Lords Sitting of 4 February 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Burgh—Took the Oath.

ROAD DEVELOPMENTS IN EPPING FOREST AREA
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 whether it is now certain that road reconstruction and development proceeding in the vicinity of the Waterworks, Walthamstow, will be completed by spring of this year; and what is the estimated volume of traffic that will then flow unimpeded both in East—West directions and through Epping Forest.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the present roadworks are expected to be completed in April. The new East—West road across forest land was fully opened to traffic in November last and is currently carrying an average two-way of about 1,500 vehicles per hour. The two-way flow on Wood-ford New Road near the junction is about 1,200 vehicles per hour.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I did not quite hear whether he stated the date of the completion of the road construction. May I ask the noble Lord whether cattle grids and other means of impeding cattle from getting on the roads and diverting towards Whipps Cross are expected to be effective?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I said that the first stage of the road construction will be completed in April. I take the point about the cattle, and I will see that the Department have a look at it.

FAWLEY POWER STATION
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) when the Fawley power station will be in full operation;

(2) what was the original estimated cost of building the station;

(3) what will be the final cost.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since this Question was put on the Order Paper I have been informed that this is not a matter for a Parliamentary Question, but one which is within the day-to-day responsibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board. In view of the fact that over £100 million of taxpayers' money is involved here, I will ask the question in the right quarter and hope that I shall get the right answer.

EXCISE DUTY ON HOME-PRODUCED WINES
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider it fair and equitable that excise duty levied on wine produced from grapes grown in the British Isles should be the same as that levied on fortified wine made from imported must.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the present duty structure does not discriminate against British wine made from British grapes; and, further, comparison has to be made not only with other British light wine, whether fortified or not, but also with imported light wine.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the wine producers who grow grapes in this country feel very hard done by, and consider that they have a good case in trying to make what is not a very viable business in this country a little more viable?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. I am aware that they feel hard done by, although the fact that they pay less duty than Commonwealth or foreign wine imported seems to me to be to their advantage. However, I know that the English Vineyards Association have brought their case to the notice of Treasury Ministers, and it will be considered. But, of course, that is a matter for the Budget.

NORTHERN IRELAND
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 to state what measures, other than those in use before the recent visit of the Secretary of State for Defence, will be available to our military forces to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland.]
The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there is a continuous process of reviewing tactics and developing new equipment, and improved measures will flow from these. Additionally, recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment will now be directed to the quickest possible build-up to a force of 6.000 men; and arrangements for consultation and coordination between the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be further developed to the fullest extent that manpower permits.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not obvious by this time that, despite the fortitude and bravery of our troops in Ulster, the Army have only been able partially to contain the situation? Why should our troops be continuously subjected to the kind of pressure which has resulted in violence and disorder? May I further ask the noble Lord whether the time has not arrived when Her Majesty's Government should convene a conference representative of all the interests in Ulster, including the clergy, members of the Government and other interests, in order to consider whether some solution can be found other than the use of force on either side?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the last question put by the noble Lord, I will of course pass on his observations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary whose concern the subject is. With regard to what the noble Lord said about the Army, I think that your Lordships on all sides of the House will agree with what he said. I had the opportunity of going last week to Northern Ireland, and I can tell your Lordships that I was amazed at the forbearance and restraint which the Army shows in Northern Ireland. I, like the noble Lord, feel that it is a terrible thing that the Army should be asked to do this sort of work in this country.
The fact is that until last night the situation in Northern Ireland had greatly improved, and there was, I think, a hope that we might be able to rout out the wrongdoers and troublemakers; and I still hope that this is true. But I think I must tell your Lordships that last night in Belfast was very bad, and as a result I have authorised the "spearhead" battalion and an armoured car squadron to go there this evening.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is effective collaboration between our troops in Ulster and the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if the collaboration is satisfactory, what is the effect?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this of course is one of the aspects of the situation that we are always trying to improve. When I was there last week, I thought that the collaboration between the Army and the police was very good. It is not easy in the circumstances, because sometimes the police are there and sometimes the Army are there. But I think the liaison is pretty good. The difficulty is the general situation, in which you have troublemakers and people intent on subversion: it is often very difficult to find them.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, much of the trouble last night arose, I think, as a result of the searching of homes for arms in a certain district. That is a difficulty that is quite familiar to anyone who was in Cyprus during the troubles there. When homes are searched for arms, are only those homes searched which give the authorities reason to believe that they contain arms, or is

1357
there a sort of spot check down the street, including all homes?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: there is nothing that causes more ill-feeling than these house-to-house searches; and one understands it perfectly well in the case of innocent people who have their houses searched. The General Officer Commanding has authority only to search houses in which he has reason to believe that arms can be found. If any wider searches are necessary, he has to get the authority from London.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, they would not go down the street necessarily searching every house?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side of the House wish to be associated with the tribute the noble Lord has paid to our troops in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider, recognising that the task of the soldiers is always difficult in a civilian role, whether in carrying out searches of this sort it would be possible to have a small contingent of civil police from this country who would undertake that form of work in co-operation with the British Forces, and, if possible, relieve the British Forces from the vary difficult task of going into private homes.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I absolutely accept what the noble Lord says. Of course, as Secretary of State for Defence I should be only too glad if the troops were relieved of this unpleasant function. But the fact remains that if you are seeking arms in the houses of people who might be armed, you have to be careful not to send in unarmed police. There is also the fact—which is not a good thing either—that when you search for arms you inevitably have to root up floor boards, wainscoting and so on; otherwise you will not find the arms.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make was of course that the police are particularly trained in this type of work, whereas often the British Tommy is not.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there may be something in that point, but I do not think that policemen in this
1358
country are, on the whole, trained for that work.
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask the noble Lord, arising out of my proposition about convening a conference under the auspices of Her Majesty's Government, whether, after he has consulted his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, he will advise your Lordships' House of the result?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I shall be very happy, if the noble Lord will put down a Question, to tell him what has happened.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I always try to be helpful on occasions like this. Might it not have been unwise to stimulate and speed up recruiting to the Ulster Regiment to a total of 6,000? Many of the people likely to join that force will be inflamed partisans. The better type of patriot there will have joined when the original recruiting started.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that is right. I do not think that the Ulster Defence Regiment consists of inflamed partisans. I am glad to say that about 15 per cent. of those who joined are Roman Catholics, so that the Regiment is not by any means confined to the Protestants. As the noble Lord will also know, the Ulster Defence Regiment does not deal with any civil peacekeeping in the streets. It guards important places and vital points.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, can my noble friend tell your Lordships which is the armoured car squadron that is authorised to depart this evening? Is it from the Royal Scots Greys?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what has been the result of the closing of pubs on Saturday nights—a practice which seemed to have been resorted to at one time but has now apparently been dropped?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will put down a Question on that point.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not, when troops are obliged to tear up floorboards, and so on, the places are reinstated when they discover that there is nothing hidden?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, one hopes that they do as little damage as possible. But the point is not so much the damage that is done as the fact that people, quite understandably, do not like their belongings messed around. The last thing the troops want to do is to go and do that sort of job. But if there is information that arms are there, it is their duty to carry out a search. Stringent precautions are taken about the searches: officers are present and close watch is kept.

PEERS' MAIL ARRANGEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three—and I should perhaps warn your Lordships that it may be considerably after half past three—my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on the Rolls-Royce Company. This will be followed by a Statement, to be made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, on the meeting of the E.E.C. Ministers held last Tuesday.
Many of your Lordships will have already discovered that arrangements have been made for placing incoming mail under alphabetical letter signs in the Moses Room. This is because a large number of letters which are delivered to this House cannot at the moment be redirected. It has been necessary to find adequate space to display these letters, which will accumulate until it is possible to forward them. A notice is displayed in the Prince's Chamber setting out the details, and I would urge your Lordships to collect your mail as frequently as possible.
Perhaps I should also inform your Lordships that dinner will be available tonight between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether those
1360
mail arrangements can be continued on days when the House is not sitting? Many of us try to work on such non-sitting days and find it very difficult to collect our mail.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, when the House is sitting the Moses Room will be open from 10 o'clock in the morning until the time that the Houses rises, and on non-sitting days from 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Chief Whip tell us whether any conversations are going on through the usual channels with a view to having a Sitting on Monday to which we can refer all the business on to-day's Order Paper with the exception of the two Statements and the Committee stage of the Drugs Bill? If we do not do that, we shall be here very late indeed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, through the usual channels we shall watch the progress of business this afternoon, and if it is obviously in the interests of the House that certain business should be postponed, no doubt that will be arranged.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on the matter of business, in view of the reply that the noble Earl has just given may I ask him whether a Statement can be made at a fairly early hour, because, as the noble Earl is aware, there is a postal strike and noble Lords will wish to know whether they should attend the House on Monday. I hope that the noble Earl will not leave it too late.

METEORITES BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords I beg leave to introduce a Bill to vest meteorites falling in Great Britain in the Crown. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS Bill
3.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): 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 Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS SEROTA: On Clause 1, the Committee may remember that I expressed concern on Second Reading about the heavy general responsibilities and the specific day-to-day duties of the new Advisory Council which it establishes, especially in the light of the fact that there is no longer to be an expert Committee. I also drew attention to the need to provide sufficient practical support to the members of this new body and to consider the payment of at least an attendance fee to those who will be undertaking these important public duties if there are to be no full-time or part-time paid members appointed.
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, informed me that it was not the intention of his right honourable friend to appoint any full-time or part-time paid members, and he also informed the House then that no decisions had been reached about the secretariat. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would expand a little to the Committee to-day on the reasons for these decisions of his right honourable friend, and especially let us know what arrangements are being made to serve this important Advisory Council. I have not put down an Amendment at this stage to delete the words "if any" from the Schedule and thus bring it in line with Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, which makes provision for the appointment and payment of members of the Parole Board, as I hope for a further explanation from
1362
the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is a matter which many of us in our own experience know to be important. I do not believe that we can continue to rely indefinitely on a public-spirited and leisured class to perform important public duties of this kind, especially when we know from our own experience that one is inevitably out of pocket as a result of such work. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us where his Department stands on this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention again to this matter. I cannot go very much further than I went on Second Reading in assuring her that we will watch very carefully to see whether there are any difficulties with regard to the Advisory Council, but at the present moment we do not anticipate that there will be difficulties. We are confident that, with the help of the Department concerned, who will provide the secretariat for the Council, it will be able to function perfectly satisfactorily. I have noted the remarks of the noble Baroness. I will go into the matter in more detail if she would like me to do so and will get in touch with her about it.
BARONESS SEROTA: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I cannot pretend that I am fully satisfied with it. Of course, we know that it will be possible to find distinguished men and women of great public experience who will be prepared to serve on this body because they are prepared to give public service in this way. My concern is that they should be properly assisted in their duties and that they themselves should not be out of pocket as a result, if the Home Secretary has decided that it is not to have a full-time or even a part-time paid chairman.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Controlled drugs and their classification for purposes of this Act]:
3.20 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("or III") and insert (", III or IV").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move the first three Amendments which stand in my name, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (and I hope that it will be convenient to take them together), I should like to say that when

1363
I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I confined myself almost entirely to one subject, which was the question of whether cannabis and cannabis resin ought to be treated in a classification of their own. The Amendments which I am now moving are designed to create that new classification of drugs—a fourth classification which will include cannabis and cannabis resin. Before I embark upon the arguments in support of that proposition, may I explain to the Committee the mechanics of the matter, because many of the subsequent Amendments standing in my name proceed and follow from the Amendments on Clause 2?
Clause 2 is of course the clause that classifies controlled drugs according to their comparative supposed harmfulness. Under the Bill as it stands there are three classifications: A, B and C. What I am proposing is that cannabis and cannabis resin, now in Class B, should be taken out of that class and put into a new class of their own called Class D. That is what the Amendments to Clause 2 substantially do. But if your Lordships will look on to the Amendments that I am proposing under Clause 25, you will see that that clause deals with the matter of prosecutions and penalties and is linked up with Schedules 2 and 4. Clause 25 prescribes the different penalties for the different kinds of offences in relation to different classes of drugs. The purpose of my Amendments there is to provide that there shall be in Schedule 4 a new column of Class D drugs with separate penalties for the offences in relation to cannabis and cannabis resin. If your Lordships will look on to Amendment No. 21 you will see that that again is merely in pursuance of my original objective. It takes cannabis and cannabis resin out of Class B. Amendment No. 24 creates my new Class D; and the Amendments to Schedule 4, of which I am afraid there are quite a number, contain my proposals for the new penalties to be attached to the various offences in connection with cannabis.
I hope that it will be convenient and acceptable to the Committee if at this stage we discuss simply the question of whether it is right to put cannabis and cannabis resin in a class of their own, and leave for further consideration (because,
1364
of course, if I do not get home on that, the question of the new Class D drugs and of the penalties that I prescribe in respect of them will not arise) the question of penalties. Whatever your Lordships may feel about the penalties I have suggested for cannabis offences, may we at this stage discuss simply the general principle of whether it is right to make this new class?—because it may be that some of your Lordships who are in general sympathy with my object in creating a new class have reservations and differences with me about the penalties I have suggested. If these Amendments of mine are accepted in principle, then we can at a later stage in this debate consider whether I have the penalties right. I am not being in any way dogmatic about that, and I shall not be. I am just as much liable to error on matters of that kind as anybody else is. So I would invite your Lordships to consider now the general principle of whether we should create this separate class of its own.
May I add just one word before I come to the merits of the matter? If my first three Amendments are accepted, it will involve, as I see it, quite a number of consequential Amendments later in the Bill. I have not overloaded the List of Amendments with all those consequential Amendments because I understand that, according to the practice of this House, it is perfectly in order for me to move the substantial Amendments and then, if they are accepted, at the Report stage to move the necessary consequential Amendments to put the whole matter in proper order.
As I say, on the Second Reading of the Bill I confined myself almost entirely to the matter of cannabis and creating a separate class, and therefore I hope that I can introduce some brevity into this part of the debate by simply summarising the arguments which I saw fit to address to your Lordships on that occasion, because there may well be many of your Lordships here to-day who were not present at the Second Reading. The points which I tried to make were these. Clause 2 of the Bill, as I pointed out just now, deals with the classification of drugs according to their supposed harmfulness. I fully accept and recognise that, with the great majority of controlled or dangerous drugs, the question of which class a drug should belong to is necessarily and primarily a

1365
matter for expert opinion. Many of these drugs whose names appear in these various classes—A, B and C—mean nothing whatever to me. I am quite content that for the most part the classification of drugs according to harmfulness should necessarily be a matter in which we are guided by the experts and by medical authority.
However, as I pointed out on Second Reading, one of these drugs stands all by itself, because when one is considering the classification of this drug one is called upon to make social, political and indeed ethical judgments as well as a medical and expert judgment; and that drug is of course cannabis and cannabis resin. I do not want to-day, in this Committee in discussing the question of cannabis, to say anything about the great cannabis debate which has been going on in this country now for some three or four years. I do not want to become controversial. I do not want to rest my case upon anything which may be in dispute. Of course, whenever one speaks about cannabis, whenever one discusses it at all, one finds that the whole question is in dispute. The problem of cannabis was sought to be considered by the Sub-Committee presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. It would be fair to say (I do not think anybody would dispute this) that the conclusions they came to were tentative to the utmost degree, tentative in the highest degree.
What I want to rest my case on in the Committee to-day in discussing this separate classification of cannabis is what I regard as indisputable propositions. The first of these propositions is that, after all the debate which has been going on, not only in this country but in America and elsewhere throughout the world, there is still no general consensus of responsible opinion as to whether this drug is harmful, to what degree it is harmful, in what circumstances it is harmful, whether it has any short-term effects, or whether any long-term effects. Throughout the world there is no general agreement about this matter. That is the first proposition.
The second proposition I would make is this: that, whether we like it or not, both here and in America there is a substantial body of opinion, and particularly among the younger generation—although it is not confined to them—
1366
which is utterly unpersuaded that this drug is harmful, or that the taking and using of it carries with it any moral taint or any moral guilt. That is one of the facts of life, whether we like it or not. The third fact which I suggest is indisputable is that, so far as the actual users of cannabis are concerned, the problem of cannabis is the most important and most significant aspect of the whole drug problem in this country.
Bearing those three considerations in mind, and if your Lordships accept that they are really beyond dispute, is it not an astonishing thing to think of the penalties which under this Bill are being attached to the various offences in connection with cannabis? As I reminded the House on Second Reading, for possession only in any quantity of cannabis or cannabis resin, under this Bill the penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both; and on indictment it is five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
When we come to the other offences in connection with cannabis—the supplying, production, being in management of premises where it is being consumed, and the like—we find that the penalties are these: for summary conviction 12 months' imprisonment or £400 fine, or both; and on indictment, 14 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. These are the penalties which are prescribed in this Bill for an offence which a large number of people regard as being without any moral taint whatever.
It has been said so often that I hesitate to say it again, but is it not an appalling anomaly that we should prescribe a maximum penalty of 14 years for supplying a small quantity of cannabis and that the people who openly advertise the sale of cigarettes and liquor, which are known killers, should be allowed to do so without any penalty whatever? It is this contradiction and conflict in the law as it stands which, I suggest, brings the law into such great disrepute. It is this that causes the cynicism among such a large proportion of our population. They say that the law is hypocritical and that the Establishment in this country are making one law for their habits and another law for the habits of the younger generation.
I suggest that it is always a dangerous thing to legislate against something when a substantial number of people regard the legislation as having no moral foundation, and I suggest that it is particularly dangerous in the case of drugs. What can happen? It may produce a result which is the very opposite to what is desired. If you make a law which a great number of people regard as being manifestly unfair and unjust, you may very well be met with a response of defiance and disregard of the law; and you may in fact create the very thing that you want to try to suppress. I am not going to refer to the experience in America, but there is a large body of evidence, as the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill will know, which shows that Draconian penalties in America directed at the cannabis users not only have been ineffective to deal with cannabis, but have in fact had the opposite result of driving a great number of people on to the hard drugs.
Throughout the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House, as indeed it was when this matter was debated in the other place, it was generally agreed—it was agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he opened the Second Reading debate and by the noble Baroness who replied on behalf of the Opposition that what can be achieved in the problem of the misuse of drugs by legislation and by the criminal law is necessarily limited; and that if you are going to enforce this law and deal effectively with this problem you have to enlist the assistance of all kinds of other agencies.
What I suggest is that if you get the law wrong, if you pass a law which does not command general respect among the public, it will have two results. First, you will make the work of the other agencies—the educational agencies, the advisory agencies, the investigational agencies and the rest—much more difficult, because such a large proportion of the population rejects the whole legal framework of the Bill. The second result is that you will make the enforcement of the law more difficult than it otherwise would be. The enforcement of the law in regard to drugs is one of the most difficult practical propositions with which we are confronted, if only because of the
1368
ease of importation, the ease of distribution, the ease of concealing these things.
I suggest that if the law enforcement agencies are to be enabled to do their job, it will be possible only if you can carry public opinion with you and if the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied that this is a fair and just law. If the great majority of people are not satisfied that that is the case, then the work of all the other agencies engaged in this problem will be made that much more difficult, because they will be regarded as being on the side of the unjust law and the unjust law enforcement officers.
Later we shall be discussing, on an Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the difficult matter of "stop and search" which was introduced in 1967 and is repeated in this Bill. I am not saying anything about the substance of that Amendment—indeed, I have my reservations as to the position of the noble Baroness about this, but maybe she will be able to persuade me that she is right and I am wrong. I mention the point now because if we are going to have these powers of search, if we are going to enable police officers to stop people in the street, and search them there and then—things which are extremely offensive, of course, to anybody who is at all concerned with civil liberties—I believe that they will be acceptable as being necessary for the enforcement of the law only if public opinion generally considers that the law which is being enforced is a just and fair one.
I realise that my solution, if I may call it that—the solution of creating a separate class for cannabis and cannabis resin—is a compromise. In this matter the people of this country are split down the middle; or perhaps I should say they are split horizontally, very largely according to their age. I want to close that gap. I want to have a law passed which will have general acceptance. Logically the way to close the gap between the generations would be to legalise cannabis. That would be the better way of closing the gap.
I realise, therefore, that my solution is something of a compromise. Nevertheless, if we can in this Bill quite clearly and demonstrably draw a distinction between the other drugs, where the harmfulness has been demonstrated, and the drugs cannabis and cannabis resin,

