in respect of his

(a) selling or supplying, or procuring the sale or supply of, a medicinal product for the purposes of a clinical trial, where either he is the doctor or dentist by whom, or under whose direction, the trial is to be carried out or he acts at the request of that doctor or dentist, or

(b) procuring the manufacture or assembly of, or importing, a medicinal product for the purposes of a clinical trial, where the product is specially prepared to his order, or specially imported by him, for the purposes of that trial and either he is the doctor or dentist by whom, or under whose directions, the trial is to be carried out or he acts at the request of that doctor or dentist.

(5) The restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of this section do not apply to anything which is done in a registered pharmacy, a hospital or a health centre and is done there by or under the supervision of a pharmacist in accordance with a prescription given by a doctor or dentist; and those restrictions do not apply to anything done by or under the supervision of a pharmacist which consists of procuring the preparation or dispensing of a medicinal product in accordance with a prescription given by a doctor or dentist, or of procuring the assembly of a medicinal product.
(6) The restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of this section also do not apply to anything done in relation to a medicinal product where—

(a) it is done by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product, where he has manufactured or assembled it to the order of a doctor or dentist who has stated that it is required for administration to a patient of his or is required, at the request of another doctor or dentist, for administration to a patient of that other doctor or dentist, or

(b) it is done by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product to the order of a pharmacist in accordance with a prescription given by a practitioner, or

(c) consists of selling the product by way of wholesale dealing where it has been
536
manufactured or assembled in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(7) For the purposes of this section a product licence shall be taken to be a licence which authorises a particular clinical trial if—

(a) the trial is to be a trial of medicinal products of a description to which the licence relates, and

(b) the uses of medicinal products of that description which are referred to in the licence are such as to include their use for the purposes of that trial.

(8) A clinical trial certificate may certify as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section without specifying the doctor or dentist by whom or under whose direction, or the patient or patients on whom, the trial is to be carried out.
(9) In this Act 'clinical trial' means the administration of a medicinal product of a particular description by, or under the direction of, a doctor or dentist to one or more of his patients, where there is evidence that medicinal products of that description have effects which may he beneficial to the patient or patients in question and the product is administered for the purpose of ascertaining whether, or to what extent, it has those or any other effects, whether beneficial or harmful."
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Medicinal tests on animals
".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall, in the course of a business carried on by him,—

(a) sell or supply any medicinal product for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals, or

(b) procure the sale or supply of any medicinal product for the purposes of such a test, or

(c) procure the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of such a test,

unless one or other of the conditions specified in the next following subsection is fulfilled.
(2) Those conditions, in relation to a person doing any of the things specified in the preceding subsection, are—

(a) that he is the holder of a product licence which authorises the test in question, or he does it to the order of the holder of such a licence, and (in either case) he does it in accordance with that licence;

(b) that a certificate for the purposes of this section (in this Act referred to as an 'animal test certificate ') has been issued certifying that, subject to the provisions of the certificate, the licensing authority have consented to the test in question and that certificate is for the time being in force and the test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall import any medicinal

537
product for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals unless either—

(a) he holder of a product licence which authorises that test, or imports the product to the order of the holder of such a licence, and tin either case) he imports it in accordance with that licence, or

(b) an animal test certificate has been issued certifying as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section and that certificate is for the time being in force and the test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall, in the course of a business carried on by him, administer any substance or article to an animal by way of a medicinal test on animals, or procure any substance or article to be so administered, unless either—

(a) in the case of a medicinal product, there is in force a product licence (whether held by him or by another person) which authorises that test and the product is administered in accordance with that licence or in accordance with any instructions required by the licence to be communicated to the person carrying out the test, or

(b) whether the substance or article is a medicinal product or not, an animal test certificate has been issued certifying as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section and that certificate is for the time being in force and the substance or article is administered in accordance with that certificate.

(5) For the purposes of this section a product licence shall be taken to be a licence which authorises a particular medicinal test on animals if—

(a) the substance or article to be administered in the test is a medicinal product of a description to which the licence relates, and

(b) the uses of medicinal products of that description which are referred to in the licence are such as to include their use for the purposes of that test.

(6) In this Act 'medicinal test on animals' means any of the following, that is to say—

(a) the administration of a medicinal product of a particular description to one or more animals, where there is evidence that medicinal products of that description have effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, that animal or those animals, and the product is administered for the purpose of ascertaining whether, or to what extent, it has those or any other effects, whether advantageous or otherwise;

(b) the administration of a medicinal product to one or more animals in circumstances where there is no such evidence as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and the product is administered for the purpose of ascertaining whether, or to what extent, it has any effects relevant to a medicinal purpose;

538

(c) the administration of any substance or article, other than a medicinal product, to one or more animals for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has any effects relevant to a medicinal purpose, whether there is evidence that it has effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, that animal or those animals or not."

After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:
Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals
".—(1) The restrictions imposed by subsections (1) and (4) of section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act do not apply to anything done in relation to a substance or article for the purposes or by way of a medicinal test on animals if—

(a) the test is, or is to be, carried out in circumstances where there is no evidence that the substance or article has effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, the animal or animals to which it is, or is to be, administered, and

(b) the arrangements for the test ate such as to secure that no animal to which the substance or article is administered in the course of the test, and no carcase or part of the carcase or produce of any such animal, will be sold or supplied for human consumption.

(2) Subject to the next following subsection, the restrictions imposed by subsections (1) and (4) of that section do not apply to a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner in respect of his—

(a) selling or supplying, or procuring the sale or supply of, a medicinal product for the purpose of its being administered to one or more animals which are under his care, or

(b) procuring the manufacture or assembly of a medicinal product where the product is specially prepared to his order for the purpose of its being administered to one or more such animals, or

(c) administering a substance or article to an animal which is under his care, or procuring a substance or article to be so administered.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect so as to exempt from the restrictions in question anything done—

(a) in relation to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, or

(b) in relation to any other vaccine, unless the vaccine is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived,

(c) in relation to plasma or a serum, unless the plasma or serum is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived.

(4) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of that section do not apply to anything which is done in a registered pharmacy and is done

539
thereby or under the supervision of a pharmacist and consists of dispensing a medicinal product in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practioner, and those restrictionse do not apply to anything done by or under the supervision of a pharmacist which consists of procuring the preparation or dispensing of a medicinal product in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner or of procuring the assembly of a medicinal product.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of this section, the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of that section also do not apply to anything done in relation to a medicinal product where—

(a) it is done by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product to the order of a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner who has stated that it is required for administration to an animal or herd which is under his care, or is required, at the request of another veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner, for administration to an animal or herd which is under the care of that other veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner, or

(b) it is done by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product to the order of a pharmacist in accordance with a prescription given by a practitioner, or

(c) it consists of selling the product by way of wholesale dealing where it is has been manufactured or assembled in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(6) The exemptions conferred by subsections (4) and (5) of this section do not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, and do not apply to any other vaccine or any plasma or serum prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd unless—

(a) in the case of a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived, or

(b in the case of plasma or a serum, it has been specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived."

After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Restrictions as to animals on which medicinal tests have been carried out
" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall in the course of a business carried on by him sell or supply for human consumption an animal to which in the course of that business a substance or article has been administered by way of a test to which this section applies, or the carcase or any part of the carcase or any produce of such an animal, unless—

(a) at the time when the substance or article was so administered there was in force
540
an animal test certificate issued in respect of that test, and

(b) all the provisions of that certificate relating to the carrying out of the test and the disposal of the animal or its carcase or produce are, and have at all material times been, complied with.

(2) This section applies to any medicinal test on animals which is carried out in the course of the business of the person who has manufactured the substance or article administered in the test, or is carried out on his behalf in the course of the business of a laboratory or research establishment carried on by another person, and (in either case) is so carried out on one or more animals kept in the course of the business of the person carrying out the test."
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provisions as to clinical tests and medicinal tests on animals
" .—(1) The restrictions imposed by section 7 of this Act do not apply to anything done in accordance with a clinical trial certificate or an animal test certificate.
(2)The restrictions imposed by section 8(2) of this Act—

(a)do not apply to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for the sole purpose of its being administered by way of a clinical trial, or of its being sold, supplied or exported for the sole purpose of being so administered, and

(b) do not apply to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for the sole purpose of its being administered by way of a medicinal test on animals, or of its being sold, supplied or exported for the sole purpose of its being so administered, unless the product falls within a class of medicinal products specified in an order made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Agriculture Ministers.