1369
so that it will be seen by all the world that we take quite a different attitude and view of the use of cannabis and the offences connected with cannabis, I believe that we shall have gone a long way to make this law acceptable to the majority of people.
I would conclude with this. There is nothing new or novel in what I am proposing to the House on this occasion. Indeed, I am accepting all the authoritative opinion upon the matter, and the authoritiative opinion upon the matter is being rejected by the Government. When Lady Wootton's sub-committee considered this matter and made their recommendations, at paragraph 81 they said:
"We believe that the association of cannabis in legislation with heroin and other opiates is entirely inappropriate and that new and quite separate legislation to deal specially and separately with cannabis and with its synethic derivatives should be introduced as soon as possible. We are also convinced that the present penalties for possession and supply are altogether too high."
Not only was that the unanimous recommendation of the sub-committee but it was completely endorsed by the whole of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. So the only full-scale inquiry that has been conducted into this matter by experts in this country came unanimously to the conclusion that cannabis and cannabis resin ought to be treated on their own.
I do not go so far as that. I am not suggesting that we should leave cannabis out altogether and have another Act of Parliament to deal with it. I am merely suggesting there should be a separate classification of cannabis which would go some way to implement that position. When the previous Government decided to reject that advice, and when this Government adopted the former Government's attitude in the matter, they were rejecting the unanimous advice of their own Committee, the Committee which had investigated this matter more thoroughly than anybody in this country ever before. Therefore I am not coming with a novel proposition but merely retailing what was proposed by that subcommittee and Committee.
May I say one final word about the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, because it is possibly relevant to what I am trying to do? Lord Gifford is proposing an
1370
Amendment by which cannabis and cannabis resin would be taken out of Class B and put into Class C. I am not without sympathy with that, but I do not think it goes far enough. I think we need to draw a clear distinction between cannabis and cannabis resin and all other drugs. But if my Amendments are rejected by the Committee—I dearly hope they will not be—I shall, of course, join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when we come to his Amendment, because that is better than nothing. But I still hope that I may be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—maybe he is with me already—that my solution is preferable. When we come to divide the Committee, and it is my present intention to do so, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will be able to support me, and I will give him an undertaking, not necessarily as a bargain, that if I go down I will come to his support when we reach his Amendment.
Therefore, I would conclude by saying this. I do not apologise for taking up so much time, because I think we are engaged here upon a very speculative and dangerous enterprise. I do not think anybody who has studied this question would be so foolish as to pretend that he is necessarily right and that he knows what the solution is. This question of cannabis I believe is the ground on which we are most likely to make a mistake, and I beg of the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the possibility of accepting Amendments of this kind. It does not go to the root of their Bill; it does not in any way upset the principle of their Bill. In a sense, it is carrying out the very principles of their Bill, because the whole of their Bill is based upon the idea of categorising drugs according to harmfulness. That is precisely what I am asking the Committee to do in connection with cannabis. I beg to move.
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I hope the Committee will not lend an ear to the eloquent appeal which we have just listened to from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is asking us to regard cannabis, the taking of cannabis, in a lenient way. He condemned his own argument in the last few sentences, when he said, "I have to admit that nobody really

1371
knows anything about this subject". That is a fact. If nobody knows the last word about taking cannabis, then at this stage of our civilisation we must beware. He said that so far as he knows there is no authoritative voice which warns the country of the serious nature of cannabis. Has he not heard of all the medical authorities who deal with the addicts, those poor creatures who, as they say to-day, are "hooked" on heroin and hard drugs? Time after time, in articles in our medical papers and in speeches, the doctors who have treated these people month after month and who have questioned them very frequently have said that they started generally on the soft drugs, on cannabis. The noble Lord is asking us to open the door a bit wider to these weak young men and women who are thirsting for a new experience and who, if this Amendment goes through, will regard this House as taking a lenient view and as telling them that, whereas other drugs may be harmful, the use of cannabis will not be subject to such severe punishment.
At this stage in our knowledge I ask your Lordships to protect our young people by making it quite clear to the country that by taking cannabis they are embarking on a most serious path which may end in degradation. The noble Lord may say that I am making these statements without any sound support to-day. I ask him to go to the Library and look at to-day's Times and he will see:
"One third at American universities found to have tried marijuana.
"The largest Federal survey of marijuana smoking in American universities shows that almost one third of students have tried marijuana and that one seventh use it regularly.
"The survey was conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health, whose director, Dr. Bertram Brown, made the findings public.… Speaking at a news conference. Dr. Brown emphasised that many, if not most, of the facts dealing with marijuana and its use were still unclear, especially the effects of long-term use."
That is a most important fact. The noble Lord was so dogmatic that he seemed to know, yet here are the experts saying that they do not know what the future has in store and that it is quite unclear what the detrimental effects of this drug may be.
Dr. Brown said:
"For the bulk (of smokers) marijuana does not seem harmful, but it may be to some.
1372
While there is some proven negative effect, should we encourage the use of this escape from reality?"
That is what youth uses it for, to escape from the real facts of life. He continued:
"Chemical analyses conducted by the institute had shown an enormous fluctuation in the composition of the material claimed to be marijuana. The amount of tetrahydrocannabinols, the chemicals in marijuana that give the weed its effects, was found to be 100 times as great in varieties coming from South-East Asia as in types found growing naturally in the Americal Middle West."
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foot, when he is asking for these penalties, whether they are to be applied to the potent marijuana which comes from South-East Asia and probably from the Middle East which reaches our country, or to the American type? Is he also putting an Amendment down on that matter, in order to tell people just what is the strength of the drug they are taking? The article continues:
"Studies carried out in several American and Canadian cities had found that one-third of marijuana sold was not marijuana at all; in some cases dried hay and even grass cuttings were discovered. As a result of this wide variation in content, there also was a wide variation in the effects."
The noble Lord may well be, and no doubt is, talking about effects. According to this report, some of these effects may have come from grass cuttings and dried hay. I appeal to the Committee. We are still as ignorant on this subject as we were in the past of the effect of a lot of drugs. It took us centuries to understand the effect of treatment that certain drugs involved. I ask the Committee at this stage not for one moment to be diverted, but to be strong minded and to recognise that this is a drug which may lead young people to take even stronger drugs from which there can be no return.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to associate myself with the views that have just been expressed by the noble Baroness. I spent many years in the East, in a country where hashish was well known and its dangers were well known. It might be well to recall—I do not think I have seen it mentioned on the Record that our word "assassin" stems from the word "hashish". Therefore, it is not of this day and age that the dangers of the drug are known. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was in error when he said that the country

1373
was split down the middle. It may be split—but not down the middle. I believe that although a considerable proportion of the population think of cannabis as something which we have got to learn to live with, a much larger proportion feel that it is something that we must learn to live without, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, whether in fact the things that she has been saying on the use of cannabis do not apply also a great deal more forcefully to the use of alcohol and nicotine. She has said that we know nothing about the long-term effects of this drug. I am not quite sure what drugs or indeed what foodstuffs we do know much about in regard to their long-term effects. Aspirin has only come into use since the early 1930s. Nobody is too sure about the long term effects of that drug. What we do know the long-term effects of is alcohol and tobacco. Are we therefore going to ban them? If not, why not? That is the first question I should like to put.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I answer the noble Viscount? How curiously illogical he is! Often I have great admiration for the noble Viscount when he supports me. But he is quite illogical when he says, "Now there are two bad things, alcohol and smoking. You let young people have those two. Why not let them have another bad thing." What an extraordinary argument!
VISCOUNT NORWICH: If I may reply to the noble Baroness, I certainly did not say that alcohol was a bad thing; I do not believe it is. What I do believe is that it is probably a more dangerous thing, which is not the same as being a bad thing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Why add another one?
VISCOUNT NORWICH: It is a more dangerous thing than cannabis resin. That is no reason why it should be banned. I should be the last person in the world to suggest that it should be. By the same token, I am suggesting that to ban cannabis resin is illogical. Not only is it illogical, but it is extremely dangerous, because if we are going to not
1374
escape from reality, as I am sure the noble Baroness is most anxious that we should not do, we should not fool ourselves that we should never be able to stop the use of a very popular drug which can be grown in everybody's back garden, and is increasing in popularity from day to day. Any law which cannot conceivably be observed is by definition a bad law. It brings the whole law into disrepute. By bringing a law into disrepute, for reasons which are unknown and uncertain, are we doing a service to this country? I very much doubt whether we are.
May I take one more point? By keeping cannabis resin in the same class as the hard drugs, does the noble Baroness fully realise that she is thereby forcing young people, or indeed old people or any others who want cannabis, and see no reason why they should not have it in moderation, any more than they should have a drink or a smoke and are going to get it anyway, into the hands of the pushers? The reason why so many people on the hard stuff say, or have it said for them, that they began with cannabis, is because by beginning with cannabis they have been forced into the hands of the pushers who, when they are selling them their next lot of cannabis, give them a free bonus, and say, "Why do you not try some of this? It is twice as good".
If cannabis could be bought at a legalised, licensed store in the same way as tobacco or alcohol, there would be no danger of this happening. The other, harder drugs would be more safely removed from the reach of innocent people. This, incidentally, would be a way of standardising the stuff and making sure that it was not mixed with dried grass or tea leaves, or, much worse, with little bits of the hard stuff which once again will prove the thin edge of the wedge to the consumers: in other words, by legalising it we can control its quality and its sale. We can keep the very dangerous stuff, the long-term effects of which we do know, out of the hands of young and old alike far more comfortably than probably we can already.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I must apologise to the Committee because I know that there are several noble Lords who wish to take part in this interesting and important discussion. But I think it

1375
might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to have the Statement at this point. I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

ROLLS ROYCE DIFFICULTIES: GOVERNMENT ACTION
3.58 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply. The Statement reads as follows:
"The Board of Rolls Royce have to-day issued a statement, copies of which I have had placed in the Vote Office."—
in our case, my Lords, in the Printed Paper Office—
"They have unanimously decided, for the reasons given in the statement, that it is not possible for them to proceed with the RB.211 engine under the present contract with the Lockheed Corporation.
"As the Board of Rolls Royce have stated, the loss of resources already committed to the project combined with the losses which will arise on termination are on such a scale that they are likely to exceed the net tangible assets of the company. In the light of this situation the Board have decided that they have no alternative but to ask the trustees of the debenture holders to appoint a Receiver and Manager.
"To ensure continuity of those activities of Rolls Royce which are important to our national defence, to our collaborative programmes with other countries and to many air forces and civil airlines all over the world, the Government has decided to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine engine divisions of the company as may be essential for these purposes. The necessary legislation will be introduced early next week.
"The Government has no liability in respect of the contract between Rolls Royce and Lockheed. The Government will explore, with the Receiver,
1376
the future of the RB.211. Because of the very grave consequences which must follow from the decision of the Rolls Royce Board, the Government is also undertaking urgent discussions with the Lockheed Corporation and with the United States Government.
"The Board have stated that there will inevitably be substantial redundancies within the company. I have been informed by the Receiver that he will be discussing this urgently with the staff and the unions concerned. The Department of Employment will, of course, provide the maximum help in finding alternative employment in all the areas affected. Interviewing teams will be sent into the factories as necessary. Redundancy payments to employees are guaranteed under the Redundancy Fund arrangements.
"It will be for the Receiver to assume responsibility for the protection of the debenture holders. Thereafter any remaining assets will be available to meet the claims of other creditors.
The Board of Rolls Royce intend to call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the company in order to pass a special resolution requesting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint an Inspector to conduct an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948."
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is a Statement of such an appalling nature that it is almost impossible to find appropriate words with which to discuss it. The implications must be apparent to every Member of your Lordships' House. It does not require me to indicate the great blow, the great national blow, this represents. The repercussions, which are intensely serious so far as Rolls Royce are concerned, go much wider, to the large number of contractors and, indeed, to the confidence of investors in British industry generally. I think the Government have taken the only step—though I shall want to ask a few questions—in proceeding (and we may as well call it this) to nationalise certain sections of Rolls Royce.
There are a few questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. As I understand it, it has been decided,
"to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine engine

1377
divisions of the company as may be essential…"
Are the Government in a position to give information about some of the other divisions—for instance, the motor car division, in which a great deal of British prestige is also involved? I would also ask the noble Lord whether he can throw more light on any discussions which took place between the Government and Rolls Royce on any request for further financial help? I take it that the degree of financial vulnerability ran into vast sums, and it would be useful for us to know about this.
One is very tempted at a moment of this kind to refer to the Government's philosophy in regard to industry, but I think it is apparent to everybody, on both sides, how, when confronted with the realities of a hard situation, the Government have to intervene. It is appalling that it should be in a matter of such desperate seriousness. I understand from the noble Lord that we shall be having legislation very shortly. We have been considering, and the whole House no doubt is considering, how soon we can debate this matter, and a point for consideration is whether, before the legislation arrives here, we should have a full discussion. On the other hard, if legislation is arriving very soon—and I imagine the Government are hoping to pass it under co-operative emergency arrangements—I must make clear to the noble Lord that at the very least we shall want a full discussion on Second Reading, however far we facilitate the other stages. My noble friend Lord Beswick may also have some questions on this Statement, but I think one can only repeat again—and I know the noble Lord must feel it himself—the sense of intense shock that this brings to all of us, and indeed to Britain.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he says. I do not think that anybody in the House could dissent from him when he says that it is indeed a grave situation and one which has come as a great shock to all of us. He asked me a number of questions. With regard to the divisions of Rolls Royce which it is not Her Majesty's Government's intention to acquire, it will be for the Receiver to decide what to do with them. The noble Lord also asked me whether there would
1378
have been a vast sum of money involved in the Government's stepping in. As soon as the Government stepped in with any more money for Rolls Royce they would themselves have been liable for all the contractual obligations and debts of Rolls Royce. As he himself has said, this would have run into a vast sum of money. He is perfectly right when he says that whatever our own particular political philosophy may be, when it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of our defence—which it most definitely is in this case—it is essential for the Government to intervene and to ensure the continuity of our defence programme.
As regards a debate, or a debate on the Bill which I hope will be coming to your Lordships very shortly, I shall be very happy to meet whichever is convenient to noble Lords opposite. Perhaps we might discuss that matter when we know when the Bill is coming up, and what the timetable will be.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. This is indeed a very had blow to British prestige at home and abroad, quite part front the human considerations which will affect so many people. I merely want to put two points to the noble Lord. Will an effort be made now to renegotiate the contract with Lockheed, and possibly with some, or all, of the customers? And in the meantime will efforts be made to preserve intact, so far as possible, the technical and research teams of Rolls Royce, so that they will not be dissipated, in case there is an opportunity of refinancing the company?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Statement I made, I think he will find that, though not explicitly, both those points are covered. It certainly will be the intention of the Government to discuss with the Receiver the future of the RB.211, and we shall be having discussions with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and with the United States Government. It would be right to say to your Lordships that I think there are formidable difficulties in the way of the continuation of this project, and I do not think too much hope should be based upon it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask one or two more specific questions? First, may I ask the noble Lord what steps he is taking to assure, or reassure, our German and Italian partners in the enormously important M.R.C.A. project, about the viability of the RB.199 engine? Secondly, when he talks in the Statement about the continuity of activities, can he say that this does not mean just maintaining a repair and servicing organisation, but that it means continuing research and development in such important projects as, for example, the RB.410?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it does, of course, mean much more than just continuing the repair facilities of Rolls Royce, and it is the Government's intention to continue with the engines for the aircraft that the noble Lord opposite knows about, such as the M.R.C.A. and the Jaguar. With regard to his first question, I would make it abundantly clear that we do intend to continue with the M.R.C.A. and the RB.199 engine. I have personally written to the German Minister of Defence and I have asked the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff to go over and talk to the Germans and assure them of this.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, as one who, for 25 years, was the elected representative of a vast number of the people who work on this project, and as one who, as a Minister, committed this country to a course of action which enabled us to have the contract for the RB.211, may I say to the Minister of Defence, with your Lordships' permission, how shocked I am. It is not just the misery for 27,000 families; it is the dreadful acknowledgement that an Englishman's word—and the intertwining of the two "Rs" was in fact the visible sign of that—is perhaps no longer his bond. Is the Minister aware that to let the board of Rolls Royce—ex-margarine manufacturers, failed chemists—announce in our name that we can no longer honour our contract is the blackness of the announcement this day? Will the Minister please tell your Lordships why no part of the £60 million-odd has been made available, so that a discussion can take place about the consequences of telling Europe, Asia and America that we can no longer honour our contract?
1380
Why was no move made before this very short-lived Board made the announcement? Who will believe us in regard to the engines, about which my noble friend Lord Beswick asked? Who will believe us about the Concorde? I ask the Minister of Defence to tell us. I remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may remember, the great and the late Sir Winston Churchill once saying—and I did not agree with him—that he was not elected First Lord of the Treasury to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. Is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, not coming to the conclusion that Mr. Heath and Mr. Davies seem to think that they were elected to preside over the dissolution of Britain's most famous and most basic industries?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me one question, and otherwise made a series of comments. I think we all share the shock that he has expressed about what has happened to Rolls Royce. He asked me why the Government had not given any of the £60 million which they had promised to Rolls Royce for the further development of the engine. The reason is—if the noble Lord will recollect the events of, I think, last November—that the £60 million was contingent upon the report of Cooper Brothers & Company as to the finances of Rolls Royce, and that report has not been received. If money had been paid when we knew the situation of Rolls Royce, as we did last week, the Government would have been responsible—it is no good the noble Lord shaking his head it is true—for all Rolls Royce's debts. The Government came to the conclusion that the amount of money which it would be necessary to inject into Rolls Royce in order to save the company and the RB.211 contract was such that the taxpayer should not be asked for it, and that the right course was the course that I have announced to your Lordships.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I follow that up for one second, with apologies to my colleagues? I shall not thereafter pre-empt others of your Lordships. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that true? Surely, part of that money could have been advanced on the clear understanding, clearly written, that it did not commit the Government to taking over Rolls Royce's

1381
debts, involvements and commitments. I ask the noble Lord—he must have been advised about this; at least, I should like to think he had been advised about it—why was that interim course not taken, so that we should not find ourselves as a nation faced with a decision made by a handful of men who have no responsibilities whatever to the people of this country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the Government had advanced any more money to Rolls Royce, knowing that Rolls Royce was insolvent, they would, I am advised, have become liable. In any event, I wonder whether it would have been very honest of the Government to do that, knowing that by so doing Rolls Royce would continue trading when they were insolvent.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, it was said that the Government intend to take over certain assets of Rolls Royce. What criteria have been used in the selection of the assets concerned? Are they assets particularly connected with the defence interests of this country, or with the international obligations of Rolls Royce, or with the technical complexity of the company. What are the criteria which the Government are using in relation to this decision?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I made clear in the Statement, the assets will be those which are important to our national defence, to the collaborative programmes with other countries, and to the many air forces and civil airlines all over the world who use Rolls Royce engines.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the acquisition of certain shares in connection with the engine division, has he in mind legislation to provide for the nationalisation of that section; or has he in mind—which I think many of my noble friends would not find satisfactory—some sort of shareholding comparable to the British Government's shareholding in the petrol companies? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that when I was chairman of the Commonwealth Airline Operators' Conference in 1968, the announcement by Sir David Hubbie of the development of the RB.211 was acclaimed on the grounds that at least
1382
it would give some assurance and insurance that we could retain a share of the Commonwealth market for aircraft? This goes far beyond the immediate economic problems of to-day. The whole of our technological reputation in the world is at stake here.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is perfectly true. But there is no suggestion that the technicians at Rolls Royce could not have made the engine—I do not think there is any doubt whatever that they could. There are the financial difficulties and the question of the delay, which would have enabled Lockheed and the airlines who were proposing to buy the aircraft to sue Rolls Royce for late delivery of the engine. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, it is the intention of the Government to acquire the assets.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is the noble Lord not placing too much stress on the one point which he has made about the unlimited liability of the Government if they had assisted with part of the finance which was conditionally promised? Is he aware that this is admittedly a difficult field for the lawyers to advise us about? But is it not absolutely clear that if the Government had allowed themselves an instrument by which, at arms length, money could have been advanced, the position would then have been very similar indeed to money being advanced by a bank? In those circumstances, a bank advancing money does not get itself involved, albeit that the directors of the board have their responsibilities under the Companies Act.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am advised that that is not so, but I should not like to quarrel with the noble Lord. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would like to intervene; I am not a lawyer. But of course this is not the only issue. I do not want to play up this one, but I think your Lordships should be aware of what sort of money was involved. The £60 million was promised by the Government and the banks four or five months ago. The Rolls Royce board now say that it will cost, in addition to that, anything between £60 million, £70 million or £80 million more to go on with the engine. In addition to that, the 550 engines were going to

1383
be sold under the contract which Rolls Royce had entered into, at a loss of £110,000 for each engine. There were also the claims against Rolls Royce from the airlines and from Lockheed, which might well have amounted to another £40 million or £50 million. In the context of what we had to decide, these were very large figures indeed and the Government had to make up their mind what was the right thing to do in the national interest.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while expressing my sympathy with my noble friend and the Government at having to face this traumatic decision, may I ask whether the Lockheed Company was consulted before this decision was taken; and, indeed, whether it refused to renegotiate the contract before the decision was taken?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, whether or not Lockheed were consulted was, of course, a matter for Rolls Royce, and I think the noble Earl must ask Rolls Royce.
4.20 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is this not getting absurd? The Government appear to acquiesce in a decision which must be absolutely epoch-making and catastrophic. Did they not ask whether this new board of Rolls Royce had approached Lockheed? Have they not asked themselves whether, as my noble friend put it, the I.R.C., which the Government so hurriedly got rid of as an agency that was not part of Government, might not have been a useful instrument?
My Lords, I have been looking at the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, which I think is probably right for a fledgling Member of the House. In the place I know rather better there is something called Standing Order 9, which we should no doubt have tried to use today, and which I suspect one of my former colleagues has tried to use. But under your Lordships' Standing Order 32 (I am quoting from page 15 of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords) I find that no statement or question of which notice has not been given shall be made the occasion for an immediate debate "unless the House so order". In view of what I regard as the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Statement made
1384
and the answers given to questions, may I test the feeling of the House as to whether your Lordships might be willing to order that an immediate debate should now take place?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was once upon a time Leader of this House, and I was also for a number of years Leader of the Opposition. If I may very respectfully say so to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, I think he ought to come here a little more often, and listen a little more often to what goes on in your Lordships' House, before he makes the sort of suggestion that he has made this afternoon. Of course any of your Lordships can get up and pray in aid any Standing Order. Indeed, if any of your Lordships care to look at the Standing Order Book and to follow the rules, they can make your Lordships' House totally and absolutely impossible, because your Lordships' House operates only by custom and restraint. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, will follow the conventions which we have followed in this House for very many years—ever since I have sat in it—and not try to do something which may have been done in another place but which I think would probably not go down very well here.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene at this point. I think it is perhaps a little unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, used the expression he did about my noble friend. I myself had in mind the possibility of Standing Order 32, but the Government have already agreed that if we wish for an early debate they will facilitate this. I think the purpose (and I do not doubt the noble Earl the Leader of the House is bearing this in mind) in allowing this discussion to go as widely as it is now going is to enable us to establish certain facts. Though I cannot recollect an occasion on which it has been done, if the Government were refusing facilities for a debate then I think that it might be right to test the opinion of the House. But I am not sure that it would lead to a particularly useful or orderly discussion at this moment. Therefore my own view is that we ought not this afternoon to take advantage of Standing Order 32, although I must admit the thought had occurred to me.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I wonder whether I might apologise for anything I said about the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, which was in any sense offensive. I had not realised I had said anything at all.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether we could try to get this matter into a rather different perspective. Whilst deploring the debacle of the RB.211 engine—this ill-fated engine which has brought nothing but trouble since the contract to which my noble friend Lord George-Brown referred was entered into—can the noble Lord give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government that this company, with a fresh start, under public ownership, shall be a dynamic and expanding enterprise?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have already given the noble Lord that assurance.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said about the Government's intention to acquire some of the assets particularly because of their relation to defence requirements, would the Government consider, after an examination of the Rolls Royce accounts, of all their financial transactions in recent years and of the contracts entered into, quite legitimately, by the company, acquiring all the assets because of the importance of the company to the national interest in relation to technology and the future of the aero industry?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think I could give that undertaking. The Government have examined the situation very carefully and believe that they should acquire the assets which are necessary to them for the continuing use of those assets in the interests of defence and of civil airlines and the air forces of the world. It will be for the Receiver to dispose of the other assets and I have no doubt that he will be able to do so.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am willing to be rebuked all the time and at any time, and I accept it very happily, but if I am not to pursue the temptation (as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition says I should not) of Standing Order 32, may I ask how soon
1386
the usual channels can arrange to let us know how early the debate will be? Because I honestly regard this matter, as I am sure all your Lordships do, of such critical importance to the nation that I do not think it can hang around for weeks. How soon can we know?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will, of course, pay great attention to what the noble Lord says, but it does depend a little on how long, for example, the Bill would take to get through another place. If it took a long time, then obviously it would be necessary to have a debate here first. If it were going to be a very short time, noble Lords opposite might feel that it would be sufficient to have a debate on the Bill here. But I am entirely in the hands of noble Lords opposite, and with the agreement of both sides of the House we shall do what is necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Lord put this question to me, may I say that I think it is quite clear that on this side of the House (and I suspect tacitly, if over-discreetly, on that side of the House) there is a strong desire to debate this subject at the earliest opportunity. Unless, therefore, there is a prospect that the Bill will come to us within, say, a week, then I think we must have a debate. This is a matter of much too great seriousness. It was against this background that I was also considering Standing Order 32, but I am sure we should do better to deal with this matter in a regular way and perhaps have a debate early next week.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just said is perfectly agreeable to us.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, there are many other aspects of Rolls Royce which are reciprocal to the aero-industry part of Rolls Royce, and which are profitable. I gather from the Statement that these are to be hived off. Would it not be desirable that we should have a debate before the Bill, in order that some decisions may be taken in the light of the discussions?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think, my Lords, generally speaking, the divisions of Rolls Royce which the Government would not acquire would be the motor car division and the oil engine division.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one short and simple question? The noble Lord says that he and his colleagues are not willing to acquire the other assets of Rolls Royce and are willing to let them go into the hands of the Receiver, to be disposed of. Would he be happy if the Receiver disposed of them to foreigners?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the parts of the Rolls Royce company which are essential to the national interest are going to be acquired by the nation.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he could enlighten us on one point? He referred in his first Statement to the acquisition by Her Majesty's Government of certain assets. I do not think that anything in the Statement indicates how the valuation is to be made. Am I right in assuming that that will be dealt with in the legislation?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not quite sure about that, my Lords, but certainly I think there would have to be negotiations with the Receiver, as I understand it. Whether these will include the valuation, I am not quite sure.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it may or may not be proper or desirable for my noble friend Lord George-Brown to invoke Standing Order 32, but I should have thought it was definitely improper that, in the absence of testing the opinion of the House on Standing Order 32, we should have an immediate debate, which seems to be what is happening.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I ask the Government one further question? Will they, in considering what to do about the Rolls Royce situation, take account of the position of the aircraft industry as a whole and the place it holds in regard to our balance of payments? This is a very important question, my Lords, it is not just a defence question. We have gravely disappointed the airframe industry on the grounds that we were to reap various advantages by selling Rolls Royce engines abroad. Will that still be the position? Ought we, perhaps, to consider revising some of the previous decisions? Will the Government consider
1388
this matter on the broadest scale; not just on financial grounds but on the broadest engineering, balance-of-payments and industrial grounds?
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, my Lords, the Government have already considered it on the widest possible grounds. I think it would be a very good thing if we debated this point when we have the debate next week, or whenever it is.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, earlier on, the question was raised whether we could curtail the business for to-day and take some of it next week. It has now been agreed through the usual channels that we will continue with the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill until 6 o'clock and then proceed with the rest of the business on the Order Paper for to-day; and continue on Tuesday next with the rest of the Committee stage of the Drugs Bill.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, in the light of the debate we have just concluded on the Statement about Rolls Royce, may I ask the noble Earl whether that is not going to affect the business for next week? Does what he has announced still stand in the light of it?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, obviously there may have to be adjustments, but I should think that the possibilities are that we shall not have the debate before Tuesday. We may need to have it later in the week, if we are not going to get the Bill as early as my noble friend thought that we might.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, that is my point. Does the noble Earl say that the House will not sit on Monday?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the House will not sit on Monday.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before this Question is put, may I ask if we are not to have the second Statement?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I will put the Question, and then the noble Lord can ask his question.

1389
The Question is that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to speak on this Question because there has been no consultation about the second Statement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I also may be permitted to speak on my own Motion and to apologise to the noble Lord. The second Statement was not ready; it had not been completed in the House of Commons at the time when I moved my Motion. Since I rose to move it, however my noble friend Lord Lothian has received word that he is free to repeat it, and he will now make the second Statement. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: MINISTERS' MEETING
4.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, just in time! May I repeat a Statement which is being made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place at this very moment? The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a Statement on the Ministerial meeting of the Conference with the European Economic Communities on Tuesday of this week.
"The meeting recorded a number of agreements.
"The Community confirmed that the alternatives in their 1963 Declaration of Intent should be open not only to the nine African Commonwealth countries which I mentioned in my Statement to the House on the 10th of December but to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland as well, subject, in their case, to certain special arrangements which may need to be settled at a later stage.
"The Community further confirmed their proposal to include Hong Kong in their scheme of generalised preferences from the date of its implementation. We accepted their proposals as settling the case of Hong Kong as raised by us in the framework of the negotiations for accession.
"We agreed upon the way in which the enlarged Community would approach the problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries, countries for whom association is not appropriate. The enlarged Community would continue to be inspired in its trade relations with these countries by the wish to extend and reinforce this relationship. It would be ready to examine with these countries, after enlargement, and taking account of the scope of the generalised preference scheme, the problems that might arise in the field of trade with a view to reaching appropriate solutions.
"It was agreed that the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides should be associated with the enlarged Community.
"I welcomed a statement made by the Community on transitional arrangements in the field of industrial tariffs, which we thought should broadly meet the aim we have had in mind, in making our own proposals, of promoting as rapidly as possible the dynamic effects of industrial integration. But this arrangement, it was made clear, cannot be regarded as definitive until agreement has also been reached on methods of transition in the agricultural field.
"There was an exchange of views on the question of Community finance. I cannot say any agreement was reached. But I hope that there is now a better understanding of the issues involved in this field, which is of course of crucial importance to the success of the negotiations. I left the Community in no doubt of this fact."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement, although perhaps it is somewhat anti-climatic after the exciting result of the last Statement. Nevertheless, it is a Statement of very considerable importance. I have one or two

1391
questions about it that I should like to ask the noble Marquess, but before doing so may I say that I welcome the news that the Declaration of Intent open to the nine African Commonwealth countries has now been extended to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the "certain special arrangements", to which he referred, that "may need to be settled at a later stage" will be the subject of consultation with those three territories before any final arrangements are concluded.
A similar question applies to the Statement in respect of Hong Kong. May I ask the noble Marquess whether, in arriving at this arrangement with the Community, Her Majesty's Government in fact consulted the Hong Kong Government; and whether they are content with the arrangement that has now been arrived at? I must confess to some feeling of confusion about the passage in the Statement which refers—if I heard the noble Marquess aright—to the enlarged Community being "inspired in its trade relations" with the Asian Commonwealth countries by "the wish to extend and reinforce this relationship". I must ask the noble Marquess exactly what that means, because at the moment it means very little to me. What is the relationship between the Community and the Asian Commonwealth countries; or what do they understand that relationship to be? It has always been my understanding that the common external tariff of the Community would supersede any Commonwealth preferential arrangements and agreements. Perhaps the noble Marquess could enlighten me on that point.
I welcome the news that the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides is to be associated with the enlarged Community, and I note also the statement about the industrial tariff. There remains the most important issue of the exchange of views on the question of Community finance, the new financial structure of the Community. The Minister says in the Statement:
"I cannot say any agreement was reached."
This, of course, is not a very satisfactory situation. The noble Marquess will know that there are certain requirements which we on this side of the House would certainly
1392
regard as being crucial to the success of the negotiations; in the sense that any concession from them would be regarded by many of us as unacceptable. May I ask, therefore, for his assurance that Her Majesty's Government will remain firm, generally speaking, on the proposals put forward by his right honourable friend when he stated the British negotiating position?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while welcoming this Statement, which obviously is good so far as it goes, may I just say that we on these Benches feel that nothing we say at this moment in time is likely to be of very great assistance to the excellent Mr. Rippon in what are clearly becoming the critical phases of these highly important negotiations? May I ask the noble Marquess whether Mr. Rippon has made it quite clear to the Six in the course of negotiation that almost everything we may contribute to the Central Agricultural Fund, over and above the very small amount that we should recover, would be pure gain for the French farmer, who, if agreement is not reached, will just be so much the poorer.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Gladwyn, for their remarks in welcoming this Statement? The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me quite a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer. The first was whether there would be consultation with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. I can give an assurance that these countries will be consulted. The problems arise because of the fact that they have a Customs union with South Africa and that will have to be sorted out. I can also confirm that the Government of Hong Kong were very fully consulted in detail throughout the negotiations. They had certain reservations, I must tell the noble Lord, but they have accepted the situation as it stands. The noble Lord also raised a question about the Asian Commonwealth. I should like not to mislead him on this; and if I may I will let him know the precise meaning of this wording. I think that he is right in what he says about extending the preferences.
On the question of Community finance which, as both noble Lords have said, is really the crucial point, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are

1393
quite firm about their initial bid. This was a perfectly sincere and genuine bid. There were, in fact, this week no real negotiations: two statements were made; but the real negotiations will come, we hope, at the next meeting in March. I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether my right honourable friend has made his point about the gains to French agriculture; but knowing him, I suspect that he has done so.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask whether the question of fishery limits was raised at the Brussels Conference?—because it is very important.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite realise that it is a question of great importance, but I am afraid that I do not know whether it was raised on Tuesday. I rather think it was not, but I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask two questions? First, can we have an assurance that the Government will refuse to yield to the fantastic and extravagant demands made in the discussions that have recently taken place?—and this despite the blandishments of the pro-Common Marketeers who are trying to drive the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster into the Common Market whether he wants to go there or not. That is the first question. My second question is this. Can we have an assurance on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Boothby, who has been an ardent advocate of entry into the Common Market for a quarter of a century, over whether we can have an assurance that his apprehensions about the effects on the fishing industry will be taken note of by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on both those points.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one question? Will the horticultural, fruit-growing and vegetable-growing farmers in this country be able to set off against their contributions to the Central Agricultural Fund, as compensation, the cost of any damage that they may suffer through our entry into E.E.C.?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said. I should not like to mislead noble Lords about something on which I am not quite sure. I will take note of what he has said and I will keep in touch.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I follow up the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shinwell and the answer given by the noble Marquess? Is the noble Marquess aware that the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community as a whole is now to be automatic after 1978, according to an agreement made among the Six? Is he therefore aware that what we are negotiating now are transitional arrangements? Will he repeat the assurance that I understood him to give to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that we shall remain firm on our present proposals which, in the view of many of us on this side of the House, are the least that we can accept in the form of arrangements that will not damage the economy of this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that this is precisely the point that my right honourable friend the Chancellor was making in his statement in Brussels on Tuesday, when he said that he was going to remain firm on these matters. The Government have always taken the view that we are applying to join E.E.C. if the price is right.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
4.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD GIFFORD: May I resume the discussion in the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, and perhaps in a more calm and reasonable tone than when we left off, by reminding the Committee that we are not, on these Amendments, discussing whether cannabis should be legalised? I am on record as having said that I am opposed to the prohibition of cannabis, but I do not intend to burden your Lordships this afternoon with Amendments or arguments in support of that view. I recognise, as I am sure Lord Foot recognises, that there is a very substantial body of opinion, in this House and outside, to whom that prospect would be quite abhorrent. So I am now going to speak on Lord Foot's Amendment

1395
which concerns the classification of cannabis and whether that classification is properly made.
The Amendments in my name and in the name of Lord Foot were made possible because of an innovation made in the Bill which I wholeheartedly support; that is to say, that dangerous drugs are being classified according to the degree of harm which they are thought to generate. With the 120-odd drugs in the three Schedules, many of them with wholly foreign and unpronouncable names, one can reasonably assume that the allocation to particular categories has been made in the light of current medical knowledge; but, so far as cannabis is concerned, if one looks at the current medical knowledge one is driven to the conclusion that the allocation to Class B has been made in the light of popular prejudice rather than of scientific opinion.
May I now respond to the invitation extended by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, by saying that I wholeheartedly support his Amendment—though I have a feeling that what he is putting forward may be too radical for the Committee to accept. I hope that I am wrong. But what can be accepted, and indeed demonstrated, is that the present allocation of cannabis to Class B is wholly misplaced. If that is accepted, then I am glad to leave it to the Committee to decide whether they accept (as I would in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot) the creation of a new class, Class D, or whether they consider it simpler to down-grade cannabis from Class B to Class C. Those are Amendments in my names at a later stage on the Order Paper—because, either way, it is a compromise with the view certainly held by me. But it would be a major step forward toward a more sane and reasonable attitude to, this problem.
There is one point on which I disagreed with Lord Foot. That was when he said that there was no consensus among experts about cannabis. Our basic case for not placing cannabis along with amphetamines in a category where the penalties for trafficking and possession are are almost as high as those for heroin and other harmful drugs is that when we study the reports and scientific papers we find that there is a consensus. I accept at
1396
once that at present too little is being done, and that much more needs to be done. But there is a consensus that there is not yet any proper evidence that harm is done by the consumption of cannabis in moderate doses over a long period. There is a consensus that it is rare for cannabis to be taken in large and excessive doses. There is a consensus that the moderate use of cannabis does not in many cases lead to chronic use or to the use of other drugs. And there is even a consensus that even with chronic use the harm is of a wholly different order from that arising from the chronic use of heroin or the other really horrifying drugs.
At the risk of wearying the Committee, I feel it is necessary, when we are considering how to classify a particular drug, to study some of the research that has been done. I hope that both the Committee and the Government will recognise that this is a decision which should not be made on the basis of anybody's views or prejudices, or preconceived opinions, but in the light of what the experts have to say. In my analysis of the vast body of literature which is available on cannabis there are four outstanding officially commissioned Reports of high importance. The first goes back a long way. It is the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894. This was a monumental Report, covering seven volumes and 3,281 pages. When it was unearthed from oblivion in the United States in 1968 by a number of scientists studying the problem of drugs, it was stated by one member:
"This investigation is by far the most complete and systematic study of marijuana undertaken to date. It is both surprising and gratifying to note the timeless and lucid quality of the writings of these British colonial bureaucrats."
The 1894 Commission concluded:
"Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill-effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature of this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation."