(3) No class of medicinal products shall be specified in an order for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section unless it appears to the Agriculture Ministers to be requisite to do so for securing that the exemption conferred by that paragraph does not apply to medicinal products consisting wholly or partly of substances the purity or potency of which cannot, in their opinion, be adequately tested by chemical means.
(4) The restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of section (Clinical trials) of this Act do not apply to anything done exclusively for the purpose of a clinical trial which is to be carried out wholly outside the United Kingdom; and the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act do not apply to anything done in relation to a medicinal product for the purposes of a test which is to be carried out wholly outside the United Kingdom, unless the product falls within a class specified in an order made for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) of this section.
(5) Where the holder of a manufacturer's licence manufactures or assembles any medicinal product for sale or supply for the

541
purposes of a clinical trial or a medicinal test on animals, and—

(a) a clinical trial certificate or animal test certificate has been issued and is for the time being in force in respect of that trial or test, and the trial or test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate, and

(b) the product is so manufactured or assembled as to comply with any requirements of the certificate relating to the products to be administered in the trial or test,

then, if the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section 23 of this Act are not fulfilled in relation to the product, that section shall have effect in relation to it as if those conditions were fulfilled.
(6) Without prejudice to subsection (5) of this section, section 23(1) of this Act shall not have effect in relation to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals, where the product falls within a class specified in an order made for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) of this section.
(7) For the purposes of sections (Clinical trials) and (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act a person shall not be treated as doing anything, or procuring anything to be done, for the purposes of a clinical trial or of a medicinal test on animals if—

(a) the trial or test is, or is to be, carried out under arrangements to which he is not a party, and

(b) he has not been informed of those arrangements.

(8) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide—

(a) that subsection (1) or subsection (3) of section (Clinical trials) of this Act shall have effect subject to such exemptions (other than those for the time being having effect by virtue of subsections (4) to (6) of that section and subsection (4) of this section) as may be specified in the order;

(b) that section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act shall have effect subject to such exemptions (other than those for the time being having effect by virtue of section (Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals) of this Act and subsection (4) of this section) as may be so specified.

(9) Any exemption conferred by an order under subsection (8) of this section may be conferred subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in the order.
(10) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide that any of the provisions of subsections (4) to (6) of section (Clinical trials) of this Act, or any of the provisions of section (Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals) of this Act, or subsection (4) of this section, shall cease to have effect, or shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the order.
(11) No order shall be made under subsection (10) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
These five new clauses deal with Clinical trials, Medicinal tests on animals, Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals, Restrictions as to animals on which medicinal tests have been carried out and Supplementary provisions as to clinical trials and medicinal tests on animals. They replace the present Clause 31 and have been drafted in the light of the criticisms, comments and suggestions made in Committee stage in another place. These were the consequential Amendments referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennet at an earlier stage of our discussion. By leave of the Committee, I will move the Amendments en bloc. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Provisions as to dealing with medicinal products for purposes of clinical trial or field trial]:
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall be agreed to?
LORD KENNET: I beg to move that Clause 31 be deleted.
On Question, Clause 31 disagreed to.
Clause 32 [Application for, and issue of, certificate]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
Page 28, line 18, leave out ("a field trial") and insert ("an animal test").
Page 28, line 26, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("medicinal test on animals")
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Amendments Nos. 15 to 43, inclusive, are all consequential to the new clauses after Clause 30 to which the Committee have just agreed. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I propose to move them en bloc, but clause by clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Transitional provisions as to clinical and field trials]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 27:
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("31") and insert ("(Clinical trials), (Medicinal tests on

543
animals), (Restrictions as to animals on which medicinal tests have been carried out)")
Page 28, line 35, leave out ("section 31") and insert ("sections (Clinical trials) and (Medicinal tests on animals")
Page 28, line 36, at end insert ("and the restrictions imposed by section (Restrictions as to animals on which medicinal tests have been carried out) of this Act do not apply where the substance or article in question was administered before that day")
Page 28, line 38, after ("day") insert ("(a)")
Page 28, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("by way of a clinial trial, or
(b) substances or articles have been administered by way of a medicinal test on animals")
Page 28, line 41, leave out ("31") and insert ("(Clinical trials) or section (Medicinal tests on animals)")
Page 28, line 42, after ("description") insert ("or (as the case may be) in relation to similar substances or articles")
Page 29, line 5, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("an animal test")
Page 29, line 9, leave out from ("administered") to ("in") in line 10 and insert ("by way of a clinical trial or (as the case may be) substances or articles so specified were administered by way of a medicinal test on animals")
Page 29, line 17, leave out from ("a") to ("such") in line 18 and insert ("certificate")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Duration and renewal of certificate]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:
Page 29, line 42, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 30, line 19, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 30, line 28, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 30, line 32, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Suspension, revocation or variation of certificate]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32 to 41:
Page 31, line 9, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 31, line 19, leave out from ("contravened") to end of line 22
Page 31, line 23, leave out ("such description") and insert ("description to which the certificate relates")
Page 31, line 25, leave out ("in pursuance of the certificate") and insert ("for the purposes of the clinical trial or medicinal test on animals to which it relates")
Page 31, leave out line 32 and insert ("any substances or articles to which the certificate relates")
Page 31, line 33, leave out from ("that") to ("which") in line 34 and insert ("any such substances or articles can no longer be regarded as substances or articles")
Page 31, line 36, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("medicinal test on animals")
Page 31, line 37, leave out ("medicinal products of any such description") and insert ("any such substances or articles")
line 42, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 32, line 4, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [General provisions relating to medicated animal feeding stuffs]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 32, line 15, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provision as to incorporation of substances and articles in animal feeding stuffs
" .—(1) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person incorporates a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, in any animal feeding stuff with a view to—

(a) feeding it, with the substance or article incorporated in it, to one or more animals, or

(b) selling, supplying or exporting it with the substance or article incorporated in it,

and the substance or article is so incorporated by him for a medicinal purpose, sections 36(3) and 37 of this Act shall have effect in relation to the incorporation of that substance or article as if it were a medicinal product
(2) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person proposes—

(a) to sell or supply a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, to persons who for a medicinal purpose may require to incorporate it in animal feeding stuffs to be fed to one or more animals, or

(b) to manufacture a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, for sale or supply as mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

he may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if it were a medicinal product and he were proposing to sell or supply it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may he renewed, suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.
(3) Where a person proposes to sell, supply or manufacture a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, any person who proposes, by purchase or otherwise, to obtain from him a supply of the substance or article with a view to incorporating it for a medicinal purpose in any animal feeding stuff may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if it were a medicinal product and he were proposing to procure the sale or supply, or the manufacture for sale or supply, of that product in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may be renewed, suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.
(4) On the grant, renewal or variation (whether by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section or otherwise) of a product licence, in so far as it relates to any substance or article which is to be incorporated in animal feeding stuffs, the licence may (without prejudice to the generality of section 20(1) of this Act) include provisions as to the manner in which the substance or article in question may be so incorporated, whether by the holder of the licence or by any other person to whom those provisions of the licence have been communicated.
(5) Without prejudice to the operation of section 117(6) of this Act, a substance manufactured, sold, supplied or exported as an animal feeding stuff shall not be taken to be a medicinal product for the purposes of this Act by reason only that any of the preceding provisions of this section has effect in relation to a substance or article incorporated in it.
(6) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide that any of the provisions of section 36 of this Act or of subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall cease to have effect, or shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the order.
(7) No order shall be made under subsection (6) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
This new clause, which hangs together with consequential Amendments to Clauses 39, 40, 96 and 117, has been introduced in the light of the discussions and comments made during the Committee stage in another place, and as a result of further consideration by my right honourable friend. It was generally accepted during those discussions that any substance or article added to an animal feedingstuff for medicinal purposes should be the subject of appropriate control. The object of this clause is to treat any substance or article as a medicinal product for the purposes of Clause 36(3) and Clause 37 if, although it is not a medicinal product, it is incorporated in an animal feedingstuff for medicinal purposes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Extension of section 7 to certain special circumstances
".—(1) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person sells or exports a substance or article for use wholly or mainly in either or both of the ways specified in section 117(1) of this Act, and the substance or article, not having been—