1397
That is a condensation of the findings of an inquiry which came to the same conclusion as the inquiry under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger.
The next major milestone in official inquiries into the effects of cannabis use was the inquiry of the Mayor of the City of New York, Mayor La Guardia, into marijuana use in the City of New York in 1944. Again the inquiry was made by a highly authoritative body set up to inquire into the various aspects of marijuana use. They also did research on the basis of experimental tests on subjects smoking marijuana. Their conclusion was:
"There is definite evidence in this study … that marijuana users … had suffered no mental or physical deterioration as a result of their use of the drug.
"From the study as a whole it is concluded that marijuana is not a drug of addiction comparable to morphine, and that if tolerance is acquired, this is of a very limited degree."
I stress that I am not citing these Reports in an attempt to obtain the legalisation of cannabis. It is an attempt to demonstrate that the more one reads these Reports, the more one believes that cannabis should be regarded as in a class by itself among the drugs that we are considering in this Bill.
The third inquiry, which has been frequently referred to, was that made by the Sub-Committee of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. That Sub-Committee, in turn, endorsed the conclusions of the two Reports I have just cited. Their conclusion, written 24 years after the Mayor of New York's Committee report, was:
"Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached—
by the two Commissions I have mentioned—
"that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects."
Again last year, in Canada, another memorable and authoritative inquiry was carried out by the Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. They again reviewed all the evidence available and again came to the conclusion that, so far as the short-term effects were concerned, these were negligible. So far as the long-term effects
1398
were concerned, they urged caution. They urged continued prohibition, but they were unable to produce hard evidence to rebut the conclusions that I have already referred to. So much for the officially commissioned research and inquiry.
If one goes to the individual scientific experiments—and of course there are not enough of them—one sees the same pattern. One authoritative and most meticulous experiment was conducted in 1968 by Weil, Zinberg and Nelsen with controlled tests on marijuana smoking subjects. Their conclusion was:
"The near-absence of significant physiological effects makes it unlikely that marijuana has any seriously detrimental physical effects in either a short-term or a long-term usage."
Although, as I said, there have been regrettably few similar experiments, there has been no evidence forthcoming, either in the United States or here, to rebut that conclusion.
The last piece of research to which I wish to refer, and perhaps the most surprising, is that done by Crancer in 1969. That was a study of the effects of marijuana on driving skills. Some subjects were given no drug at all, some had a high dose of marijuana given to them and others were given a high dose of alcohol. Astonishingly, it was found that those with alcohol had a very high degree of error but that the errors committed by those with marijuana and those who had nothing were almost exactly the same. They do not suggest that it is safe to drive on marijuana, and they emphasise that this conclusion should be regarded with caution and that more research needs to be done. But (and I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who raised this point) it is perhaps remarkable to note that initial tests carried on in this field show that there does not appear to be a pronounced danger even if someone is foolish enough to drive with cannabis inside him.
The sum total of these reports might lead some people to say what a remarkable pastime this is; how much more desirable than alcohol or tobacco, and at what little social cost it appears to be generally used. But that is not the issue in this debate on this Amendment. The issue is whether we have correctly classified cannabis along with amphetamines in Class B. One cannot ignore the remark

1399
able conclusions that expert after expert has come to.
But when one compares those conclusions with the conclusions reached on the use of amphetamines, then we are talking about proven harm of a wholly different magnitude, because, of course, the category of drugs in Class B are amphetamines. The non-injectable amphetamines are the drugs we, and the young people, are asked to regard as being on the same level as cannabis. On the use of amphetamines, there is no need to say much. It is, first of all, clear and proven that there is a marked tendency for people who start taking amphetamine pills to take more amphetamine pills and to go on from there to take amphetamine intravenously.
The Le Dain Committee studied amphetamines also and concluded that, particularly when amphetamines are taken, as it were, for "kicks", there may be shown
"a considerable sensitivity to tolerance, and individuals who either began using the drug to obtain these effects, or who acquired the taste for them after initially using amphetamines for other purposes, generally show a marked tendency to increased dose over time."
What is the result of increasing a dose over a time? It is frightening indeed. I quote again from the Le Dain Report:
"The clinical picture of the chronic 'speed freak' is a distressing one indeed. Continued use leads to a considerable weight loss, sores and use of massive doses of amphetamines often non-healing ulcers, brittle finger nails, tooth grinding, chronic chest disorders, liver disease, a variety of hypertensive disorders, and in some cases, cerebral haemorrhage."
I hope I need say no more to show the Committee that with amphetamines one is talking about an horrific danger; and yet we are asked to accept that amphetamines should be classed along with cannabis as a Class B drug, carrying the penalties which have been referred to.
I apologise to your Lordships if I have gone on too long in quoting what is to me irrefutable evidence, not of the harmlessness of cannabis but of our blindness and our wilful rejection of medical knowledge in categorising it as it is proposed to do in this Bill. I do not ask your Lordships to pay heed to my opinions as a champion of the younger generation, which I self-confessedly am; but I do ask your Lordships to consider whether
1400
in the light of all the evidence (and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham must tell me if I have distorted it, but I do not believe that I have) one can maintain this classification. I would ask the noble Lord when he replies, both to Lord Foot's Amendment, and next week to mine, to carefully consider whether he is able to justify the present categorisation by any medical reasons. I would ask him, perhaps next week, having taken time for reflection, whether I have fairly summarised the available scientific knowledge in respect of cannabis. I would ask the Committee to look at these Amendments not in an emotional way, but in the light of reason, and to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or, at least, if that is going too far, to pay the greatest care to the Amendment that appears later in my name on the Marshalled List.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to express a sense of real shock at the suggestion which is now being made to your Lordships, that we should go soft on this question of cannabis. Along with others who have been in the Middle East, where I spent some years of my life, I know that it is common knowledge that this is really a disastrous drug. Its misuse (and who can be sure that anybody who uses it will not subsequently misuse it?) leads to the most extraordinary delusions. It is not for nothing that the word "assassin" is derived from the word "hashish". It is common knowledge in the Middle East that people who get too much of this stuff inside them go absolutely berserk.
That is not the only objection to it. You can say the same about alcohol. The real objection to cannabis was made, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill: it is that this drug is a pathway along which people fall into the stronger drugs. It is not only a danger that people who take this drug get in the habit of taking a "trip". That is the first point I want to make. It is quite true that some of the physiological effects are not necessarily so demonstrably bad as with some other drugs, but there is with this drug a psychological addiction to the habit of taking a "trip". Once people get that habit they very easily take to other drugs in order to take "trips": and, anyhow, the taking of

1401
"trips" gets more frequent and somewhat worse.
It is not only the point about taking a "trip". Because if you go soft about the selling of this drug, you will find that many of the most immoral commercial pushers of it mix other drugs in with it which are much more addictive, being confident thereby that the hapless victims will have to come back to them, whether they like it or not, to get more and more of the stuff and pay more and more exorbitant prices. This commercialisation of drug pushing is something that we must stop in our community, and I think that this Bill tends to do it very well. But I do not think it will be done effectively if we "go soft" about the categorisation of cannabis. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we should reject this Amendment and keep cannabis in the category where it is now.
I do not want to prolong this debate, but we have heard a good deal about scientific research. It so happens that I have a close relation who leads a team of researchers into the drugs problem at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. The advice that I have given to your Lordships would certainly be in accordance with what the leading Swedish researchers would say on this subject. Although I cannot give it its proper scientific terminology in every respect, I know enough about science to assure your Lordships that I am not talking through my hat.
I want to say one other thing. The experience of Sweden, and for that matter the West Coast of America, ought to cause great hesitation to anybody who thinks about going soft on the question of cannabis. They have the most appalling problem. A year ago, when I was in Stockholm on a previous occasion, the town was covered with notices. They were huge white notices with a black cross in the middle, and underneath there was a series of names like "Iren" or "Jan", or some such name, horn so and so 1952, died so and so in 1968, and underneath: "Narcotics took her (or his) life". These were all young people of less than 20, and often down to 14 years of age. This is a terrible problem, and I think it is high time that we took it seriously. I recommend that we should not be less severe than the provisions of this Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BROCK: I had not intended to intervene in this debate on the misuse of drugs because I felt that interventions would better come from my physician colleagues. Like other speakers, I am disturbed by the proposed Amendments to the Bill which are directed towards the liberalisation (or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, states, "going soft" on it), by several methods, of the use of cannabis. We have already had mention of growing it in one's garden, and I notice that a following Amendment relates to the cultivation of cannabis and suggests that it should be allowed to be grown in the garden or on the farm. I find it difficult to decide on which particular Amendment I should speak. However, I felt it was best to come in fairly soon in the proceedings, although there are later Amendments which I find even more disturbing.
I associate myself strongly with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It is implied that cannabis is not a harmful drug and that it is so benign that its use should not be restricted. We have heard a lot of pseudo-scientific evidence put forward to that effect.
LORD FOOT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BROCK: It is suggested that the present robe of permissiveness should cover its use. The whole of this drug taking business is bad and miserable. We are dealing with evil things; let us have no doubt about that. There was a time when it did not constitute a problem in this country; the number of addicts were few and not increasing, but that is no longer so. This pernicious and foul disease has attacked this country and is spreading. Make no mistake about it, it is firmly here. It is as if plague, cholera or rabies had secured a firm footing, were endemic and about to become epidemic. Drug-taking is now endemic and in danger of becoming epidemic. We succeed in keeping out rabies, cholera and other such diseases, and we should be alarmed if they became established in this country; but drug-taking is no less dangerous a disease.
Few addicts start on hard drugs. The commoner process is to begin on the less

1403
maligned ones, usually as a result of being introduced to them as "a lark", as a thing to do, often at a "pop" festival or some other occasion. Now it is suggested that the House of Lords should make it easier for that to be done. If the young person continues on soft drugs there is a strong chance that he or she will progress to hard drugs, and he or she is then lost. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has emphasised. I know of virtually no cure. Some individuals—perhaps 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.—may escape the disaster that embraces them, but those are occasional exceptions. The majority just remain addicts, with all the miseries that that entails, until they die, and that can happen swiftly in the young.
We have, again, had examples that this drug-taking affects very young people. My hearts bleeds for the parents of a young man or a young woman who has been caught by this foul business. Their despair and unhappiness must be very great. I am sure that there are many parents who are sadly afflicted in this way. This desperate and disastrous sequence from soft to hard drugs ought to be avoided at all costs. Nothing should be done to aid these young people to start their career of disaster and to encourage or make the initial step easier. We all know the great problems that exist in the case of tobacco smoking and how difficult it is to give up the habit. With a world picture of drug-taking before us it is being suggested that we should liberalise, go "soft" on this access to cannabis. This is pure folly. We should be careful not to encourage our young people to set their feet on the slope that leads to so much sorrow for so many people. We should reject this Amendment and others like it which possess the same dangers.
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I rise to ask some questions which I hope some noble Lords who are doctors, and also the Minister, may be able to answer. Some of the speeches I have listened to seem to have gone rather far from the original Amendment. As I understood it, it was not to liberalise the taking of cannabis to the point of legalisation, although one or two people have said and implied that. As I understand this Amendment, it is
1404
that cannabis should still be treated as an illegal drug; it should still be subject to penalties, but it should be put in a special class. This is my dilemma: I can see the arguments of both sides, but it is rather odd (and perhaps I may have some elucidation on this) that cannabis should be put in with the other drugs. I confess that I do not know what many of them are, or what they do, nor why cannabis is particularly a bed-fellow in one category rather than in another.
Information on this point would assist many of us so far as concerns both this particular Amendment and also the later one which wants to put cannabis in Class C. I feel—and I hope I am right—that other noble Lords, like myself, are certainly not in favour of the legalisation of cannabis, but are concerned about the way in which it is dealt with and the penalties its use receives. We are also concerned about the category into which it should be put. It is true that the recommendation by my noble friend Lady Wootton in the Report of her sub-committee was that there should be special legislation on cannabis. That has not happened and, presumably, that is why this matter has arisen on this Bill. But I wonder why it is not possible to make that compromise and have a special category for cannabis, but with penalties. That, again, is very far from making cannabis legal.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps I might explain to the noble Baroness that the reason for the recommendations from the Cannabis Committee to which she has referred was that only this drug was referred to the committee for consideration. This was at a time when the then Government had not indicated any intention to produce a comprehensive Drugs Bill. Had that intention been known, I am sure that my Committee would merely have asked that cannabis should find its appropriate place in such a Bill.
LORD PLATT: I had not intended to speak at this time in the debate, because I shall be speaking to certain other Amendments later, but as my noble friend Lord Brock has pointed out that his physician colleagues do not seem to be giving him full support, although I am, as my noble friend Lord Brock has said, a physician, and a Member of your

1405
Lordships' House, nevertheless I want the House to understand that I do not have any special experience in dealing with drug addiction, for that experience does not come very much the way of a professor in internal medicine in a University Department. So I should not want your Lordships to look upon me as a great authority who knows more about this subject than the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who has been most careful in his study of the reports on cannabis, or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
I should go a very long way with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in saying. "Why do we not say, 'cannabis is a different drug' although for the moment we may hold varying views on its seriousness?". In this I am all with those who do not want to make it easier for the cannabis pushers. Why do we not say that it is a different drug, that it is not of the same kind of class as those to which it is being classified? Why do we not give it a classification of its own? I would possibly agree with this course were it not for the fact that we are classifying drugs according to what is considered to be their dangers.
Nowhere in this Bill, so far as I can see (I have just been looking through it again), does it say that drugs are being so classified. The only reference is in the Explanatory Memorandum, which is not part of the Bill. Nevertheless, this is of course implicit if in fact the penalties for the mishandling of a certain class of drugs are very much greater than the penalties in respect of another. Therefore the objection to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is suggesting at the moment seems to be that if you put cannabis into a separate class—Class D—and then make the penalties very much less than for Class B, you are in fact saying that this is not such a dangerous drug.
I wonder whether it is too late in the course of this Bill to take a compromise view. I should not like your Lordships to think that in any way I am compromising by saying, "Cannabis is harmless; I do not mind if we legalise it", and so on. I do not take that view at all. I go all the way in trying to prevent the use of cannabis from spreading. But I wonder whether we could not put it into a different category because it really belongs
1406
to a different category. If you like, I would agree to making the penalties for possessing cannabis less than those for the possession of certain other drugs. But we should have a very stiff penalty for the offence—it is set out in line 20, on page 38:
"Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another."
This should bear a heavy penalty. If that were so, I think I would probably support the idea that we should put cannabis in a separate category.
LORD ST. JUST: As my name is on the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I would just say that I think the question of putting cannabis into a separate category is an essential factor. I will not go over what has already been said. We have heard a great deal on the scientific angle, and everything else. But in the horrific world of drug taking, if we get cannabis into a separate category there is a possibility that the people who, for instance, are smoking cannabis will not then come into contact, through the pushers and other channels, with the hard drugs. This is an important factor, and for this reason (the others having already been stated) I support the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I have not any great knowledge of this subject—either of the use or of the misuse of drugs. I am very much in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said: that cannabis should be in a different category; but I am also very frightened when I remember a conversation that I had with a member—a medical member—of the Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. He told me that there was no question that in the case of patients he had had to look after who were addicted to drugs, all those on hard drugs had started on such things as cannabis.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lady, but there was no other female member of my Committee, and I think this cannot have been a member of my Committee.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I did not say female.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I beg the noble Lady's pardon: I understood her to say "she".
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I said "a medical man". I beg your pardon. That is my only reason for feeling that cannabis should be put on a lower level than it has been put. But I feel that to put it in a class by itself makes it seem as if it is not nearly so important as it really is.
5.25 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at this stage, as it has been arranged that the Committee stage shall conclude at six o'clock. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, will no doubt wish to come in again at the end of the debate on his Amendment and advise your Lordships on whether or not he intends to press his Amendment. I should like to begin with some general considerations, before going on to the particular reasons why the Government do not think it would be right to put cannabis in a special category.
There is a tendency to consider this whole question in terms of our own society, but the problems raised by cannabis are of concern to many other societies as well. We can all take our own examples from the scientific literature in this country and the reports made elsewhere. But they must, by that act, be selective. There are parts of the reports which back up whatever point of view we wish to put forward. But there are other expressions of opinion that should, perhaps, be given particular attention; namely, international opinions which have been codified in the form of conventions.
The United Kingdom Government are a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and this requires control to be maintained over the distribution of cannabis. Moreover, we are a member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs which continues to urge Governments to increase their efforts to eradicate the abuse and illicit traffic in cannabis; to promote research and advance additional medical and sociological information regarding cannabis; and effectively to counter any publicity which advocates legalisation or tolerance of the non-medical use of cannabis as a harmless drug. I refer to the resolution of the 22nd Session of the
1408
Commission in 1968. The World Health Organisation has assessed the harm to society derived from the abuse of cannabis as resting in the economic consequence of the impairment of the individual's social functions and his enhanced proneness to forms of anti-social behaviour.
In this country, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence set up a Sub-Committee in 1967 to examine the whole question of the misuse of cannabis. I referred on Second Reading to the Report of the Sub-Committee, presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. It was, as noble Lords know, a very controversial Report. It was also, I am inclined to think, one that has been misunderstood more than a large number of other specialist reports of the kind. It did not say that the use of cannabis was without danger to health. It did not recommend that cannabis should be legalised. On the contrary, the Sub-Committee recommended that restrictions should be maintained. They felt that the penalties were too high; and that is a point to which I shall return in a few moments.
Two extracts from the Report, both short, are particularly to the point at this stage. On the impairment of the cannabis user's social function—that was the assessment of the World Health Organisation to which I have just referred—the noble Baroness's Sub-Committee commented:
"Accurate scientific knowledge is lacking of the personality of those who habitually use cannabis, of the significance of the circumstances in which it is used, and of the psychological, physiological and social consequence of long-term use".
That is in Paragraph 73. The second extract (in Paragraph 62) concerns the risk to health:
"It is not possible to say that long continued consumption, medically or for pleasure, of cannabis, or indeed of any other substance of which we have not yet had long experience, is free from possible danger."
The analogy of tobacco and alcohol was mentioned, earlier in the discussion on this Amendment, by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich; and this is often said. But it seems to me that the really significant difference is that the use of cannabis is not socialised; that it is not accepted by law or convention as a normal part of social life. Alcohol is so accepted, and experience shows that once a habit has become socialised it is

1409
extremely difficult to eradicate. For support of that proposition, we can look to what happened in the United States of America in the case of Prohibition. Even when it is proved that a substance is harmful to health, if its use has become socialised it is very much harder to stop. If what we know to-day about tobacco and the proven causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been known in the early years of this century, when cigarette smoking became common, the habit might not have spread and much suffering might have been avoided.
My second comment would be that if the use of cannabis is accepted as not being a matter as serious as the use of other drugs which do not have a therapeutic application, cannabis use will become "the done thing" for a much wider section of society. It is not only young children who imitate their elders: many others imitate the behaviour of those whom they admire, and we already know only too well the dangers of the weak personality and the emotionally deprived person who drift into using drugs because they see others, who may have the strength not to be harmed, doing so. The weak personalities and the emotionally deprived may not have the strength to limit their use of drugs to moderate amounts.
My third comment on this aspect of our debate is on the very great difficulty of distinguishing between the use of cannabis and other drugs. I see, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, used to see when he was at the Home Office, cases of people who have got into trouble for a number of reasons. In some of these cases drugs are involved, and over and over again one sees that the drugs involved are multiple. There is some cannabis, there is some LSD, there is another drug. It is very seldom that it is only one drug. Once the habit is there, the desire to experiment, which is very strong, particularly with LSD, has to be borne in mind.
Let me move on now to the question of penalties and to the points raised in debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland. It is not possible to distinguish between and to discuss the principle behind these Amendments without considering their
1410
effect, and their effect is on the level of penalty that offences are to attract. The is the significance of the three categories that Class A, Class B and Class C attract penalties of a different level.
Let us consider for a moment the present position. I am afraid it is somewhat complicated, but a knowledge of it is essential for an understanding of the problem. The present position is that cannabis, together with a certain number of other drugs, is controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The maximum penalties for any offence relating to cannabis are, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £250 or imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or both; and, on indictment, a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence concluded that these penalties were too high and should be reduced. The previous Administration did not accept the levels proposed by the Sub-Committee, but the effect of scheduling cannabis as a category B drug in the present Bill is that the various offences involving cannabis are distinguished.
Where the offence is under subsections (2) or (3) of Clause 4, or subsection (3) of Clause 5—and these are the clauses of the Bill which establish offences that amount to trafficking—the penalties are still very heavy, and indeed in some cases have been increased to as high as 14 years. The later Amendments that have been set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will give us an opportunity to debate these, and it will certainly be an important part of the Committee's deliberation to discuss the whole level of penalties, including the ones with which she is particularly concerned at the upper end of the scale.
Where, however, the offence is having possession of a controlled drug, which is covered by Clause 5(2), the penalties involving imprisonment will be less than they are today. On summary conviction, the maximum penalty will be a fine not exceeding £400 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both; and on indictment, a fine of an unspecified amount or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. It will be seen that in the case of imprisonment—and this is probably what is worrying most noble Lords—the maximum terms of

1411
imprisonment available to the courts under this Bill for offences involving simple possession of cannabis have been halved, as regards both the magistrates' courts and the higher courts.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is right, is it not, that in regard to the supply and production of cannabis the penalty in fact goes up from 10 years to 14 years?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes; the noble Lord may not have quite followed what I was saying. I hope I made it clear, and it will be in Hansard tomorrow. The Bill distinguishes—as the present law does not—between conduct which amounts to trafficking in drugs and possession of drugs—and by "possession" we often mean the use of a drug. There are three offences which amount to trafficking which we will come to later in the Bill, and, as I have said, the penalties for trafficking are high and in some cases, as I mentioned just now, will increase from 10 years to 14 years. But in the case of simple possession of cannabis—that is the individual user who is in possession of the drug—what I have said holds good. As regards imprisonment, the penalties on indictment and on summary conviction have been halved. There has therefore been a reduction in penalty, but we do not think it is right to go any further than that. That is the reason why I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is it not a fact that cannabis smoking is almost always a communal activity in which the joint is passed from one person to another, and that this in fact amounts to having possession and control of the drug with intent to supply it to another, so that in virtually every case the "pot" smoker would be liable to the maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years?
LORD WINDLESHAM: This debate is a wide-ranging one and we are drawing towards the end of it. We are going to discuss each of these offences when we come to the various clauses of the Bill. We are in Committee, and let us debate the offences amounting to trafficking when we come to them. For the time being, let us stay with Lord Foot's point. I am making the point that the consequence of accepting his Amendment
1412
would be to reduce still further the penalties for the possession of cannabis, and we do not think it would be right to go as far as that.
I must remind your Lordships again that the Bill has been the subject of very careful study by two Governments of opposing Parties. It has received two Second Readings in the House of Commons; it has had an extensive examination in Committee in the House of Commons, although the proceedings in the Committee were not concluded before the General Election, and it had a second examination in Committee there before it came to your Lordships' House. At no point in those discussions was there a Division on penalties. Differing opinions were expressed, as one would expect, but at no stage did anyone feel that public opinion was so strong or that the merits of the case were such that they required the penalties for possession of cannabis to be reduced.
I should point out, finally (because I am anxious to leave the noble Lord with enough time to say what he wants to say before we come to a decision), that the allocation of cannabis in the Bill to Class B is not permanent. Many noble Lords have said that we need to know more about cannabis, to find out more about its effects on personality and on health; and this is undoubtedly so. Once this Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary will be able, on the advice of his Advisory Council that will be set up under Clause 1, to move any drug up or down in the existing three classes, or indeed out of the Schedules altogether. There is power under the legislation to do that. I think I have said enough to explain that in the Government's view it is not possible to advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It had not been my intention to speak on this Amendment at all but rather on that which seeks to eliminate Clause 6, which I equally hope will be rejected by your Lordships most emphatically. Although I, mercifully, have no experience of the effect of cannabis in this country, I know something about its use and abuse in one of the countries where it is produced and which is one of the main sources of supply for the trade over here; that is to say, Jamaica, an island I know very well indeed. In the local Press there, hardly a

1413
week passes without one seeing an account of some crime being committed—murder, culpable homicide, rape or violent assault—by someone under the influence of cannabis, there known as ganja. That happens the whole time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, there are various ways of administering it. Over there it is usually smoked, and there unscrupulous dealers, as here, sometimes cut the drug by mixing grass or some other innocuous herb with it. It is also chewed in the way plug tobacco used to be, and still is to some extent, in this country. It is sometimes inhaled in the form of snuff and also, I think, taken in the form of injections. The fact remains that the use of cannabis in Jamaica is a most deleterious thing and is something which, if it spreads in this country, will lead to even more suffering than has been the case up to now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has, I think, completely demolished the arguments in favour of it. I must say I am surprised that the whole attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and his supporters seems to be, "When you see evil, do not resist." Surely, they must read the papers and the many accounts, well authenticated, of the appalling suffering inflicted, particularly on young people and their families, in this country. In my opinion there is no reason for any relaxation in the regulations, and I hope that the Government will push through this Bill and your Lordships will reject with contumely all Amendments which seek to modify it.
5.45 p.m.
LORD FOOT: May I begin, in reply to this debate, with the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, alluded at the end of what he had to say, when he remarked that we need not worry very much about putting this drug cannabis in Class D because it is always open to the Secretary of State at some future date to put it up or down in the categorism. I think that argument is a misleading one, though not intentionally so, for this reason. If you put the penalty for the drug too high in the first place, it becomes almost impossible at any future date to get it reduced, because as soon as you try to do so you get people like the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, getting up and saying, "You are going soft on cannabis". It is an argument that is
1414
constantly used. If you put the penalties too high in the first place, it is almost impossible in the future to get them reduced; but if you put them low in the scale, and if it turns out, as a result of future research, that cannabis has some harmful quality, some possible long-term quality and effect, which we have not yet discovered, it will always be possible to raise cannabis in the level of offences.
I do not want to attempt to reply in any sort of detail to all that has been said in this debate, but it would be fair to say that, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, the two arguments that have been raised against my proposal are these. The first is, as she put it, that we must beware of what we do because we do not know what the effects of cannabis are. And the second one was the assertion—and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the noble Lord, Lord Brock—that use of cannabis leads on to the use of hard drugs, and in particular heroin. I think I could most usefully apply myself to those two matters. With regard to the first, that we should beware of what we do about cannabis because we do not know what the effects are, we have not yet had sufficient research, and so on—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I interrupt? I think the noble Lord is a little confused. I was quoting him when I used that argument. Those were the last words he used, and I quoted him.
LORD FOOT: That is precisely my point, because I was just going to say that I agree with the noble Baroness. I do not dissent from that expression. Indeed', that is what I have said from the beginning. I hope we can consider this matter unemotionally. The basic principle of the Bill is to try to put drugs in three or more categories according to their known harmfulness. Suppose that you have a drug which is separate from every other drug in this way, that you do not know whether it is harmful or in what circumstances it is harmful, is there not an overwhelming argument for creating a separate classification for that drug, because it has that particular property? It is a property which, so far as I know, is not shared by any of the drugs in Categories A, B or C. Therefore, when I propose that there should

1415
be a separate classification for cannabis, I am not departing from the principle upon which the Bill is constructed. Indeed, I am going along with it.
In that matter of principle I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. He said that he thought there was something to be said for the principle, but that he certainly would not agree with some of the penalties that I was prescribing in my later Amendments, particularly for production and supply. As I said at the beginning, I am not dogmatic about these penalties and I hope that at this stage we shall not be drawn into a discussion about the penalties that I propose; but I shall be quite willing to listen if the noble Lord will go along with me in carrying the principle which I advocate. I shall be only too pleased to discuss later on whether I have the penalties right or whether the penalty for some particular kind of offence in connection with cannabis may be too low.
To me it seems logical from the principles of this Bill that on the Government's own argument there ought to be a separate classification for cannabis. It is not going "soft" on cannabis, because if the House accepts the general principle it will be perfectly possible in due course, when they come to consider cannabis, for us to resolve what are the appropriate penalties for the various kinds of offences in connection with it.
Before I leave this matter, perhaps I should say one word about an argument which was addressed to us by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He was talking about different people who are led into the use of drugs and things of that kind, and he spoke particularly of the weak character who engages in the use of cannabis because he is an inadequate person and is unable to resist the temptation which may be put before him. I would ask the noble Lord this question: Does he really believe that that weak, inadequate character will be prevented from starting on the use of cannabis because this Bill says that he might go to prison for five years? Does he really believe that that sanction in the background really operates upon characters of that kind?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That was not my point. My argument was that if we
1416
encourage the more widespread use of cannabis, if we start on a process of socialisation, it is the weak and the inadequate who suffer most.
LORD FOOT: The noble Lord's premise is that if we start upon a process of making cannabis acceptable, or of socialisation, then we are in danger of bringing these weak characters into contact with it. I am not recommending that. I am not recommending legalisation. I am recommending that this should remain a crime, that it should remain an offence. I am not advocating the wider use of cannabis. Far from it. What I am advocating is that when we are dealing with cannabis where no harmfulness has been demonstrated, we ought not to attach to it penalties which are entirely inappropriate to the crime in question.
May I turn to the other argument which has been raised by a number of your Lordships, that the use of cannabis and the introduction to cannabis leads on to the use of hard drugs, in particular heroin. This was asserted by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Brock. But in each case it was an assertion, and you can find many quotations to the contrary if you look through the records—some of them have been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. If I may quote from the report to which I think the noble Baroness was referring when she spoke on this subject, the report of the United States Health Education and Welfare Department, published only a couple of days ago—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My quotation was taken from the report of the Mental Health Committee.
LORD FOOT: This is the report compiled by the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States Health Education and Welfare Department. I do not know whether it is the same report from which the noble Baroness quoted an extract. But let me quote from it on this matter of whether cannabis leads on to heroin. Concerning drug dependency the report says this:
"It is generally conceded that marijuana use does not necessarily lead directly to the use of other drugs."
We can all produce quotations about that.
Perhaps I may in passing quote what was said by the Wootton Sub-Committee

1417
on this same subject. This is the result of the investigation and the research which they carried out. These are not assertions; this is their summary of the evidence, and in paragraph 51 they say:
"It can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis use does not lead to heroin addiction. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned no comprehensive survey has yet been made, and a number of isolated studies have been published, none of which demonstrate significant lines of progression. Our witnesses had nothing to add to the information already available, and we have concluded that a risk of progression to heroin from cannabis is not a reason for retaining the control over the drug."
That is the conclusion of this Sub-Committee which, after all, went into the matter in great detail.
I would ask the Committee to do two things. I would ask them to put into one scale the unsupported assertions that we have had from the noble Baroness and noble Lords, to the effect that cannabis leads on to the harder drugs, and the conclusion arrived at by the committee in America and that which was arrived at by the informed Sub-Committee headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. This matter has been debated over and over again. There are, of course, strong arguments both ways. It is partly a matter of instinct whether you think that the use of cannabis in fact leads on to the use of the harder drugs.
But I suggest that we are in danger of falling into an error of principle.
As I said at the beginning, the whole of this Bill is based upon the principle that you should try to categorise drugs according to their level of harmlessness. Surely it would be a complete break from that principle if you were to put cannabis, which is not demonstrably harmful, into a higher category, not because it is harmful in itself but because somebody asserts that it leads on to heroin. If you were Ito do that, then there might be an argument for putting some amphetamines into a higher level because they, too, may lead on to the use of heroin. If we are going to work upon the principle of categorising drugs according to their level of harmlessness, let us stick by the principle and not try to avoid the issue by saying that one drug is to be condemned, not on its own account, not for its own sake, not for what it does, but because it might, in the belief of some people, lead on to something else. I see that our time is coming to an end. I feel that the principle of this matter ought to be tested, and I would therefore carry the matter to a Division.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-contents, 116.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Burgh, L.

Henley, L.

Amherst, E.

Burntwood, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amulree, L.

Byers, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Harrington, V.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

St. Just, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Gifford, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Eccles, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Clwyd, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Amory, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland, L.

Cromartie, E.

Fortescue, E.

Audley, B.

Daventry, V.

Gage, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Berkeley, B.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Brock, L.

Derwent, L.

Gray, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Diamond, L.

Greenway, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carrington, L.

Dudley, E.

Gridley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Molson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hankey, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stocks, B.

Hawke, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonham, L.

Hives, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Hood, V.

Northchurch, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strang, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Ilford, L.

Phillips, B.

Sudeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Summerskill, B.

Janner, L.

Rhyl, L.

Swanborough, B.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rockley, L.

Tenby, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teynham, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Longford, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

Lothian, M.

Salisbury, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Serota, B.

Wise, L.

Mansfield, E.

Shannon, E.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
6.14 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD STONHAM in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Abolition of prerogative of the Crown as to wild creatures, and franchises derived therefrom]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("royal fish") and insert ("sturgeons").
The noble Earl said: Since my Amendment affects the prerogative, I am authorised to say that if this Amendment were proposed excluding not only swans but royal fish this would not be of any embarrassment to the Crown, provided that the Amendment made it clear beyond peradventure that it was being proposed by interests other than the Sovereign, as Her consent to the proposals has already been signified, and there must be no suggestion that such consent had been modified on Her Majesty's behalf (and that of

1421
course I can say quite definitely) and provided also that an appropriate assurance could be given by the Department of Trade and Industry that the Department would be fully responsible for any liability arising in connection with royal fish. That assurance I cannot give, but I imagine that the present position would be maintained and perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say so. If your Lordships agreed to my Amendment I have no doubt that the Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, would accept the responsibility which they do at present.
This Bill was drafted by the Law Commission, which has as its duty,
"the promotion of the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments".
For those reasons it included a clause abolishing the Royal prerogative right to the bodies of whales, dolphins and porpoises cast up on the shores of this country, giving as an additional reason the possible delay involved in seeking the Royal approval when one of those bodies had to be dealt with.
This clause vitally affects the Natural History Museum, of which I happen to be one of the Trustees. I should perhaps explain to your Lordships that the Trustees are responsible for much more than the exhibition galleries to which you may take your children or your grandchildren. These form but a small part of the responsibilities of the Trustees, taking about one-eighth of the total money expended. Behind the galleries, unseen by the general public, there is one of the largest and famous research institutes in the world. One of the branches of science for which that institute is most famous is the study of whales, dolphins and porpoises. And there is in the museum an unrivalled collection of material, of skulls and skeletons, of soft parts and dissections, available for study not only by our own scientists, but also by scientists who come from all over the world to work there.
It has been possible to collect much of this material only because the Board of Trade are responsible for dealing, on behalf of the Crown, with stranded whales and dolphins, and since 1914—that is, nearly 60 years—the carcases of all whales and dolphins cast up on the shores of this country have been offered to the Museum as potentially useful scientific material. As it has been suggested
1422
that this arrangement might cause delay and problems of public health, I should perhaps explain the procedure followed. The coastguard who finds the body sends a telegram to the Museum informing it of what he has found. The Museum sends one back saying whether or not it wants the body. If it does need it, somebody from the Museum goes down to deal with the carcase: if it is not needed, the coastguard arranges for its disposal.
In most cases to-day the communication comes by telephone, which is much quicker; but in order to see that the machinery was working satisfactorily I took a file out of the Museum's files at random and picked out of it the first five telegrams, in sequence, dealing with royal fish. I noted in each case the time when the coastguard sent the telegram off and the time when the reply was sent. They were: 10.40, 14.00 hours; 06.06, 10.15; 10.42, 14.30; 16.30, 09.15 the following morning; 12.00, 14.00. That is an interval of between two and four hours, save for the overnight case, and for such cases, as for carcases which arrive at weekends and on bank holidays, special arrangements are made.
On these occasions the officer responsible is contacted at his home, and if he is not obtainable a special "wire" is sent saying, "Destroy immediately", so that no public health difficulties can arise. If the telegram arrives after dark and the officer is not obtainable—he may be at the cinema, for instance—he is informed first thing the following morning, when work can once more start. And in the case I have quoted the telegram went off at 9 o'clock in the morning. In all cases the coastguards send by post a standard form giving the length, the colour and the like, so that the creature can be identified by the description.
Your Lordships will see that the Museum gets a record of every stranding, which adds to our knowledge of the geographical and seasonal distributions of these creatures. But what is just as important is the right to have the body itself, or part of it, for study in a laboratory; and over the years, 1948 to 1966 (the last one for which returns were made), out of 501 carcases no fewer than 121 were needed, either the whole body or part of the body, for research purposes—very nearly one-quarter of the