(a) manufactured or imported for such use, or

(b) previously sold or supplied for such use,

does not constitute a medicinal product before that person so sells or exports it, then (subject to subsection (2) of this section) subsection (2) of section 7 of this Act, if apart from this subsection it would not so have effect, shall have effect in relation to the sale or exportation of the substance or article as if he were selling or exporting it is circumstances to which that subsection applies.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not have effect in relation to a person selling a substance or article by retail in the course of a business carried on by him unless in the course of that business the substance or article has been assembled for the purpose of being sold by him.
(3) In any reference in this Part of this Act to the provisions of, or the restrictions imposed by, section 7 of this Act, the reference to that section shall be construed as including a reference to subsection (2) of that section as extended by the preceding subsections.
(4) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person proposes to sell or export a substance or article for use as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, where the substance or article will not constitute a medicinal product before he so sells or exports it and he will not be selling or exporting it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies, he may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if he were proposing to sell or export it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may be renewed, suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.
(5) In subsection (2) of this section the reference to assembling a substance or article in the course of a business carried on by a person is a reference to doing in the course of that business anything which (in accordance with section 118(1) of this Act) would constitute assembling it if it had been a medicinal product when sold or supplied to him."
This is another new clause which has been tabled as a result of further consideration. The purpose of the new clause is to provide that a product licence should be held to enable the person concerned to apply for a product licence under subsection (4) of the new clause. Subsection (2) puts the retailer in the same position as the wholesaler when he is consciously setting up to sell the substance as an additional product.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Provision of information to licensing authority]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
Page 33, line 38, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test").
Page 34, line 10, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test").
Amendments Nos. 47 to 52 inclusive are consequential to the new clauses put in after Clause 30, and again for the convenience of the Committee I will move them en bloc clause by clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Offences tinder Part II]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 49 to 52.
Page 35, line 3, leave out ("31") and insert ("(Clinical trials), section (Medicinal
548
tests on animals), section (Restrictions as to animals on which medicinal tests have been carried out)").
Page 35, line 8, leave out ("31") and insert ("(Clinical trials), section (Medicinal tests on animals)").
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test").
Page 35, line 30, leave out ("a field trial") and insert ("an animal test").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
Page 35, line 30, leave out ("medicinal product of a description") and insert ("substance or article").
Page 35, line 35, leave out from ("of") to end of line 36 and insert ("that substance or article in animal feeding stuffs, or any instructions required by the licence to be communicated by him to persons to whom the substance or article is sold or supplied for that purpose").
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are consequential to the new clause which the Committee has just accepted after Clause 37 dealing with supplementary provisions as to the incorporation of substances and articles in animal feeding stuffs. I beg to move the two Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: We now come to a group of Amendments which hang together, Amendments Nos. 55 to 61. I beg to move Amendment No. 55.
Page 35, line 38, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Special defences under section 39]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 56 to 61 inclusive.
Page 36, line 20, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test").
Page 36, line 21, leave out from ("any") to ("been") in line 23 and insert ("substance or article which has been manufactured (or, in the case of a medicinal product, manufactured or assembled) to his order by another person and has").
Page 36, line 25, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").
Page 36, line 36, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 36, line 43, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
8.10 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64:
Page 37, line 8, leave out from ("36") to ("it") in line 9
Page 37, line 12, leave out from ("that") to ("certificate") in line 13 and insert ("another person was the holder of such a licence or")
Page 37, line 14, leave out ("act in question was done") and insert ("substance or article to which the contravention relates was incorporated in the animal feeding stuff")
Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 hang together. The purpose of these Amendments is to deal with the situation where at present the special defence in subsection (3) of Clause 40 relating to a contravention of Clause 36 deals with a case where the person concerned is not a holder of a product licence or an animal test certificate, and the act constituting the contravention was done by the order of somebody else. These Amendments make the defence apply where the person concerned had reasonable grounds for believing that some other person held the licence and that the substance or article to which the contravention relates was incorporated in the animal feeding stuff in accordance with the licence or certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 65:
Page 37, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In the last preceding subsection any reference to section 36 of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to that section as extended by section (Supplementary provisions as to incorporation of substances and articles in animal feeding stuffs) of this Act.")
This Amendment is consequential on the new clause after Clause 37.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Standard provisions for licences or certificates]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 66 to 69:
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 38, line 6, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 38, line 17, leave out from ("of") to ("to") in line 18 and insert ("substances or articles")
Page 38, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("to") and insert ("substances or articles")
This is another group of Amendments which are consequential to the five new clauses after Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Postponement of restrictions in relation to exports]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 39, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("but subject to the next following section").
Amendment No. 70 is a paving Amendment for the new clause set out in Amendment No. 71 on the Marshalled List on special provisions in respect of exporting certain products. The purpose of this new clause is to exclude from the postponement provisions under Clause 42 the coming into operation of the licence and provisions of Part II in relation to a limited category of export products. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions in respect of experting certain products
".—(1) Nothing in subsection (1) of section 42 of this Act shall affect the operation of any of the provisions of sections 7 to 41 of this Act in relation to any medicinal product falling within a class specified in an order made under this section by the Health Ministers or the Agriculture Ministers.
(2) No class of medicinal products shall be specified in an order made by the Health Ministers or the Agriculture Ministers under this section unless it appears to the Ministers making the order to be requisite to do so for securing that any exemption confer-ed by section 42(1) of this Act does not apply to medicinal products consisting wholly or partly of substances the purity or potency of which cannot, in their opinion, be adequately tested by chemical means.
(3) Subsections (3) to (7) of section 42 of this Act shall not have effect in relation to medicinal products of any description falling within a class specified in an order under this section which is in force immediately before the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
(4) Subject to the next following subsection, section 7(2) of this Act shall not have effect

551
in relation to a person in respect of his exporting, or procuring the exportation of, medicinal products of any description falling within a class specified in an order under this section which is in force immediately before the first appointed day if, in the course of a business carried on by that person,—

(a) substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description (that is to say, quantities exceeding those required for distribution as samples) were exported or procured to be exported during the period of twenty-four months ending with the first appointed day, and

(b) during the whole of that period further substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description were available, or could within a reasonable time have been made available, to be so exported or procured to be exported if required.

(5) Sections 17 and 25 of this Act shall have effect in relation to subsection (4) of this section as they have effect in relation to subsections (2) to (5) of section 16 of this Act.
(6) Where a person is entitled to the grant of a licence of right by reason that subsection (4) of this section has effect in relation to him, he shall be entitled to the grant of a product licence; but, subject to the next following subsection, the licence shall be granted so as not to extend to medicinal products of any description other than those in respect of which the conditions specified in that subsection are proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the licensing authority to have been fulfilled, and shall be limited to exporting, or procuring the exportation of, medicinal products.
(7) Subsection (5) of section 26 of this Act (with the omission of paragraph (b) of that subsection) and subsection (6) of that section shall have effect in relation to the grant of a licence of right in accordance with subsection (6) of this section as those subsections have effect in relation to the grant of such a licence in accordance with subsection (1) of that section."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Sale or supply of medicinal products on general sale list]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I wanted to ask one question concerning this clause, and that is on the position of street traders. Am I right in thinking that subsection (2), which deals with the question of being able to close buildings to exclude the public, would debar street traders from selling goods that are on the General List? I rather feel that this may be the case, and, if it is, that it is perhaps
552
somewhat unfair. I have no doubt that these good people would be anxious to sell such things as aspirin and indigestion tablets, cough lozenges and things of that kind. There is also the question of whether toothpaste would be considered a medicinal product, in that it prevents disease and decay. I am not asking this question in a frivolous spirit, but I know there is some doubt about it, and I wondered whether the noble Lord could throw any light on it.
LORD KENNET: The general effect of this clause as it concerns street traders is to continue Section 12 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act 1941. That Act is quite specific in saying that a proprietary medicine must not be sold except from a shop, so the Bill now before us is continuing a ban which has been in force for more than a quarter of a century and which has had as its object to prevent the sale of medicines from sources which could not readily be controlled. And, of course, there is the point that it is easier for children to pick up things from a stall in the street than from a shop. The question whether or not a toothpaste is a medicine is something that will appear as the categories are drawn up under the advice of the Commission when it is in existence.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Exemptions for doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners]:
LORD COLERAINE: I beg to move Amendment No. 72:
Page 44, line 22, at beginning insert "as provided by order of the appropriate Ministers,".
This is another Amendment to which the Pharmaceutical Society attach some importance. It is not a very complicated one. Clause 48 provides for exemptions from the requirements that medicinal products should be sold only through pharmacies. The purpose of this Amendment is to empower the Minister to have oversight of the exemptions which are proposed in paragraph (b). At present, from a hospital or a health centre, any medicine requires a particular prescription for a particular patient. The Amendment does not insist that this condition