1423
total. What makes this machinery so effective is that the man who sends the message is in many cases the man who makes the arrangements for the disposal of the carcase if it is not required. He knows that the Museum has the right to the body, and can act accordingly, and both operations are centrally controlled by a Government Department.
I hope your Lordships will see that the proposal to abolish this machinery is not just "the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments", because what is at stake is the destruction of a unique and efficient piece of machinery by means of which the Museum has been able to add enormously to scientific knowledge and to the scientific reputation of this country throughout the whole world. What the Board of Trade and the Museum between them have been able to do is to adapt a mediæval Statute to modern needs. A Statute which was originally intended to meet the perhaps rather selfish demands of the Crown now provides for the scientific needs of one of the largest and more important of our scientific research institutes.
The Trustees of that institute, the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, are satisfied that the maintenance of existing machinery is essential if cetacean research is to continue as satisfactorily as it has in the past. I would qualify that by saying that if it is not exactly the existing machinery then at least it should be machinery which gives a single central body a right to the carcase, and the duty of disposing of it if it is not required, and of reporting to the Museum and sending the carcases there if required.
So far as the Museum is concerned, it is of little moment whether that body is the Crown, the Central Government of the Museum itself, so long as the Museum can have the assistance of the Board of Trade, such as has been offered to the Crown. We are informed, however, that legally it must be the Crown; and your Lordships may remember that I reminded the House on Second Reading of the analogy of treasure trove, through which valuable antiquities can be retained for national collections by right of the Crown. I have to-day presented for First Reading a Bill to vest all meteorites in the Crown in order that these, too, can be retained in the national collections for
1424
scientific purposes. I am obviously not capable of arguing between prerogative rights and vesting in the Crown, but one or the other seems to us to be essential if we are to keep up with the scientific research for which we are responsible: and if, having abolished the prerogative right the noble and learned Lord could move an Amendment vesting in the Crown or in some Government Department the bodies which were previously the right of the Crown, the trustees will be very content.
Now since the existing machinery works well it seems a pity to alter it, and the real point at issue between the Trustees and Her Majesty's Government is surely this. The Government wish to repeal a medieval Statute because the reasons which originally led to its being passed no longer obtain. The Trustees wish to keep the Statute because it is still useful—indeed, the Trustees would say that it is still essential to meet the needs of modern scientists; and, so far, no alternative has been suggested.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord was twice good enough to suggest that the Museum could be helped—and I quote his words:
"to make an important compilation of information about ceLcca".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/1/71, col. 715.]
if the coastguard were to continue to make reports of strandings. Unfortunately, the Museum was not consulted in any way, either by the Law Commission or by the noble and learned Lord's Department, about the Bill, so naturally he could not be fully informed about the effect of it upon the scientific research carried on at the Museum. But I hone I have now made it clear to your Lordships that the compilation of records to which he referred is but a small part of the work done at the Museum, and that the major advances in scientific knowledge have been made by a study of the skulls, skeletons and soft Harts of whales, porpoises and dolphins, for which, of course, control over the bodies of the whales which are cast ashore is essential.
None of us, of course, knows how research is going to develop, but the great wreck of seabirds and the death of sea animals which took place last year, not to mention the recent discovery of heavy metals in fishes' bodies, suggest that research into fish-eating mammals is very

1425
likely to be necessary; and, here again, the present machinery, or something of the same nature, will I think be essential. The effect of what the noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading was, I think, "Let us first repeal the Statute and then find out some other machinery to take its place". Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. I think it must be up to him to prove that the Statute that he wishes to destroy is working badly and to prove that that which he proposes to put in its place will work better; because I must confess that it seems to me clear silliness to destroy something which is working well just for the sake of destroying it, with no clear knowledge of what is to be put in its place and against the advice of those responsible for the research institute concerned.
I hope that most noble Lords will think likewise and I shall ask them to support my Amendment. There is one last point. This is not, I think, a political matter, but there seems to be some doubt whether the Government look upon it as a matter of confidence or not. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us whether we are to have a free vote on this matter or not. I beg to move.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I replied to the noble Earl, because it seems to me that the whole of this Amendment is based upon a complete misconception. I am sure that the Committee was entranced by his description, both of the work which the Natural History Museum does in respect of the skulls and tissues of the various cetacea which are stranded on our coasts and upon the valuable collection of information which the Museum has acquired and is acquiring over a period of years. And if there were the smallest grounds for the belief that this would be brought to an end by what is now proposed in this modest law reform Bill, I suppose that there is hardly a Member of your Lordships' House, and certainly not a member of Her Majesty's Government, who would not wish to exclude "whales"—whatever that word may mean, and I shall come to that later—from the purview of the Bill. But that is not the case.
1426
My noble friend keeps on referring to the "machinery" and suggests that it is a pity to abolish it, and that to abolish it without putting anything in its place is, as he described it, putting the cart before the horse. But this Bill does not touch the machinery. It has nothing to do with it except in an historical sense which I will explain; it has nothing to do with the machinery at all. The assurance that I sought to give to my noble friend on Second Reading and which I do not think he can have fully assimilated is that the machinery will go on, whether his Amendment is accepted or rejected. It has no logical relationship to what happens.
Having said that, may I now seek to justify what I have said by what I hope will be a logical argument. This Bill is concerned solely with the abolition of a wholly useless piece of legal lumber from our Statute Book, and it will have no effect at all on the existing machinery. There can be no doubt whatever in law that the existing machinery—although historically no doubt it arose out of the fact that the Queen in a personal capacity had the right to the carcases of whales and sturgeons—is not in any way based on that. It is a purely administrative arrangement. It has no legal basis in the Prerogative or in the Statute. It could be stopped to-morrow by the Government (I hasten to say that it will not in fact be stopped) if the Government so decided, without altering the Prerogative in the least. It could be stopped by a mere administrative order, whether the Amendment is carried or rejected, and it could, if the Government so decided—and again let me hasten to add that the Government have no such thought in mind—be handed over to each of the local authorities to carry out. It could be given to any individual private citizen, if the Government so wanted, whether the Amendment is carried or not.
There is no legal basis in the Prerogative for what is now being done It is an administrative arrangement which my noble friend is utterly mistaken in thinking could be affected either in one way or another by what is proposed in this law reform Bill. Conversely, I must say, having given the assurance which the Government have given that it will go

1427
on happening under the existing arrangements until another set of arrangements is made, satisfactory to the Natural History Museum, I wholly fail to understand how my noble friend thinks that by preserving a pure piece of archæological lumber on the Statute Book he can possibly serve the interests of science, either now or in the future.
May I go a little further to explain the situation? The Queen has the prerogative of what are called Royal fish. She has over the centuries given away that prerogative already in respect of 7½ per cent. of the coastline of England and Wales. In other words, the prerogative does not exist on 7½ per cent. of the coastline of England and Wales—the notable example, apart from the Duchy of Cornwall, which I do not think I have included in the 7½ per cent., being to the Warden of the Cinque Ports. There are various stretches of the sea coast where the prerogative is already given away, but the machinery operates there just the same. It is a purely administrative arrangement. The reason is that in the ordinary course of events nobody but the Natural History Museum wants whales. On the contrary, they are only too glad to get rid of them. The problem is not keeping them but getting rid of them; and when the Natural History Museum want them they get them pretty quickly. The fact is that my noble friend gets his information and gets his carcases whether they belong to the Queen or not.
If one then turns to Scotland—because owing to its situation (it is rather North of the benighted part of the United Kingdom in which we live) it gets more than its share of whales, whatever whales may be (and I will come to that)—one discovers that very few of the whales are Royal fish at all. As I explained on Second Reading, I thought clearly, the criterion of a Royal fish in Scotland is not the same as a Royal fish in England. In Scotland, so the Scots lawyers tell me—and there is a great encyclopædia of Scottish law by an author known as Erskine which is generally treated as authoritative—in order to be a Royal fish the object has to be of such a size that it can only be moved by a wain drawn by six oxen. I do not know whether my noble friend wants to keep in Scottish law an absurd provision of that kind.
1428
But I should like him to explain to the Committee, if he is really serious, why he thinks he gets all the information relating to porpoises—because porpoises do not require a wain with six oxen to take them away. For this purpose a porpoise is a whale; just as for the purposes of common law a whale is a fish.
This is an Amendment about porpoises, largely. If one takes the strandings—and I am now quoting from the strandings over the last 50 years given in The Times the other day—631 out of 1,547 were common porpoises. The bottle-nosed dolphin, which equally does not require a wain with six oxen to draw it away, was the next largest, with 185. The common dolphin is about the same, 135, and the lesser rorqual 106, out of the 1,547 strandings over the 50 years. I could give the figures for Scotland.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks that the lesser rorqual is the same size as the porpoise?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords, I do not. I was about to say, if the noble Lord had given me a chance, that I doubt whether it would take a wain with six oxen to take it away. I do not honestly know—otherwise I would tell the Committee—exactly how big an object has to be before it requires six oxen and a wain to take it away. All I can say is that I do not know for certain whether or not the lesser rorqual is such a size. I rather fancy it is not, but I never intended to suggest, and do not suggest, that it is the size of the common porpoise. All I am saying (this is the argument I am presenting to the Committee; I do hope that they are following me) is that unless my noble friend can seriously suggest that it is necessary to the Natural History Museum that there should be a provision in our extraordinary legal system whereby the carcases of whales if of more than the requisite size should remain in the property of Her Majesty, but lesser whales should not; and why should the law of Scotland be completely different from the law of England? I am quite unable to accept that these administrative arrangements which cover the whole shooting match do not operate quite well without this mediaeval lumber.
One could carry this much further, of course. The fact of the matter is that

1429
the prerogative, as it exists, has nothing to do with the administrative arrangement, except a purely historic connection. Let me add that nobody knows what the prerogative is; nobody has bothered to find out, because for very many centuries nobody wanted these carcases except the Natural History Museum. We cannot, of course, guard each one; but fortunately no one takes them away, and no one will take them away. We only tell the Natural History Museum where they can get them if they want. Nobody knows the extent of the Royal Prerogative. I should have thought that the probability is that most of the things treated as Royal fish for the purposes probably are not. My noble friend spoke as if we were repealing a Statute. Well, we are repealing a Statute, of course—the Statute, or bits of it, De Prerogativo Regis of Edward II, which contains the mysterious words "wallenas et sturgiones".
Even if we did not repeal the Statute, the Common Law gives Royal fish, whatever they may be, to the Queen; and nobody knows what Royal fish are. It is said by Sir Matthew Hale in his treatise De Jure Maris that when he examined the extent of this prerogative he came to the conclusion that it had been extended to creatures other than whales and sturgeon; for instance, to porpoise, and to grampise, or great fish. What grampise are, again I do not know, although I think I detect the Norman French grand poisson meaning a big fish. I cannot tell the Committee what is contained in this legal rubbish—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I help the noble and learned Lord by telling him that a grampus is an orca-gladiator and I hope that he does not meet one?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The trouble is that the noble Lord is confusing a grampise with a grampus—you see what sort of a muddle we get into if we try to preserve this nonsense. It is nothing to do with a grampus; it is a grampise. From Moore's History of the Foreshore it is, I think, considered that a grampise means nothing more than a grandis piscis, or a big fish.
In mediaeval language dolphins and porpoises were not distinguished, any more than whales were distinguished from fish. It is, therefore, totally uncertain
1430
whether, if the Loch Ness monster or its maritime equivalent were suddenly washed up on the coast of Scotland or England, my noble friend would be entitled. The kind of muddle we are in when we are talking about this nonsense can well be seen by a series of events in the reign of Henry III when there was a tremendous controversy between the King's bailiff and the Prior of St. Swithen's de quodam pisce regio claimed by each without any distinct name. The upshot was that the Prior procured the King's bailiff to be excommunicated and the King commanded his absolution. This is the kind of thing we have to continue, if my noble friend is serious, in order to preserve the legitimate machinery of the Natural History Museum. I wish to be excessively polite, but I remain sceptical on this point. I do not believe it is so necessary. All I have said is that we will keep the present machinery on until anybody can think of anything better; and it has to be satisfactory to the Natural History Museum.
I sincerely put to the Committee one rather serious point of principle. If we are going to be serious about law reform—and I am extremely serious about law reform—we really must not go delving about in an amateur kind of way in the muddy waters of mediaeval law to try to find a conceivably relevant purpose for it. If we want to preserve rights by legal Statutes, let us not put Latin Amendments down on the Order Paper but let us initiate a modern up-to-date piece of legislation. In the meantime, let me say at once that my noble friend can rest entirely reassured. We do not intend to destroy the existing machinery, and we do intend to consult the Natural History Museum about any changes in it; and not substitute another scheme until we are all satisfied that it is a better one. But please do not let us confuse this with medieval legal lumber, because it really has no basis in truth at all.
VISCOUNT TENBY: Is it not true that none of these animals mentioned is a fish at all, and that they are all mammals?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is perfectly right. I endeavoured to deal with this point on Second Reading. But if I may elaborate for a moment, if the Committee will forgive me, the reason that whales are Royal

1431
fish is not simply the fact that in St. Matthew's Gospel it is there impliedly stated, but because the law grew up before Linnaeus. Now Linnaeus categorised animals or living things by their structure and their nature. The medieval people who founded the law did it by where they live; and as the whale and the porpoise live in the sea they were counted as fish, and you might eat them on Fridays. There was the great argument about ducks and geese for the very same reason. You might eat ducks on a Friday. Mediæval theologians maintained that it was right to eat ducks and geese on Friday because they were aquatic creatures and therefore fish, and therefore not meat. My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that all this is nonsense. We all know now that the whale is a mammal and we had better get down to the 20th century and not go thrashing about in the 14th century.
VISCOUNT TENBY: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: The noble and learned Lord has used the well-known legal technique of working us up into a terrific confusion and then saying how confused we are. The problem is really extremely simple for laymen like us. I have no more knowledge of the importance of this particular issue scientifically than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We neither of us claim knowledge on this. But we have a very simple situation. We have a great research institute which contains among its managing directors no fewer than five members of the Royal Society. On the other hand, we have the Law Commission, admirable body as it is; we have the Lord Chancellor's Department, which has many of my friends in it, and we have the Lord Chancellor himself. One side is perfectly certain that it is going to lose something very important; the other side says it is not. That is the issue. Nothing else that your Lordships have heard has any connection with the problem. I am very surprised at the position which the noble and learned Lord has taken up because it is a position which shows for me, who have known him for a very long time, that he has an unexpected passion for tidiness.
This is simply a lawyer's desire to do the thing as a whole instead of making a small exception. There is no reason in
1432
logic for this. There is, however, a sort of holist reason of tidiness. This is not a quality I have ever associated with the noble and learned Lord, and it puzzles me. It also puzzles me to find that here he is acting as a cog in the machine. This is a most unexpected position in which to find him. The Law Commission have started something, the Lord Chancellor's Department have worked it out and he comes here as a cog. We have often heard him described as a March wind, as a tornado, as a dark cloud no bigger than a man's hand at the edge of the horizon, but I never thought he could be described as a sort of nut and bolt in a vast legal Hoover. Somehow I cannot see this as being relevant.
My last complaint is that he has wantonly neglected the "old boy" net and the glorious country houses. They could hardly be introduced to-day, but as they are here it is absurd not to live in them or to use the "old boy" net. The noble and learned Lord and I were privileged to grow up and be educated under a very distinguished natural historian who, until last year, was curator of the Natural History Museum. One would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would at least have rung up his old friend and asked, "Does this really matter?" I did so this morning, but unfortunately he was taking the dog for a walk so I have not the answer. But I am assured that he takes a very serious view.
My Lords, do not be blinded by the confusion into which the noble and learned Lord has got us. There is no confusion. It is a perfectly straight issue. Five Fellows of the Royal Society, backed up by the whole background of the Natural History Museum, including Fraser, who actually does the work, think it would be a very serious thing if this were altered. A lot of lawyers do not. Which side are your Lordships on? I know which side I am on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take my science from the Royal Society but not my law.
LORD HURCOMB: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would have patience with me for a moment to put the real point of the Museum's anxiety in this matter. I agree, of course, that we do not want the Statute Book

1433
cluttered up with mediæval acts about cetacea and I entirely agree that the machinery for reporting to the Museum, which has worked perfectly smoothly and satisfactorily, could well be continued, and from what the noble and learned Lord has said, so far as the Government is concerned it may well be continued. But that is not the real point.
What the Museum is afraid of is that if there is no property in the case of washed-up cetacea, the Museum will not receive the same amount of material as they did in the past. The ordinary man and woman on the beach probably labours under the same delusion as the Norman and Angevin Sovereigns, and apparently also the common lawyers, that these creatures are fish. It is not realised that they are a very important, indeed the largest group, of British mammals. Their scientific importance is not diminished because, so far as the Museum's collection is concerned, it may be thought that there is not much more to discover, largely due to the machinery which has prevailed over the last sixty years and partly also because the Museum has been fortunate in having a number of distinguished zoologists successively interested in this group. The Museum has an unrivalled collection of specimens and dissections. But looking to the future, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, we still need to know what is happening to the inhabitants of the sea and to creatures living on fish and on plankton and every month nowadays some new problems arise as to the poisoning or killing of some particular creature.
I suggest that the protection of these washed-up cetacea and the Museum's right to have a specimen or part of a creature—and often they are content with only a part which they want to dissect—is something of real importance. They are not going to want whales which need to be drawn by six wains or a whole lorry, but they do want to know before one is destroyed just what its interest may be. They are afraid, and I think rightly afraid, that if these creatures do not belong to anyone, when they are washed up they will get stolen or mutilated in some way. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that in most cases the real problem is how to get rid of the beastly thing, but a scientist ought to be sure
1434
that he is having reported to him all the possible material; because it is important from the purely scientific point of view and also from the current research point of view, to which the noble Earl referred, to be able to know what has been happening to these creatures before they are washed up dead.
It seems to me that the simple thing to do is to keep this obsolete machinery on the Statute Book for a little longer, until some satisfactory answer to the main problem—in whom should the property of washed-up cetacea vest—has been satisfactorily solved. Until that has been done, why not leave well alone? I am sure that the ingenuity of the lawyers and scientists, and of the constitutional people who control the functions of departments, can solve this problem if they are given a little time to do so, but we do not want a lacuna in the protection of this carefully protected and preserved species, as these important mammals can still teach us a great deal, not of merely theoretical scientific interest but also of how to protect human life and the lives of other creatures which live in the ocean.
We have enjoyed two not altogether serious speeches and perhaps I should suggest that this subject should be taken more seriously. This is a very real problem, and perhaps if the Museum had been consulted earlier much of the argument which has now arisen would have been unnecessary. I suggest that until a solution is found to the problem of not allowing these creatures, when they are washed up, to be left abandoned with no one having any rights in them, we should continue the excellent machinery, which, as the noble and learned Lord has said, has nothing to do with the Royal Prerogative, and which may cover the majority of cases but will not protect absolutely and successfully the whole of the available material, which I venture to think may become more and more important.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Lord has diverted your Lordships with a speech of his usual brilliance, but I am afraid that so far as casting a proper light on what is going to happen to these Royal whales in future, his speech was rather less of a searchlight than a brutum fulmen.

1435
For, to change the metaphor, the various amusing arguments he has used are really rather like the
"Flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la-la":
they have nothing to do with the case. What we really want to know is in whom will the possession of these royal fish, thrown up on the coast or caught in nets, really vest. Up to date the coastguards have been reporting on them because it is their duty to report on royal fish. But now to whom does a dolphin floating in the sea belong? Is it flotsam? And when it is cast up on the beach is it jetsom? If it is caught in a salmon net or in a trawl does it belong to the trawl owner or the salmon-net owner, or to whom does it belong? It seems to me that there is a considerable danger that a great many of these valuable specimens will no longer be available for use by the museums. Anybody can take them for their own purposes and cut them up for manure or what they like.
I would add that it is particularly important at the present time that a study should be made of the skull of the dolphin, because, as some of your Lordships will know, over the last few years it has been discovered, rather to the surprise of many zoologists, that the dolphin has probably the best brain of any living creature after man. It is far more intelligent than the dog, the elephant or even the primate. It is obvious that raw material in the shape of the skulls and other organs of these dolphins is urgently necessary in order to enable our scientists to continue their investigations, which may eventually lead to a breakthrough in the study of evolution. For that reason, I feel that the noble and learned Lord, for all his brilliance, has not really left the position quite as clear as we should desire.
LORD CONESFORD: I shall detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. I should not like it to be thought that there was no lawyer supporting this Amendment. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the case for law reform and treating it seriously, and I enjoyed as much as the rest of the Committee his brilliant and amusing speech. But there are two points that strike me emphatically. The first is the question of consultation. I have
1436
a great respect for the Law Commission, but on this particular point I cannot imagine why they did not consult the Natural History Museum. As we know from every speech that has been made, the Natural History Museum, rightly or wrongly, are very much interested in this subject, and I know of no reason why they should not have been consulted.
The second point, which was well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is the question of protection, and the possible relevance of ownership to that protection. I should very much like some of these creatures to have the protection that is involved in being the property of Her Majesty. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned in passing the Loch Ness Monster. If the Loch Ness Monster either is or arguably is within the protection afforded by the prerogative, I am strongly in favour of the Loch Ness Monster's continuing to enjoy that protection. I cannot imagine a more obvious disaster than the Loch Ness Monster's being subjected to some outrage by some silly person who had not hitherto believed in its existence and, when he found it, thought it was a good thing to hurt it.
For those reasons—because there has been admittedly no consultation with the Natural History Museum, the distinguished Trustees of which are admittedly very much concerned, and because the existing law provides protection for valuable species and that protection can be valuable for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—I hope that this Amendment will be considered most seriously; and if the matter cannot be settled amicably but has to go to a Division, I propose to support those who favour the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: What a pleasure it is to have the noble and learned Lord back among us! In his speech he swam vigorously, thrashed around, spouted like a good whale but not like a grampus—I am sorry that I missed that joke, but the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, intercepted me just when the noble and learned Lord was making his main point. But I am bound to say that on two or three aspects of his speech I am not satisfied. First of all, I think his little lecture on taxonomy, and the particular role of Lineas in deciding when a fish was a fish, was somewhat

1437
oversimplified, and I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord does know what a rorqual is. He will not be eaten by a rorqual: its teeth are very small.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never said that I knew what a rorqual was. All I said was that I doubted whether it took a wain and six oxen to carry it away when it was dead.
LORD SHACKLETON: This just shows how wrong the noble and learned Lord is. I am not sure which kind of rorqual he was talking about, but it would take a large number of oxen to pull a rorqual away.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was only talking about the lesser rorqual.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord is still not sure of his ground. Having revealed some uncertainty in this matter, it gives us slight ground to doubt the legal expertise, which he rightly says does not necessarily exist among Fellows of the Royal Society. I am not sure whether there has been a proper biological mating between the two branches of these professions.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that we should get rid of what he several times delighted to call mediæval legal lumber. I do not know why swans are not mediæval legal lumber while whales continue to be, but there is no doubt a good reason. But my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, who is also a lawyer (he apologises for not being here, but he had to go: I offered to take his place with eagerness, because the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I have been allies for a long while) told me that he was not yet satisfied by the noble and learned Lord, and I think that many other noble Lords are not satisfied.
The point at issue really is, if this particular right—which the noble and learned Lord says has nothing to do with the question of whether the British Museum get their whales—is removed, by what particular administrative authority will it be possible for the British Museum to get their cetacae, which is what I think the noble and learned Lord prefers to call them? Is this an undertaking that the Minister will continue to order coast-guards to fulfil this role? I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised
1438
some difficult questions of ownership. Therefore, unless we get a more satisfactory reply I am inclined to leave this bit of law in existence. Indeed, I think it may be rather satisfactory to find something as useful as this in a measure as ancient as the one that we are talking about. Therefore, I would certainly be willing to support the noble Earl.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us slightly more effective assurances as to how the administrative machinery will work, and under what authority it will work. Unless he can do so, I suggest to the noble Earl that he takes the matter to a Division; or, at any rate, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will go away and think again and produce an explanation which is less littered with extremely interesting mediaeval Latin, though perhaps lacking in biological Latin. It may well be that the matter will have to be pursued on the Report stage. I am certainly prepared to recommend to any noble Lord who thinks like me to support the noble Earl.
7.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never like to be unreasonable, but I must frankly reply to this debate that I am a little disappointed in the speeches to which have listened. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, began by saying that it was unlike me to be tidy. I think there was truth in that criticism. But here I am not being tidy; I am trying to be rational. I believe that I am allergic to nonsense when I see it. What is manifest nonsense to me is to believe that the interests of the Natural History Museum are impaired, when the existing machinery bears no foundation on this curious morass into which noble Lords have shown themselves only too eager to plunge, but is wholly independent of it, and will continue whatever the fate of the noble Lord's Amendment. If anybody thinks that the mere dubbed property in the Crown (not in porpoises in Scotland, but in larger whales in Scotland; but none, I think, in the Isle of Man or Guernsey or Jersey, to some of which I think the machinery applies) is of any practical value in salving these unwanted carcases—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? He

1439
says that he "thinks" it applies. It would be helpful to know where this machinery applies where this particular prerogative is not operating.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I am right, but this is wholly outside my own Department. I think it applies to the British Isles; but there are so many islands in the British Isles that I am not sure that the watchful eyes of the Coastguard Service apply to them all. The only point I am seeking to make to the Committee—which is, after all, dealing with a law reform Bill—is that the mere property, if there is a property which is highly doubtful and which varies according to the part of the British Isles in which the thing is, has any kind of protection from the Natural History Museum, all I can say is that he is suffering from an illusion. The real trouble—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: May I—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; allow me to proceed, and I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment. The real truth is that there is no relationship between this prerogative which noble Lords wish to preserve and the machinery which will be preserved, whatever comes of this Amendment. There is no relationship at all. I tried to illustrate it by a number of absurd anomalies. If I had carried out more research I could have given as many more. For instance, even in England, where the prerogative is at its widest, I think that 7½ per cent. of the coastline has been given to somebody else—and nobody knows quite whom—yet the machinery, which is relatively modern, operates just as well.
I have not forgotten my promise to the noble Lord, but it is a little difficult to find a commercial test, which I will do in a moment. May I just pursue this question, for instance, of consultation? The basic reason for the failure of the Law Commission to consult is that they have not the remotest idea that anybody would think this had the faintest bearing on what they were proposing. They did it out of sheer innocence, innocence which until a fortnight ago I myself shared. But what I am seeking to assure the Committee is that they were dead right.
1440
The Natural History Museum depends for its continued information and carcases upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who operates quite independently of the prerogative on all porpoises, whether in England or Scotland, or rorquals in either place, and wherever the Coastguard Service can inform the authorities of the existence of a stranded carcase, alive or dead. If the noble Lord thinks that a better set of machinery can be found, all I say is that I have given the assurance, on behalf of the Government, that the present machinery will be kept in being because it does not depend on the prerogative and my right honourable friend (though not the Lord Chancellor's Department, please) will be happy to discuss it with the Natural History Museum.
The Natural History Museum and I have been perfectly alerted to this problem for the past fortnight, and I have not been the least encouraged by what the Trustees have done. Instead of co-operating in a simple method of law reform and accepting a Government promise, which is given in good faith, they have continued to pursue what I can only describe as a purely obscurantist series of assertions which have no relation to fact at all. Although I am still going to co-operate with them so far as I can—and so will my right honourable friend—I am not encouraged by their attempts constantly to teach me a little more instead of my learning innocently at their hands all the science that they care to impart.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I accept the point of the noble and learned Lord that the machinery does not depend on the prerogative. It is quite clear to me that what he is saying, that the law is a nonsense as it stands, is true. But is it not also true that the machinery depends on the belief of a great many people around Britain that it does depend on the prerogative, and that the belief that whales belong to the Queen helps to protect them and induce people to report them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all. It depends upon the instructions which are given to the Coastguard and the Receiver of Wrecks, which is the authority that co-ordinates the information about whales. I have no reason whatever

1441
to think that the inhabitants of Scotland believe that the porpoises belong to the Queen. They do not in fact do so and so far as I know they never have done so. What kind of protection is provided on the Strands of Kent, where all the carcases belong to the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the noble Lord must ask the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, who is also a Member of your Lordships' House. But the machinery works there perfectly well, not because people think the carcases belong to the Queen—because I have no doubt that the lieges of the Cinque Ports know only too well that they must look to the noble Lord, Lord Menzies, or whoever it is.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Is there any right that matters of the Queen in regard to swans? What is the distinction if we must hereby abolish all Her Majesty's rights to royal fish, including these curious kinds of non-fish? Why do we have to keep her prerogative right for swans?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained this point to the House, at considerable length, on the Second Reading, and if my noble friend would like to refer to my speech on that occasion he will see it. There are two simple reasons. The first is that swans, curiously enough—although again I did not know it before—are often given as presents to foreigners by the Queen as one of her own swans, and therefore the right has a contemporary use. The second reason is that on the River Thames the swan-upping ceremony involves the rights of at least two City Companies, and therefore cannot be dealt with simply by abolishing the Royal prerogative. All three bodies value their current use of swans. Therefore, the prerogative in regard to swans cannot be said to be wholly obsolete, as the prerogative in relation to fish can be said to be.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I have much enjoyed this debate this evening not least in the closing stages when the noble and learned Lord suggested that I was even more obscurantist than he is himself, something which I should have thought was utterly impossible, and I am going to tell my wife that she is probably more correct than I had ever thought her in the past. The noble and learned Lord has quite consistently evaded the main point at issue throughout. I
1442
may have defined or used the word "machinery" to include more than perhaps he thinks it includes. But the machinery to which I was referring was the right of the Crown to be in possession of the whales when they come ashore. That, I believe all the noble Lords who have spoken think, with the Natural History Museum, is essential; and the noble and learned Lord has never once answered that point all the way through. But he has gone off on to one or two tangents, including pointing out, very rightly, that the law as it is applied to Scotland is not the same as the law as it is applied to England. He uses the old-fashioned term of the oxen and the wain; the modern one, which is used by the coastguards and others up there, is exceeding 26 feet from the tail to the snout.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does that not show my noble friend, if anything would, that that particular machinery has nothing whatever to do with the law? The law says "a wain with six oxen", not "26 feet from the snout to the tail".
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I am afraid that, whatever the law says, that is the machinery which is now used in Scotland. And the remarkably interesting thing about Scotland is that the number of royal fish reported was 31, as opposed to 23 in England and Wales, over the years 1958 to 1966—that is to say, a larger number of royal fish in Scotland than in England, as one would expect, since the coastline of Scotland is about twice as long as is that of England and Wales.
When we get back to the non-royal fish who will get on the wain, the numbers are almost exactly reversed. We have 132 from Scotland; 232 from England—almost double the number from half the coastline. It is quite clear that the right in royal fish makes a tremendous difference in the numbers which are reported to the Museum and which enable us to do work that we could not otherwise do. He referred also to the fact, which is correct, that there is a large number of individuals and statutory bodies and others—the Prince of Wales in the right of the Duchy of Cornwall; the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; the City of Rochester; and there is somebody who lives at the Wapentake of Holderness in Yorkshire—all of whom

1443
have the same rights in these fish. But it is the mere fact that they have the rights of possession of them, of which they are exceedingly jealous, that the Museum has to take into account every time. They hang on to these fish tenaciously, and enable us to get them, when otherwise they might be taken away on a wain or what-not by some other person who had no right in them.
This is an important thing in that part—I cannot recollect whether the noble and learned Lord said it was 20 per cent.—of the coastline in England. It is exceedingly
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("including") insert ("whales or")—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: There is one point which has troubled me and which
useful that these people use their right which they derive from the prerogative, and the prerogative I think is as useful to us. The noble and learned Lord has not attempted to meet the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, or any of the rest of us, and I hope that in the Division your Lordships will support me.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 53, Not-Contents 30.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Phillips, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Rockley, L.

Auckland, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Audley, Bs.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Beswick, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Birk, Bs.

Hood, V.

Shackleton, L.

Boothby, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sherfied, L.

Collison, L.

Inglewood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Janner, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Teviot, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Diamond, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Amory, V.

Ferriers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strange of Knockin, Bs.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

Tenby, V.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

Waldergrave, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

I should like to have cleared up. We see in Clause 1:
"The forest law is hereby abrogated, except in so far as it relates to the appointment and functions of verderers."
There are then other references to the forest law, and a Schedule of enactments to be repealed, starting with the year 1297. What worries me is whether any part of Magna Charta is being swept away, together with the mediæval "legal lumber" to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred It may well be that there are parts of Magna Charta which deserve to be swept

1445
away, but if that is so I thank it is right and proper that it should be made clear to the people of this country what in fact we are doing.
Admittedly Magna Charta was dated 1215 (I think) but so far as I can find out from quickly consulting a work of reference, the Charter of King Edward I, dated 1297, referred to at the beginning of the Schedule of enactments to be repealed, included a reprint of Magna Charta. Therefore, I feel that my question is pertinent and I should like an answer to it, not only for my own curiosity but because I think we should give information on this point to a wider circle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do my best. Magna Charta, by which I mean the original Charter of John, has not been on the Statute Book for the last 700 years. What is on the Statute Book are the various reaffirmations of it by subsequent Sovereigns, and so far as I know the answer to my noble friend's question is to be seen in the second item on the Schedule. The relevant Statute is 25 Edward I (Confirmation of the Charters) Act, where the words "Charter of the Forest" are repealed and no other part is repealed—the Charter of the Forest representing what I sought to describe in Second Reading. So far as I know there is nothing else of the surviving clauses of Magna Charta which would be affected by this particular Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? My noble friend Lord Stow Hill had intended to query some of the wording in subsection (3). I do not ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to construe it, because my complaint is that although no doubt it is susceptible of construction it might be drafted a little more intelligently. I am not querying the use of the words "fence month" or "winter heyning", which have meanings to those who live in such parts of the world as the New Forest, but the wording does seem to be a little like modern "legal lumber".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I will look at it again if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wants me to do so, but I think this is just clearing the ground, and clearing the ground with the appropriate
1446
words. I do not think we shall ever read it again if we pass it. We shall read it several times if we do not.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, column 3, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert ("In chapter 13 the words 'et sturgiones.'")—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, leave out lines 37 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In a Bill such as this which deals with forest laws, it is not unnatural that there will be laws in the Schedule which concern the New Forest, legislation which is complex and multitudinous, and I welcome the fact that so many of the Acts are being taken out. I raised one point on the Second Reading on the urging of our New Forest Rural District and Ringwood and Fordingbridge Councils, who expressed concern that public works of importance to the Forest, such as sewage works and so on, would be unreasonably delayed owing to the fact that they will no longer have powers to get land without common rights. I believe that one of the problems is that when the land was vested in the Forestry Commission they could not exercise their powers, owing to the fact that the ownership is still under the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to repeat everything I said on Second Reading, and my main object in putting down this Amendment to-day is to give the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to explain a little more the point that is causing concern to the Rural District Councils.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I endeavoured to help my noble friend on the Second Reading, and I am not sure I can say a great deal more than I said then. The position is that this Act of 1902 which is being repealed by the Schedule is completely inoperative at the present time and has been incapable of being operated since 1945. The Act of

1447
1902 gave the Commissioners of Woods, as I think they were called at that time, certain powers to acquire land. In 1923 those powers were transferred to the Forestry Commissioners. Under Section 4(5) of the Forestry Act 1945 the New Forest was vested in the Minister of Agriculture, but, unfortunately or fortunately, intentionally or unintentionally—and all my researches fail to reveal which of those alternatives is correct—the powers given by the 1902 Act, which were visibly extant in 1945, were not transferred with the New Forest to the Minister of Agriculture. So he has not got them now, and even if the Amendment were passed, like the last Amendment, he would not have them then. He has not got the powers because it would have required a different provision in the Forestry Act 1945 to give him them. So the Act of 1902 is now left in the legal attic without any operation or capability of being operated.
It may or may not be desirable—I really do not know, because it is well outside any Department I have ever operated—that the Minister of Agriculture or his successor should have the power to own land (I forget whether it is for sewerage or graveyard, but for some limited purpose) in the New Forest; but, if he ought to have that power, it will have to be given to him by a new Statute initiated by himself. It cannot be given to him by retaining this spent Statute on the Statute Book. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will go back to his local authority and explain to them what I have said, and say that he has done a great service to them and to the New Forest by airing the point that the Labour Government of 1945 failed to transfer the powers which previously resided in the Commissioners to their Minister of Agriculture, and that it would require fresh legislation to invest him with such powers. I hope that will satisfy my noble friend. This is yet another illustration to the Committee of the kind of rubbish that exists on the Statute Book and which I am diligently attempting to remove.
LORD SHACKLETON: I take it that the noble and learned Lord, having noted the failure of the Labour Government in 1945, is now giving virtually an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu
1448
of Beaulieu, to facilitate a Bill to restore those powers, or the appropriate powers. Clearly, the noble and learned Lord and his friends missed their opportunity during the 13 years when they were in office. But since, on the whole, we have enough politics, not of a party kind, in the New Forest, I would hesitate to carry this point too far. None the less, these are matters on which there are very strong feelings and are not to be dealt with lightly.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, who obviously is anxious to do a service to the New Forest and these particular councils, has succeeded so well as perhaps the noble and learned Lord thinks, because what he really wants to do is to get the matter put right. It seems to me that leaving this provision in the Bill does not achieve very much, but I take it that we shall see the appropriate legislation at an early stage. I am not sure whether it will be Private Bill legislation or Public Bill legislation, but it would be useful to know if the Government would facilitate this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of my right honourable friend. I do not know on what grounds or for what purpose these powers are required. This is a question of policy. I am concerned only with the Bill, which deals with so many spent Statutes and is getting rid of them because they are spent. If my noble friend would like to get in touch with my right honourable friend, I will use whatever good offices I possess to assist him. I am not able to say now whether the Minister of Agriculture should have the powers or not. It may have been an act of statesmanship on the part of the Labour Government in 1945 to refuse to transfer them. Perhaps it was a part of the business of receding from areas of Government. All I am saying is that it cannot be effected this way, and all I am concerned with now is this Bill and this Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I would take the opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Lord for his advice and his statement on this matter. I think it has been useful to raise this anomaly. So far as I know, the reason why the district councils are concerned is that when they wish, for instance, to extend a sewage works they encounter great

1449
delay. Last time it took two years to negotiate with the Forestry Commission, and what was desired could only be done by an exchange of land. Obviously it causes concern that vital public works are delayed. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice, and hope that it will be looked at by the appropriate authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
7.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): 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 Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 18 agreed to.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Duties of Board and Secretary of State as to radiation hazards and safety precautions
".—(1) Nothwithstanding anything contained in section 1 of the Radiological Protection Act 1970, it shall be the duty of the Board therein referred to, in addition to carrying out the functions and exercising the powers referred to in that section, to carry out the following additional functions:—

(a) from time to time as and when necessary to inquire into and examine the proceedings and undertakings of the Nuclear Fuels Company and the Radio-Chemical Company (in this section referred to as the said companies) and all premises in and plant and equipment by the use of which
1450
such proceedings and undertakings are carried out by the said companies and for that purpose as and when necessary to require the said companies to afford the Board all proper facilities for inspection including inspection of any documents and records in the possession or control of such companies, and

(b) to provide information and advice to the said companies and make any recommendations that the Board thinks desirable as to the steps to be taken by the said companies for the protection of the community as a whole or the protection of any particular sections of the community (including particular individuals whether or not in the employment of or likely to be employed by the said companies) against radiation hazards, and

(c) the said companies shall afford all such facilities of inspection to the Board and shall have regard to all such information and advice provided by the Board and shall comply with all said recommendations made by the Board.