553
should be continued, but it asks that the Minister should have a general oversight over what is being done. At the moment, with the Bill as it stands, there is a wide gap between the conditions governing the sale and supply of medicines from pharmacies and the conditions in hospitals and health centres.
I notice that the Minister is moving an Amendment which seems to cover the point of my second Amendment on the Marshalled List, No. 74. I hope the fact that he has not included paragraphs (b) and (c) does not mean that he is going to reject this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I had supposed that the noble Lord would be agreeing that the Government Amendments on Clause 48 and on Clause 50, with the consequential one on Clause 116, would have come close enough to the effect of what he desired to achieve to make it possible for the Committee to adopt those Amendments and not his. If that is the case, I hope he will withdraw both Amendments 72 and 74. If, on the other hand, he feels that the Government Amendments do not sufficiently cover what he was seeking to do, I would ask him whether he would, all the same, withdraw them and allow me to enter into consultations with him between now and Report on those matters which he thinks are covered in his Amendment and are not covered in my Amendments later on.
LORD COLERAINE: I certainly agree that Amendment No. 74 is covered by the noble Lord's Amendments. I am not clear that Amendment 72 is. Does the noble Lord assure me that it is covered? If so, I would accept his assurance.
LORD KENNET: I should not like to assure the noble Lord of a fact which he might, on going into it later himself, not agree with. Whether or not it is sufficiently covered must be his decision, but I would suggest to him that if he would care to withdraw both his Amendments, we can then enter into a discussion, particularly about the effect of his Amendment 72. I say this simply because I am not absolutely dear what it is that he desires to achieve which I do not desire to achieve; and perhaps, for the sake of saving time, we could best discuss this privately between ourselves before Report stage.
LORD COLERAINE: I am most grateful to the Minister, and I certainly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. If necessary, I will take him up on his offer later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 73, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed I cans of call Amendment No. 74.
8.20 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 44, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert:
("( ) Those restrictions also do not apply—

(a) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product of a description, or falling within a class, specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph, where the product is sold or supplied by a registered nurse in the course of her professional practice, or

(b) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product of a description, or falling within a class, specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph, where the product either is sold or supplied by a certified midwife (or, in relation to England and Wales, by a certified midwife or exempted midwife) in the course of her professional practice or is delivered or administered by such a midwife on being supplied in pursuance of arrangements made by a local health authority in Great Britain or by a health authority in Northern Ireland.")

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 48(1) were inserted by Government Amendments at a late stage in another place to fill a gap in the Bill when it was realised that the supply of a drug to a hospital patient or to the patient of a nurse or midwife technically involved a retail sale or "supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale". It would not have been reasonable to leave such sale or supply subject to the requirements of Clauses 45 and 46 which were specifically designed to cover sale or supply at ordinary retail outlets such as pharmacies and other retail shops.
The clause as amended in another place has since been criticised, and on reflection my right honourable friend the Minister of Health agrees that these criticisms have some force and that there may be a case at some future time for relating the hospital and health centre exemption

555
more closely to the nature of the pharmaceutical services available to the institution concerned; and also that it would be appropriate to provide for the products which nurses and midwives are to be allowed to supply in the course of their professional practice to be specified. This and following Amendments enable that to be done. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to provide further exemptions]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 45, line 24, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the preceding subsection").
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 apply to the same point which was covered by Amendment No. 73.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 76:
Page 45, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide that subsection (1)(b) or subsection (2) of section 48 of this Act shall cease to have effect, or shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the order.
( ) No order shall be made under subsection (3) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Supplementary provisions as to registration of premises]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 77:
Page 65, line 20, leave out ("register") and insert ("registrar").
This Amendment corrects a spelling mistake.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Advertisements and representations directed to practitioners]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 78:
Page 83, line 8, leave out from ("which") to ("(3)") and insert ("neither subsection (2) nor subsection").
Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80 are drafting Amendments which do not affect the sense of the provisions in question. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 83, line 12, leave out from ("which") to ("applicable") and insert ("either of those subsections is").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 80:
Page 83, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to ("to") in line 17 and insert ("those subsections cease (or, if only one of them is applicable, that subsection ceases)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Application of Act to certain articles and substances]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 81:
Page 88, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 33 and insert ("a medicinal purpose").
This is a further consequential Amendment to the new clause which we added after Clause 37. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 97 to 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Enforcement in England and Wales]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 83:
Page 91, line 29, after ("provisions") insert ("and regulations").
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are drafting Amendments. They insert references to regulations since paragraph (c) in

557
Clause 100(2) refers both to the provisions in Clauses 86 and 87 and regulations under Clause 88. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 84:
Page 91, line 31, after ("provisions") insert ("and regulations").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.26 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move Amendment No. 85:
Page 92, line 2, leave out from ("pharmacies") to end of line 4 and insert ("In registered pharmacies the local authority as defined above shall be under a duty, concurrently with the appropriate Minister, to enforce any regulations in paragraphs (g) and (h) of subsection (1) and in subsection (2) of section 59 of this Act."
As this Amendment and Amendment No. 86 go together I will, with your Lordships' permission, discuss them together. Indeed, the first of these two Amendments is in a sense consequential on the second, and it is not very easy to follow without an explanation. I am really moving these Amendments for the purpose of removing a possible injustice to herbalists. This Bill, as originally introduced, did very much less than justice to herbalists, a point which I endeavoured to bring out in my speech on Second Reading. In its passage through the other place the case on behalf of the herbalists was most ably put by a number of honourable Members, and the Minister showed himself very receptive to the points that were made and handsomely accepted a number of Amendments, in particular two new clauses, Clauses 12 and 49, for which the herbalists are very grateful.
There is, however, at least one remaining matter on which the herbalists still labour under a sense of grievance and feel that they are not being altogether fairly treated, and I must say that I think they are right in this feeling. The point is that under subsection (5) of this clause the Pharmaceutical Society is given the job of enforcing regulations which are to be made under the important Clause 59, which is concerned with the regulation of dealings in medicine. I do not want to go into the details of that clause. It is a fairly long and important clause, and indeed much of the
558
enforcement of the provisions of the Bill depend upon it.
As I have said, the Pharmaceutical Society is given the job of enforcing regulations made under this clause, including, of course, the dealings of herbalists—medicines which are of a herbal character and which are sold or prescribed by herbal practitioners. If your Lordships will look at the clause, you will see at the end of subsection (5)(a) that the Pharmaceutical Society is given the duty of looking after this matter in relation to medicinal products sold by retail, or which are supplied in circumstances corresponding to retail sale. This gives them, so to speak, power over the herbalist's shop—and not only over the herbalist's shop, but over health food stores and various other types of person who deal in medicines of this kind. The herbalists, of course, feel, and I think very naturally, that pharmacists are their competitors, and indeed not only are pharmacists their competitiors but I understand that the Pharmaceutical Society is on record as wishing to see to t that medicines are only supplied through registered pharmacists.
One can well understand that tie herbalists, the health food stores and other sorts of people who are, as it were, on the black list of the pharmacists feel that even if this duty which is given to the Pharmaceutical Society is carried out with integrity, as one would expect it to be, still there is a sort of bias; and it is not really right that some representative of one's competitors should have a right to go into one's shop and examine what is going on there, look at one's books and really carry out a job of this kind. How far it would go one does not know, but it is quite obvious, is it not, that the herbalist will feel himself very much under a sense of grievance. It is an accepted axiom I think that not only should there be fair play but that it should be obvious that fair play is being done aril that people who may be aggrieved should not be put under a grievance of this kind. I hope your Lordships will agree that there is here a very strong case for seeing to it that this particular job in respect of herbalists should be done by somebody else, and that is really the object of this Amendment.
There is a further point, which is of even more importance in a way. Over

559
recent years the consulting medical herbalist has become really quite an important profession. To qualify as a consulting medical herbalist one has to go through a pretty severe course, which lasts four years, not dissimilar from the course of studies in medicine which a medical practitioner has to go through. And owing to the comparative paucity of herbalist shops, a great deal of the prescribing and making up of the prescriptions advised by the medical consulting herbalist has to be done on his own premises, either by himself, or if he is a professional man of high standing he may have to employ a herbal pharmacist to assist him in the work. It seems to me altogether wrong that men in this position should in effect be subject to visits from representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society empowered under this clause to examine their pharmacies, to look at their books and generally carry out the provisions of this earlier clause.
The suggestion is put forward in these two Amendments that if we delete in subsection (5) the words at the end after "Wales" where they appear in the Clause, that will remove this duty and job from the Pharmaceutical Society. It will be seen that at the end of the Clause if one stops at the words "in England and Wales" it cuts out "at which medicinal products are sold by retail or are supplied in circumstances corresponding to retail sale". That is there for the purpose of dealing with the position of the consultant medical herbalist. That will get rid of the position of the Pharmaceutical Society in regard to this matter in connection with herbalists and consultant medical herbalists and health food stores.
But of course that means that somebody else ought to do the job, because the inspections and the enforcement of the provisions of the important Clause 59 have to be carried out by somebody. Therefore we come back to the first of these Amendments, which your Lordships will see puts the obligation to carry out this work under Clause 59 on the local authority, which already comes into an earlier part of subsection (1) of this Clause. So that the result of it all is to remove the Pharmaceutical Society from this job of inspecting and
560
enforcing the provisions of Clause 59 against the herbalists and people who come under this category and transferring it in effect to the local authority, which would be completely independent and would not leave the herbalists and consulting medical herbalists under this sense of grievance. I hope this makes the object of these two Amendments clear. I beg to move.
8.37 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: These two Amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has explained to us very fully, are in fact, apart from the new sentence introduced after "pharmacies" in the first Amendment, completely identical with the Amendments moved in another place at Report stage. As the noble Lord has explained, the effect of the first Amendment would be to give the local authorities a concurrent duty under subsection (2) and also the duty of enforcing under subsection (3) in premises other than pharmacies. The second Amendment, as I think he made clear, would remove the latter duty from the Pharmaceutical Society.
I am sure all your Lordships will agree that at this stage of the Bill any question of redistribution of enforcement functions involves the considered examination and the ascertainment of the views of the enforcement authorities affected or likely to be affected under the provisions of this Bill. My right honourable friend did give an undertaking in another place that he would look into the matters involved and if it appears that the provisions of the Bill should be amended he did agree that Amendments would be moved at an appropriate stage. He has asked me to repeat the assurance in this House and regret that it has not yet been possible to bring this matter to a conclusion in time for the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I will let my noble friend know between now and Report the result of that particular consideration.
But in any event I am afraid I could not advise the Committee to-night to accept the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The local authorities to which his Amendments refer would, in my right honourable friend's view, be for the most part inappropriate to have the duty that the noble Lord suggests should fall upon them as a result of his Amendments, if it were decided

561
that the enforcement of regulations under Clause 59(1) was appropriate for local authorities. They do not include county councils, but on the other hand they do include even the smallest non-county borough, urban or rural district councils. Whatever may ultimately be done about the suggestion made in another place to bring the food and drugs authorities into the enforcement of these regulations, I must advise the Committee against making this a function of the local authorities I have referred to, who are the ones responsible for "sanitary" requirements such as those in Clause 58(1)(g) and (h). I hope that in the light of the points I have just made my noble friend will agree at; this stage to withdraw his Amendment. I have repeated the assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place, and I hope that we can be in touch between now and the next stage of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: Naturally, I am glad to beg leave to withdraw this Amendment on those assurances. I have not the slightest doubt that if some authority other than the Pharmaceutical Society can be found upon whom to put this duty, it will be well received by the herbalists. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 100, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: There is just one question I should like to ask the Minister. I should like to have some information about Clause 100, and also Clauses 101 and 102. As I see these three clauses, they are the enforcement clauses of the Bill or of this particular Part of the Bill. The provision is that the appropriate Minister shall do the enforcement. The appropriate Minister is set out for England and Wales in Clause 100, for Scotland in Clause 101 and for Northern Ireland in Clause 102. In Clause 100 the appropriate Minister seems to be in certain respects the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in all other respects the Minister of Health. So far as Scotland is concerned the appropriate Minister will be the Secretary of State, and so far as Northern Ireland is concerned the appropriate Minister will
562
be the Minister of Health and,Social Services for Northern Ireland.
I want to ask the Minister why it is that the Secretary of State for Wales is not "the appropriate Minister" with regard to the Principality of Wales. After all, we have a fully fledged Secretary of State in the Cabinet. He is not second-rater, but is a first-rater, in that I e has a seat in the Cabinet. He has a large Department in Cardiff and a small one in London, and it seems to me that where there is an enforcement provision local knowledge is necessary. Certainly it would be much more to the convenience of the people of Wales if their Secretary of State, who is located at Cardiff, could deal with any matters that they have to raise.
In those circumstances, if, as is their claim, the Government are serious on administrative devolution, it is quite time that this matter, which so widely 'fleets an important segment of the population in regard to the enforcement of the regulations under this Bill, should be considered and dealt with in Wales by the Secretary of State for Wales and by his Department—a large department of civil servants who understand, or are deemed to understand, the necessities and requirements of the people of Wales. That is my question. I hope I shall get a satisfactory answer.
BARONESS SEROTA: All of t s are well aware, and if we are not well aware we are certainly made aware, of the particular view that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, holds on these matters, but I suspect that he knows the answer to this one just as well as, if not better than, I do; namely, that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is responsible for the Health Service in Wales and therefore falls to be the appropriate Minister to administer this particular piece of legislation. The noble Lord is undoubtedly aware how best to further the point of view he has just put forward, but surely one could not expect in a Bill of this kind to divide the functions of my right honourable friend who is responsible for the administration of the Health Service throughout England and Wales.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Power to inspect, take samples and seize goods and documents]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 87:
Page 98, line 24, at end insert ("and where by virtue of this subsection a person exercises any such right as is specified in subsection (4) of this section, he shall be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (6) of this section").
This Amendment No. 87, rectifies an oversight in Clause 104.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause—
Application of sampling procedure to substance or article seized under s. 104
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a person (in this section referred to as an 'authorised officer') seizes a substance or article (other than a document) in the exercise of such a right as is specified in subsection (4) of section 104 of this Act (including that subsection as applied by subsection (7) of that section).
(2) If any person who in accordance with subsection (6) of that section is entitled to be informed of the seizure so requests, either at the time of the seizure or at any subsequent time, not being later than twenty-one days after he is informed of the seizure, then, subject to the next following subsection, the authorised officer shall either—

(a) set aside a sample of the substance or article seized, or

(b) treat that substance or article as a sample,

whichever he considers more appropriate having regard to the nature of that substance or article.
(3) An authorised officer shall not be required by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to set aside a sample, or to treat a substance or article as a sample, if the nature of the substance or article is such that it is not reasonably practicable to do either of those things.
(4) Where in accordance with subsection (2) of this section an authorised officer sets aside a sample, or treats a substance or article as a sample, he shall divide it into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall supply one part of it to the person who made the request under subsection (2) of this section.
(5) Paragraphs 10, 11 and 11A and paragraphs 13 to 25 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a sample set aside, or a substance or article treated as a sample, in accordance with subsection (2) of
564
this section as they have effect in relation to a sample obtained as mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule, but as if in those paragraphs—

(a) any reference to a sampling officer were a reference to an authorised officer;

(b) any reference to a sample included a reference to a substance or article treated as a sample;

(c) any reference to the preceding provisions of that Schedule were a reference to the preceding provisions of this section; and

(d) any reference to the relevant enforcement authority were a reference to the authority by whom the authorised officer is authorised wor the purposes of section 104 of this Act,

and as if in paragraph 22(1) of that Schedule the reference to a substance or article obtained as mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule were a reference to a substance or article of which a sample has been set aside, or which has been treated as a sample, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause—
Analysis of samples in other cases
".—(1) A person who, not being a person authorised in that behalf by an enforcement authority, has purchased a medicinal product may submit a sample of it for analysis to the public analyst for the area in which the product was purchased, or, if for the time being there is no public analyst for that area, then to the public analyst for some other area.
(2) Paragraphs 2 to 11B of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a person proposing to submit a sample in pursuance of the preceding subsection, as if in those paragraphs any reference to the sampling officer were a reference to that person.
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a public analyst to whom a sample is submitted under subsection (1) of this section shall as soon as practicable analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed by some other person under his direction.
(4) If the public analyst to whom a sample is submitted under subsection (1) of this section determines that for any reason an effective analysis of the sample cannot be performed by him or under his direction, he shall send it to the public analyst for some other area, and (subject to the next following subsection) that other public analyst shall as soon as practicable analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed by some other person under his direction.
(5) A public analyst to whom a sample is submitted or sent under this section may demand payment in advance of the prescribed fee, and, if he demands such payment, he

565
shall not be required to analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed until the fee has been paid.
(6) A public analyst who has analysed a sample or caused a sample to be analysed this section shall issue a certificate specifying the result of the analysis to the person by whom the sample was originally submitted.
(7) Any certificate issued under subsection (6) of this section shall be in a form prescribed by the Ministers and shall be signed by the public analyst who issues the certificate.
(8) Paragraphs 19 to 21 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a certificate issued under subsection (6) of this section as they have effect in relation to a certificate issued under paragraph 17 of that Schedule.
(9) Any regulations prescribing a fee for the purposes of this section shall be made by the Ministers.
(10) In this section 'public analyst' has the meaning assigned to it by paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 to this Act.")
The purpose of this new clause is to fulfil an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. Section 92 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and similar provisions in the Scottish and Northern Ireland Acts, provide for analysis by public analysts on payment of a fee of samples of food and drugs submitted by ordinary members of the public. The Food and Drugs Act are to be repealed by Schedules 6 and 8 in their application to drugs, but this provision should not be lost in the repeal. This new clause accordingly re-enacts the provision as part of the medicines legislation and applies relevant parts of Schedule 3 to samples proposed to be submitted for analysis. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 109 agreed to,
Clause 110 —[Warranty as defence.]
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 90:
Page 102, line 35, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").
Amendment No. 90 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 91. The new clause reproduces the effect of Section 116 of the Food and Drugs Act (and correspondingly in the Scottish and Northern Ireland Acts) so far as it relates to warranties and certificates of analysis relating to drugs. The clause makes it an offence to misapply a warranty or certificate, or to give a false warranty or certificate. The Amendment to Clause 110
566
anticipates the new clause by applying the Scottish interpretation provisions in Clause 110(7) to the new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 110, insert the following new clause:
Offences in relation to warranties and certificates of analysis
".—(1) If a defendant in any such proceedings as are mentioned in section 110(1) of this Act wilfully applies to any substance or article—

(a) a warranty given in relation to a different substance or article, or

(b) a certificate issued under section (Analysis of samples in other cases) of this Act, or under paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to this Act, which relates to a sample of a different substance or article,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who, in respect of any substance or article sold by him in respect of which a warranty might be pleaded under section 110 of this Act, gives to the purchaser a false warranty in writing shall be guilty of an offence, unless he proves that when le gave the warranty he had reason to believe that the statement or description contained in it was accurate.
(3) Where the defendant in, any such proceedings as are mentioned in section 110(1) of this Act relies successfully on a warranty given to him or to his employer, any proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) of this section in respect of the warranty may, at the option of the prosecutor, be taken either before a court having jurisdiction in the place where a sample of the substance or article to which the warranty relates was procured, or before a court having jurisdiction in the place where the warranty was given.
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fate not exceeding £400;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not ! exceeding two years or to both."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 111 to 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Orders and regulations]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 92:
Page 106, line 19, after ("15(1)") insert ("(Supplementary provisions as to clinical trials and medicinal tests on animals) (2)(b) (Special

567
provisions in respect of exporting certain products)").
This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.49 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 106, line 19, after ("47(2)") insert ("48(2)").
Page 106, line 19, leave out ("50") and insert ("50(1)").
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I took Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 together. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 48(1) were inserted by Government Amendments at a late stage in another place to fill a gap in the Bill when it was realised that the supply of a drug to a hospital patient or to the patient of a nurse or midwife technically involved a retail sale or "supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale". It would not have been reasonable to leave such sale or such supply to the requirements of Clauses 45 and 46 which are specifically designed to cover the sale or supply at ordinary retail outlets such as pharmacies and other retail shops. The amended clause has been criticised on two grounds, and the Government have therefore submitted the Amendment which appears in the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendments 95 and 96:
Page 106, line 20, leave out (` 97 ").
Page 106, line 21, at end insert—
( ) an order made under section 97 of this Act otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (3) of that section, or").
Here, again, the next two Amendments hang together. The provisions listed in Clause 116(3)(a) are those referring to making orders subject to the annulment procedure. Originally this, was correct in referring to Clause 97, but in another place Clause 97 was amended by the introduction of subsection (3) which made orders under Clause 97(1)(b) subject to Affirmative Resolution. It is consequently necessary to qualify the reference to Clause 97 in Clause 116(3). Those under Clause 97(1)(a) remain subject to annulment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Meaning of "medicinal product" and related expressions]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 97:
Page 107, (line 15, at beginning insert ("use").
Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 102 hang together. I shall, with the leave of the Committee, move Amendments 99 to 102 formally when we come to them. The effect of the three Amendments, which were foreshadowed at Report stage in the House of Commons by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, is to put manufactured herbal ingredients not already covered in 103(b) in the same position as manufactured ingredients for use in pharmacies, hospitals or by practitioners. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 98:
Page 107, line 16, leave out from ("for") to end of line 17 and insert ("a medicinal purpose").
This is consequential on the new clause after Clause 37.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 99:
Page 107, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 19 and insert ("use, in circumstances to which this paragraph applies, as an ingredient in the preparation.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 107, line 21, leave out ("one or more of those purposes") and insert ("a medicinal purpose").
Page 107, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
("( ) In this Act ' a medicinal purpose' means any one or more of hte following purposes, that is to say").
Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 hang together and are consequential on the new clause after Clause 37.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 102:
Page 107, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section the reference to use in circumstances to which that paragraph applies is a

569
reference to any one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) use in a pharmacy or in a hospital;

(b) use by a practitioner;

(c) use in the course of a business which consists of or includes the retail sale, or the supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale, of herbal remedies.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 108, line I, leave out ("trial") and insert ("test").
Amendments Nos. 103 to 107 hang together and are consequential on the new clause after Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 [General interpretation provisions]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 104 to 107:
Page 109, line 28, at end insert ("animal test certificate' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act").
Page 110, line 1, leave out from first ("trial") to ("of") in line 3 and insert ("and 'clinical trial certificate' have the meanings assigned to them by section (Clinical trials)").
Page 1l, line 31, at end insert ("'medicinal test on animals' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act").
Page 114, line 4. leave out ("a field trial") and insert ("an animal test").
Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 hang together, and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Special provisions as to Northern Ireland]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 108:
Page 115, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Section 38 of the Interpretation Act 1889 shall have the like operation in relation to any repeal by this Act of an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as it has in relation to the repeal of an enactment of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.").
This is a Northern Ireland Amendment to attract the provisions of Section 38
570
of the Interpretation Act 1889. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 121 and 122 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Sampling]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 109:
Page 122, line 44, at end insert—
("11A. Section 114 of this Act shall have effect in relation to supplying any part of a sample in pursuance of the preceding paragraphs as it has effect in relation to the service of a document.
11B. If after reasonable inquiry the sampling officer is unable to ascertain the name of a person to whom, or the address at which, a part of a sample ought to be supplied in pursuance of the preceding paragraphs, lie may retain that part of the sample instead of supplying it.")
This Amendment improves and perfects the provisions about sampling in the Bill. I believe its effects are self evident. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Provisions relating to Northern Ireland]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 110 to 116:
Page 127, line 12, leave out ("medicinal products") and insert ("substances or articles")
Page 127, line 12, leave out ("a field trial") and insert ("an animal test")
Page 127, line 22, leave out ("a field trial") and insert ("an animal test")
Page 127, line 27, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 127, line 32, leave out ("field trial") and insert ("animal test")
Page 127, line 34, leave out ("medicinal products of any description") and insert ("substances or articles")
Page 127, line 40, leave out ("medicinal products of that description have") and insert ("a substance or article to which those provisions relate has")
These Amendments are consequential on the new clauses after Clause 30. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 117:
Page 127, line 49, after ("15(3)") insert ("section (Supplementary provisions as to clinical trials and medicinal tests on animals), section (Supplementary provisions as to incorporation of substances and articles in animal feeding stuffs) and section 50(3)")
The Government's Amendments introducing the new clauses mentioned here and the Government's Amendment to Clause 50 have created new order-making powers of the same character as that in Clause 15(3), and it is appropriate therefore, that such orders should be excluded also from the Northern Ireland Minister's power to make separate provisions. This is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Amendments of enactments of Parliament of United Kingdom]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 118 to 120:
Page 129, line 7, at end insert—
"The Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 (c. 25)
.In section 17(2), for the words from 'those poisons' to 'authorised seller of poisons', in each place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words 'those substances which, where they are non-medicinal poisons, are by virtue and subject to the provisions of this Act prohibited from being sold except by a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.
.In section 18, in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:—

'(a) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part I of the Poisons List unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business; and

(ii) the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy; and

(iii) the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a pharmacist;

(b) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part II of the Poisons List unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business and the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy; or

(ii) his name is entered in a local authority's list in respect of the premises on which the poison is sold',

and in paragraph (c), for the words poison, whether' there shall be substituted the words 'non-medical poison, whether it is a sub-
572
stance'; and in subsection (2), for the word 'poison', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words 'non-medicinal poison which is a substance'.
.In section 21, in subsection (1), for the words from 'who not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part 1' to 'such poisons on those premises', there shall be substituted the words as being persons entitled, on premises in respect of which their names are entered in the list, to sell non-medicinal poisons which are substances included in Part II of the Poisons List, and shall enter in the list the name of any person who, having premises in the area of the authority, makes an application to the local authority in the form prescribed by rules to have his name entered in the list in respect of those premises'; and in subsection (3), for the words from on which' to the said Part II' there shall be substituted the words 'in respect of which the name of any person is entered in the list'.
.In section 22, before the word 'poison' there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
.In section 23, in subsections (1) and (2), before the word 'poisons' in each place where it occurs (except where the reference is to the 'Poisons Board' or the Poisons List') there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
.In section 24, in subsection (2), before the word 'poison' there shall be inserted the word non-medicinal'.
.In section 25, in subsection (1), for the words 'registered pharmacists and authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'pharmacists and persons carrying on a retail pharmacy business'; in subsection (4), for the words 'registered pharmacists and authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'pharmacists and persons carrying on a retail pharmacy business', for the words 'premises which are on the register of premises' there shall be substituted the words 'registered pharmacy', and for the word 'poisons', in the second and fourth places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'substances'; in subsection (5), after the word 'steps' there shall he inserted '(a)', for the words 'authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business', for the word 'poisons', in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'substances', and for the words 'for that purpose' there shall be substituted the words—
'(b) to secure compliance with those provisions and rules by persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, in so far as that business is carried on at premises which are not a registered pharmacy,
and for those purposes'; and in subsection (6), for the word 'poisons', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'substances'.
.In section 29, for the definition of 'pharmacist' there shall be substituted the following:—
'"person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business" shall be construed in

573
accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 196E:;
"pharmacist" has the meaning assigned to it in relation to Great Britain by section 118(1) of the Medicines Act 1968',
after the definition of 'registered dentist' there shall be inserted the words '"registered pharmacy" has the meaning assigned to is by section 67 of the Medicines Act 1968; "retail pharmacy business" has the meaning assigned to it by section 118(1) of that Act,' and at the end of section 29 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2) In this Act "non-medicinal poison" means a substance which is for the time being included in Part I or Part II of the Poisons List and is neither—

(a) a medicinal product as defined by section 117 of the Medicines Act 1968, nor

(b) a substance in relation to which, by virtue of an order under section 96 or section 97 of that Act for the time being in force (and whether, in the case of an order under section 96 of that Act, it is referred to in the order as a substance or as an article), the provisions of sections 44 to 47 and sections 62 to 70 of that Act (whether subject to exceptions and modifications or not and with or without other provisions of that Act) have effect as they have effect in relation to medicinal products as so defined.'

The Cancer Act 1939 (c. 13)
.In section 4, in subsection (4)(a)(v), for the words 'authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968'."
Page 129, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—
The National Health Service Act 1946 (c. 81)
.In section 39(2), for the words 'authorised sellers of poisons within the meaning of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933' there shall be substituted the words 'persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968'.
The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (c. 27)
.In section 41(2), for the words 'authorised sellers of poisons within the meaning of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933' there shall be substituted the words 'persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968'.
The Purchase Tax Act 1963 (c. 9)
.In Part H of Schedule 1, in paragraph 5(1)(a)(i), for the words 'an authorised seller of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968.'
The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (c. 64)
.In section 1, in subsection (2) in paragraph (f), for the words 'an authorised seller of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968', and in paragraph (k), for the words 'the said Act of 1955' there shall be substituted the words 'Schedule 3 to the Medicines Act 1968'; and in subsection (6), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(a) for the reference in paragraph (j) of subsection (2) to section 89 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 there shall be substituted a reference to section 27 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956'.
Page 129, line 13, leave out from ("11") to end of line 28 and insert ("in subsection (2), for the words from 'carrying on business' to 'authorised seller of poisons' there shall he substituted the words 'conducting retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968', and for the words 'duly registered under Part I' there shall be substituted the words 'which are a registered pharmacy as defined by section 67'; in subsection (3), for the words from 'the sale by retail' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'any contravention of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 or of the Medicines Act 1968 or any rules, regulations or order made under either of those Acts'; and in subsection (4) for the words from 'subsection (2) and (3), to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words the reference in subsection (2) to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, of a reference to the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, for the reference n subsection (3) to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, of a reference to the Pharmacy and Poisons Acts (Northern Ireland) 1925 to 1967, and as if in subsection (2) the reference to a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business included a reference to a person deemed to be a person lawfully conducting such a business by virtue of an order made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the said Act of 1968'.")
These Amendments, Nos. 118 to 120, hang together. Their purpose is to restrict to non-medicinal poisons the control of sale provisions of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 and certain related effects. The result is to remove the need for too much registering of pharmacy premises under the two Statutes concerned, the conditions being always identical, and to take the medicines containing poisons outside the ambit of the poisons legislation which at r resent governs them and to put them within the ambit of this Bill. I beg to move Amendments 118 to 120 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 121:
Page 129, line 28, at end insert:
("The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)
.In section 2, in subsection (5), after the word 'section' there shall be inserted '(a)' and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'(b) where by virtue of any provision made under Part V of the Medicines Act 1968 (or made under any provisions of the said Part V as applied by an order made under section 96 or section 97 of that Act) anything which, in accordance with this Act, constitutes the application of a trade description to goods is subject to any requirements or restrictions imposed by that provision, any particular description specified in that provision, when applied to goods in circumstances to which those requirements or restrictions are applicable, shall be deemed not to be a trade description'.
.In section 22, in subsection (2) after the words 'the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Medicines Act 1968'; in paragraph (b) the word 'and' where it occurs at the end of that paragraph, shall be omitted; and at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words 'and
(d) in relation to the said Act of 1968, so much of Schedule 3 to that Act as is applicable to the circumstances in which the sample was procured',
and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words 'or paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1968'.")
This Amendment has the effect of excluding from the operation of the Trade Descriptions Act of this year certain things done in pursuance of the Medicines Bill which would amount to the application of trade descriptions under the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments of Parliament of United Kingdom repealed]:
9.0 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 129, column 3, leave out lines 34 to 44 and insert—

("Sections 8 to 14.

In section 17, in subsection (2), the words 'of persons who are to be entitled to sell poisons in Part II', and, in subsection (6), the words from 'and in this Act' to the end of the subsection.

In section 18(2)(a)(ii) the word "registered".

Section 19.

In section 23, in subsection (1), paragraph (a), paragraph (b)(ii) and paragraph (i); and in subsection (3), in the reference to paragraphs (a), (b)(i), (c),(d),(e)and (i), the references to paragraphs (a) and (i).

In section 25, in subsection (1) the words 'Part I of this Act and of section nineteen and', in subsection (4) those words and the word 'registered', and subsection (9).

In section 29, the definitions of 'authorised seller of poisons' and 'poison' and paragraph (a) of the definition of 'registered'").

Page 130, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 14 and insert—

("The whole Act")

Page 130, line 15, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 12, the definition of 'authorised seller of poisons'")

These Amendments serve the same purpose as Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 125 and 126:
Page 130, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 114(4), the words from 'the authority concerned' to 'in any other case'.")

Page 130, line 39, column 3, at end insert—

("In Part I of Schedule 9, in column 2, paragraph (a)(iii) of the definition relating to sections 321 to 325 of the Public Health Act 1936").

The effect of these Amendments is to remove certain additional references to drugs in the Food and Drugs Act 1955. This is to fulfil our intention of removing from that Act the provisions relating to drugs and references to drugs, other than in the expression "food and drugs authority", and also in the interpretation section where one reference has to be retained for interpretation of certain other provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 127:
Page 130, line 56, at end insert—

("1963 c. 9.

The Purchase Tax Act 1963.

In Part II of Schedule 1, in paragraph 5(2), the definition of 'authorised seller of poisons'.

1964 c. 64.

The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964.

In section 1, in subsection (7), the reference to, and the paragraph substituted for, paragraph (k) of subsection (2).

In section 9 the definition of 'authorised seller of poisons'.

1965 c. 15.

The Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.

In section 11, in subsection (4) the words 'in subsection (1) thereof'.")

This Amendment hangs together with Nos. 122 to 124, which have already been accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of enactments of Parliament of Northern Ireland]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 128 to 140 inclusive:
Page 131, line 8, leave out from ("words") to ("for") in line 13 and insert ("a retail pharmacy business is carried on',").
Page 131, line 17, leave out from ("words") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("'carry on a retail pharmacy business':").
Page 131, line 21, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 26 and insert ("expression 'retail pharmacy business' has the meaning assigned to it by section 118(1) of the Medicines Act 1968").
Page 131, line 27, at end insert—
(".In section 25 for the word 'poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'non-medicinal poisons'").
Page 131, line 33, leave out from ("retention") to ("of") and insert ("or other fees, or any other sums, paid to him under section 69").
Page 131, line 39, at end insert—
(".In section 30 for the definition of 'poison' there shall be substituted the following definition—
"The expression 'non-medicinal poison' has the meaning assigned to it by section 38(1A) of the Medicines, Pharmacy and Poisons Act (Northern Ireland) 1945".").
Page 132, line 10, at end insert—
(".In section 26A(3) for the words from those 'poisons' to 'authorised sellers of
578
poisons', in each place where those words occur, there shall be substituted tie words 'those substances which, where they are non-medicinal poisons, are by virtue of and subject to the provisions of this Act prohibited from being sold except by a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business' and for the words 'and those persons who ate authorised by the local authority' there shall be substituted the words 'or a person whose name is entered in a register kept under his Part of this Act by a local authority (in this Act referred to as a "local authority's register").").
Page 132, leave out lines 11 to 38 and insert—
".In section 27, in subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:

'(a) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part I of the Poisons Schedule unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business; and

(ii) the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy and

(iii) the sale is effected by, or under the personal control of, a pharmacist;

(b) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part II of the Poisons Schedule unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business and the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy; or

(ii) his name is entered in a local authority's register in respect of the premises on which the poison is sold,'

and in paragraph (d) for the words poison, whether 'there shall be substituted the words 'non-medicinal poison, whether it is a substance'; and in subsection (2) for the word 'poisons' where it first occurs there hall he substituted the words non-medicinal poison which is a substance' and in paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection for the words duly registered person' there shall be substituted the word pharmacist'.
.Section 28 shall cease to have effect.
.In section 30, in subsection (1), for the words from 'who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I' to 'such poisons on those premises' there shall be substituted the words 'as being persons entitled, on premises in respect of which their names are entered in the register, to sell non-medicinal poisons which are substances included in Part II of the Poisons Schedule, and shall Enter in the register the name of any person who, having premises in the area of the authority, makes an application to the local authority in the prescribed form to have his name entered in the register in respect of those premises'; and in subsection (3), for the words from on which' to 'the said Part II' there stall be substituted the words in respect of which the name of any person is entered in the register'.
.In section 31, before the word 'Poison' there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
.In section 32, in subsections (1) and (2), before the word 'poison' or 'poisons' in each place where it occurs (except as part of the expression 'the Poisons Board'), there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'; and in subsection (1) paragraphs (a), (b)(ii) and (i) shall cease to have effect, and, in subsection (3), the references to paragraphs (a) and (i) of subsection (1), shall be omitted.
.In section 33(2) before the word 'poison' there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'."
Page 132, line 43, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 46 and insert ("; in subsection (2) for the words 'registered persons, authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'pharmacists, persons carrying on a retail pharmacy business and'; and in subsection (3) for the words 'premises having an annual licence or registered under section 30 of this Act' there shall be substituted the words "registered pharmacy or any premises in respect of which a person's name is entered in a local authority's register,' and for the word 'poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'substances included in Part I or Part II of the Poisons Schedule'")
Page 132, line 48, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
".In section 38, in subsection (1), the definitions of 'authorised seller of poisons', poison', 'premises having an annual licence' and 'retailing' shall cease to have effect, and the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate points in alphabetical order—
'"person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business" shall be construed in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968;
"pharmacist" means a person who is, or is deemed to be, a pharmacist for the purposes of any provision of the Medicines Act 1968;
"registered pharmacy" has the meaning assigned to it by section 67 of the Medicines Act 1968;
"retail pharmacy business" has the meaning assigned to it by section 118(1) of the Medicines Act 1968;',
and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(1A) In this Act "non-medicinal poison" means a substance which is for the time being included in Part I or II of the Poisons Schedule and is neither—

(a) a medicinal product as defined by section 117 of the Medicines Act 1968, nor

(b) a substance in relation to which, by virtue of an order under section 96 or section 97 of that Act for the time being in force (and whether, in the case of an order under section 96 of that Act, it is referred to in the order as a substance or as an article), the provisions of sections 44 to 47 and sections 62 to 70 of that Act (whether subject to exceptions and modifications or not and with or without other provisions of that Act) have effect as they have effect in relation to medicinal products as so defined'."

Page 133, line 14, at end insert—
(".In sections 1 and 3 there shall be made the amendments to sections 26A and 30 respectively of the Medicines, Pharmacy and Poisons Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 set out above.")
Page 133, leave out lines 23 to 28.
Page 134, line 1, leave out from ("words") to end of line 2 and insert ("'Carrying on a retail pharmacy business'.").
These Amendments, Nos. 128 to 140, do for Northern Ireland what we have just done for Great Britain in Amendment 118. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Enactments of Parliament of Northern Ireland repealed]:
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 141 to 143:
Page 134, column 3, leave out line 40 and insert—
("Section 28.
In section 32, in subsection (1) paragraphs (a), (b)(ii) and (i), and in subsection (3) the references to paragraphs (a) and (i) of subsection 1) ").
Page 134, line 48, column 3, after ("of") insert ("'authorised seller of poisons ', 'poison',").
Page 136, line 20, column 3, at end insert ("and section 32 of the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958.").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD KENNET: Before the Motion is put that the Bill be now reported, I should like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords opposite, and those behind me also, for their co-operation in the progress of what in my experience has been a record speed on a Committee stage.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

GAMING BILL
Reported from the Committee, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at four minutes past nine o'clock.