(2) The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (herein referred to as the said Secretary of State) shall as soon as may be after the transfers of the undertakings of the Authority referred to in sections 1 and 2 of this Act and thereafter from time to time as and when necessary give directions to the said companies requiring them to take such safety precautions as seem to the said Secretary of State to be appropriate in the conduct of the said undertakings in order to prevent risk of injury or harm to the community as a whole or any particular sections of the community (including particular individuals whether or not in the employment of or likely to be employed by the said companies) or of damage to property as the result of the conduct by the said companies of the said undertakings and the said companies shall comply with any said directions.
(3) The said companies shall afford to any person duly authorised in writing in that behalf by the said Secretary of State all facilities for inspection, including inspection of any documents and records in their possession or control, as may be required of the said companies by notice in writing by such duly authorised person."
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the length of this Amendment. Its purpose is quite simple, but when put into what appears to be appropriate language it seems rather long. The first subsection of this new clause is concerned with the function of the body set up last year under the Radiological Protection Act. The National Radiological Protection Board was set up to deal with all dangers which arise from radiation. This first subsection makes it clear, I hope, that that Board should at all times be brought in in connection with the work of Nuclear Fuels Limited and of the Radiochemical Company, so as to advise

1451
them and to ensure that all their work is done with the minimum danger from radiation.
I should perhaps explain that the Radiological Protection Act, under which was set up the National Radiological Protection Board, removed from the Atomic Energy Authority and from the Medical Research Company the work concerned with radiological protection and transferred it to this new Board. Thus, this particular subsection proposes that the work of guarding against radiation should be handed over to this body, which should be able to intervene at any stage in the proceedings and undertakings of Nuclear Fuels Limited and of the Radiochemical Company.
The second subsection deals with an allied matter, but one that has not been dealt with by legislation. After the well-known Windscale accident, and after the Report of the Fleck Committee, there was set up within the Atomic Energy Authority a body called the Health and Safety Branch. This branch was in part responsible for dealing with risks from radiation. It was also responsible for design and safety in design of reactors. The first part of its work has been hived off to the National Radiological Protection Board, but the second part of its work remains under the Atomic Energy Authority, as the Health and Safety Branch of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Under the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, by which Nuclear Fuels Limited is set up and will concern itself with installation, there is no longer any provision for direct contact between the Health and Safety Branch of the Atomic Energy Authority and this new body, Nuclear Fuels Limited. This House agreed with the general principles of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, and there is no question of raising the general matters with which the Bill is now concerned. But this particular point is the crucial one of safety in design. It is not a matter of protection against radiation, which is covered by the bringing into being of the National Radiological Protection Board.
The second subsection deals entirely with the question of design. In the past, when reactors have been designed the Health and Safety Branch has been brought in order to help in the design,
1452
and to advise on details with regard to the design. These details may not be matters directly concerned with the radial elements that are being used in the nuclear reactor, but they are concerned with those factors of safety which are essential to guarantee that the working of the reactor shall be as nearly as is humanly possible free from the danger of accident. Unless we ensure that this is done, I submit that we take the risk of an accident occurring: we are failing to take all reasonable precautions.
This is a reasonable precaution; it is one which has been taken in the past, and it is one which can be controlled by means of a body such as the Health and Safety Branch, which will now be an independent body. It will no longer be an actual part of the company which is dealing with installations, nor indeed with any private contractors; it will be directly under the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Therefore, the second subsection proposes that the services of this body should be utilised. That is the purpose of subsections (2) and (3) of this proposed new clause.
If I am asked whether it is necessary to have any provision like this, I submit that in the past it has proved extremely useful and that the evidence at the present time is that, however carefully reactors are designed, something may go wrong. It may be said that this is unlikely; but, on the other hand, in the last year two things have gone wrong. In one case some bolts corroded. I cannot speak with absolute certainty, but I guess that these were mild steel bolts and that they were corroded because of carbon dioxide, which will attack iron if the temperature is high enough.
More recently, with regard to the Hartlepool reactor, it has been found that the caps for the pressure chambers have to be replaced—this is after design. I believe I am right in saying that the Health and Safety Branch suggested in the early stages of the design that the caps ought to be differently constructed. Their advice was not taken and the construction went ahead. The Inspectorate have now condemned the caps, and I am told that the Inspectorate have made certain suggestions which involve even more radical changes. It is not cheap to alter construction after you have commenced it. It is surely more reasonable to have

1453
the best advice at the earliest possible stage. You may still make mistakes, but at least you minimise the possibility of making mistakes. Therefore I believe it to be important to ensure that what we have already built up should not fail to operate in the best possible and the most intimate way at the earliest stage. I beg to move.
LORD SHERFIELD: I yield to no one in my desire that nuclear installations should be entirely secure, and I sympathise with the general position of the noble Lord on this matter. However, I seriously doubt whether these Amendments are necessary. It seems to me that the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 sets up fully adequate machinery for licensing, inspection and the protection of the public, and that includes the matter of design of reactors, to which the noble Lord particularly referred.
Therefore, it is, as I think, undesirable to set up parallel machinery, with all the proliferation of reports, inspections, and bureaucratic procedures, which would, if I am not mistaken, involve reporting to a different Minister. The nuclear fuel companies have a very heavy job to do, and I do not think that they should be subjected to more red tape than is absolutely necessary. I raise this doubt because I think that one does not want two separate lines of authority, advice, report, and so on, when the Nuclear Installations Act, as it appears to me, fully safeguards the position.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: May I ask the noble Lord where, in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, these safeguards were introduced? I failed to find them.
LORD SHERFIELD: Under Section 4(1)(b), the licence may in particular include provision:
"with respect to the design, siting, construction, installation, operation, modification and maintenance of any plant or other installation on, or to be installed on, the site."
I do not want to go into details on this. I merely raise this doubt in my mind as to whether these Amendments are really necessary. If they are not really necessary, then I do not think that they should be included in the legislation.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I may, I should like very briefly to support the Amendment which has been put
1454
forward by my noble friend, and to express at any rate the hope that the Government will give some further consideration to it, if they do not at this stage feel able to accept it. It appears to me that it is in line with the Amendment which the Government themselves are proposing to Clause 19. In the light of that. I hope that the Government can look favourably upon this Amendment.
8.4 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for raising this very important question of safety, and for taking the immense amount of trouble that he obviously has taken in inquiring into this, and drafting the Amendment that he has put down. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the Government entirely accept the purpose of the Amendment; but I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that all the necessary machinery already exists to achieve that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was quite right in saying that the Nuclear Installations Act really governs this matter. Before anyone other than the Atomic Energy Authority can construct, or operate, a nuclear installation, a licence is needed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. This applies to all installations with potential radiation hazards, including plants for processing nuclear fuel and irradiated matter. Thus, all the plants to be transferred will need to be licensed before the new companies can lawfully operate them. Such licences are not transferable; only the licensee can operate such plants.
Under Section 4 of the Act the Secretary of State is obliged to attach such conditions as he considers necessary, or desirable, in the interests of safety. He may at any time thereafter attach such further conditions as he considers necessary, or desirable, in the interests of safety. He may also vary or revoke those conditions at any time. He may at any time attach to a nuclear site conditions with regard to the handling, treatment and disposal of nuclear matter.
The mandatory conditions attached to a site licence, as my noble friend Lord Sherfield said, cover the design, siting, construction, installation, operation, modification and maintenance of any plant or

1455
other installation installed, or to be installed, on the site as well as to emergency measures. The hazards of radiation are recognised as being so important, and so serious, that nothing can be done on a nuclear site except either by the Atomic Energy Authority, or with the express permission of the Secretary of State, and subject to the conditions he prescribes in writing. There are specified penalties under the Act for any contravention.
The question is how this works in practice. It may be that it does not work perfectly, and that improvements are taking place all the time; but it does mean that licences are granted, and the conditions may be imposed in relation to each separate stage. The conditions are not granted once and for all. Such conditions as are necessary, and that need to be imposed, can be imposed by the inspectorate, in the name of the Secretary of State, at any time during the course of the construction of a nuclear plant of any kind. The Inspectorate has to be satisfied that before any plant starts to be constructed the design is safe. All the relevant details, with supporting calculations, have to be submitted, and designs are stringently checked by the Inspectorate in independent safety assessments before construction is allowed to proceed.
The licensee has to meet all the conditions in the licence which may relate to, among other things, approvals at various stages. Apart from that, it is for him to decide at what stages the design should be submitted for safety approval. The licensee has every interest in ensuring the safety of the equipment and the plant he operates, and has every interest in getting the best possible advice for that purpose. On him is placed an absolute liability for any damage from radiation resulting from the operation of any plant of his. Moreover, any modification or alteration required by the Inspectorate, as the noble Lord himself said, can be very expensive, and this again is a consideration that the licensee is bound to have in mind. He will certainly want to have the best advice at all stages, and to have the continuing approval of the Inspectorate.
It has also to be remembered that the design of nuclear plant owes a very great deal to the research and development carried
1456
out by the A.E.A. itself at its various plants. I pointed out on a previous occasion that within these plants—quite a number of them, Windscale and Spring-fields, for example—there will be enclaves of Atomic Energy Authority personnel and they, in turn, will be working on the advice of the Health and Safety Branch.
There is one point I should like to make in passing. The noble Lord said that the Health and Safety Branch, as I understood him, will, for the first time, be independent. This is not so. The Health and Safety Branch has always been independent. It has always had direct access to the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority himself, and it is upon this independence that its value very largely depended.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: If the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, I was aware of that point. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean that it would be independent of the Authority, or not independent, in the sense of having access to the Minister, but rather that for the first time it would be separated from the constructional side. In the past, when any construction was carried out, it was necessarily carried out in conjunction with the Health and Safety Branch, whereas with the setting up of the new Nuclear Fuels Company that is not inevitable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not quite understand the argument that it is not necessarily independent vis-à-vis whoever it is advising. It seems to me that the whole essence of an adviser in these matters is that he should be independent, and the Health and Safety Branch is independent in this respect. It is independent in advising the A.E.A. and it will be equally independent in advising anybody else.
I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that the appropriate advisory and controlling body is the Inspectorate. He has put forward an Amendment which places upon the Radiological Protection Board an obligation to do certain things. He is quite right in saying that that Board was set up for research, to give advice and as a source of information. But it was not set up to inspect, and it does not have the machinery to inspect. It is not the Board's function to do so, and I do not think it would be effective if it

1457
did. In any event, it would be anomalous for such duties to be exercised only in respect of these two companies.
There are other kinds of inspection involved besides the Nuclear Installations Act. The Factories Acts and the various orders made under them provide for the protection of employees in the atomic field, and under these Acts there will be appropriate inspection. There are other provisions controlling the discharge of radioactive effluents and the transport of radioactive materials. As regards reactors and nuclear plant safety, I should make it plain that the Bill does not affect the reactor design and construction companies, or the Generating Boards. The effect here is upon the companies to which the undertakings are being transferred. Nor does it affect the way in which they get the best advice they can in order to satisfy the rigorous standards of the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations. The nuclear safety record in this country gives no grounds at all for apprehension. It is a fact that no new technology has ever been introduced with the attention that has been given to safety in the nuclear industry. Of course the potential hazards justify this attention, but the successful efforts of those responsible in all sections of the industry are attested by the excellent safety record.
There are 16 power reactors operated by the Generating Boards, and 11 operated by the A.E.A at the present time; and altogether, I am told, they have accumulated over 200 reactor years of operational experience. A further 10 reactors are under construction for the Generating Boards. All that the noble Lord's Amendment would do is first, to place on the Radiological Protection Board an obligation which it is not in a position to carry out; and, secondly, to place on the Secretary of State an obligation to do something which he is already doing. The Amendment does not mention the Health and Safety Branch, but the Secretary of State can get such advice as he requires from a number of sources. He can get it not only from the Safeguards Division, but from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, which is able to advise him on all aspects of nuclear safety.
In these circumstances, I do not think that the noble Lord can argue, from the
1458
fact that there have been some technical failures through corrosion which was not foreseen—or even that there has perhaps been a hold-up in the construction of the Hartlepool generating station—that the present safety provisions are in any way defective. Nor, I suggest, has he established that they are likely to be any more ineffective when the Nuclear Fuels Company and the Radiochemical Company are set up: because in each of them there will be very close control of what may be done at each stage. As regards the handling of radioactive materials, there are conditions attached to this, and if the method of handling is modified or altered in any way it will have to be approved by the Inspectorate. I hope that I have succeeded in convincing the noble Lord, first, that the safety precautions will be adequate; and, secondly, that in any case his Amendment would not do what he thinks it would do.
8.18 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I must thank both the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for taking the trouble to deal with this matter seriously and in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has asked me whether I am satisfied, and the answer is, not completely. He has certainly reassured me that it is the Government's intention to take all precautions. I have been trying to suggest that one important precaution is to make use of the existing Health and Safety Branch at the design stage, which is a very important matter, and I am still not happy that that will be effectively done. I used the word "independent", and may I explain once more, since I failed to do so earlier, that what I meant was that so long as one had one body, the Atomic Energy Authority, which included within itself the Health and Safety Branch with an independent right of appeal to the Minister and direct access to him, that Branch was still within the Atomic Energy Authority and was therefore necessarily brought in on all matters of design carried out by the Authority. With the hiving off of the commercial side of the Authority's work, there is now a break for the Health and Safety Branch, and that was the sense in which I used the word.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In so far as there is a break, that has already taken place because of the setting up of the nuclear construction companies, and to a large extent it was for the purpose of regulating the commercial industry that the Nuclear Installations Act was enacted.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Yes, but I think one does not improve matters by having a further divorce. I should have preferred to see a still closer link brought in, and to have this health and safety branch brought in also with the commercially constructed reactors. But that, unfortunately, is not within the Bill which we are discussing to-day. It would not, I think, be possible for me to raise it in a wider way at the present time; I am doing the best I can. Obviously, if the Government are not prepared to do this, I shall have to be content with whatever the Government are prepared to do. I do not propose to force the matter further, but I suggest to the Government that it is highly important that all precautions are taken, and are seen to be taken, because we are going to be faced (and I suspect that the oil position to-day is going to make it pretty rapid) with a considerable development of nuclear energy stations. I should like to see our production of electricity going over as rapidly as possible to nuclear stations. I am very much in favour of them, just as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is; and it is precisely because I am enthusiastic about them that I want to be certain that there will not be any accident and that all precautions are taken.
I would urge the Government to pay some attention to this matter, because although I am not involved in it and am really ignorant about it, I can say that I am informed by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that they have been worried about it and that they have been pressing this very same point. They are people who are engaged, or some of them are, in this very work: I am not. They know much more about it than I do. I consulted them only to-day, so I raised the matter quite independently, without having consulted them in the first place. But, having started the thing going, I felt I must pursue it as much as I could, and the more I have pursued it the more satisfied I have been that every precaution should be taken and that there is still some unease that precautions
1460
which could be taken may in future lapse. Therefore, while appreciating that the Government are unlikely to accept all that is in this new clause, I would urge the noble Lord to do all that he can to make certain that these precautions are taken. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Application of security provisions to companies established in connection with agreement on gas centrifuge process]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 17, line 13, leave out ("5 and") and insert ("and 4 to").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to improve security arrangements under the Bill in one particular aspect. Under this clause, the Secretary of State is empowered to make an order designating any company registered in the United Kingdom which appears to him to have been formed in pursuance of the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge Agreement between this country, the Netherlands and West Germany. As sub-section (1) of the clause is at present drafted, the effect of designating such a company will be to apply to it the security provisions at paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the Schedule. The purpose of this Amendment is to apply paragraph 4, also, and the reason for it is this.
Under the centrifuge agreement, two international companies will be formed. The prime contractor, whose headquarters will be in Germany, will co-ordinate research and development and will design and install enrichment plant. The enrichment organisation, whose headquarters will be in this country, will operate centrifuge plants and sell an enrichment service to customers. The enrichment organisation will require a permit under the Amendment in Clause 17 to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and, once a permit has been granted, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to direct that the security provisions in the Schedule shall apply. But it is expected that it will not be until a year to 18 months after the enrichment organisation has been established that the stage will be reached at which it could apply for and receive a permit. During this interim period the organisation will be receiving classified

1461
information from its shareholders under the centrifuge agreement. Thus, to enable the Government to fulfil their obligations, an additional provision is required in the Bill to enable the appropriate security paragraphs of the Schedule to be applied to the enrichment organisation during this period.
The Government now believe that the present wording of the clause does not go quite far enough, in that it fails to provide for special constables of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary to guard the premises of the enrichment organisation during the interim period to which I have referred. This, therefore, is the purpose of the Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given of this modest but useful and necessary Amendment, and we are of course glad to see it incorporated in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Pension schemes]:
8.27 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert ("as well as to
(c) officers and other persons taken into the employment of the Science Research Council subsequent to 31st March 1969 to work on research in astro-physics at the Authority's Laboratory at Culham or at any Science Research Council establishment (whether or not while in the employment of the Science Research Council they cease to be engaged in those activities).")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond. The clause before us deals with the superannuation provisions for astrophysics staff employed by the Science Research Council, and this modest Amendment widens to a limited degree the discretion which the Council will have in dealing with the superannuation of this group of staff. Until April, 1969, work on astrophysics was the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority and was done at their Culham establishment in Oxfordshire. As from that month the responsibility for the work was transferred to the Science Research
1462
Council which also took over the astro-physics staff. But both the work and the staff remained, and remain, at Culham, forming, in effect, a small S.R.C. enclave within the establishment there.
Clause 20(6) as written at present allows for the S.R.C. astrophysics staff who were employed by the Authority prior to March 31, 1969, to remain in the Authority's pension scheme. There has been, I am informed, one person recruited since March 31, bringing the total staff engaged on this work up to 35; but he, and of course future recruits, would be given Civil Service pension conditions. The case which I wish to put forward is that all the Science Research Council staff employed on this work should be covered, or there should be scope for them to be covered, by the Atomic Energy Authority's superannuation scheme, including those recruited after March 31, 1969.
Now the Science Research Council employs some 2,000 staff. Approximately half of them, I understand, are currently in the Atomic Energy Authority's scheme; half are covered by Civil Service terms. There exists a very clear precedent for what I am seeking to establish by this Amendment. That precedent was established when the Science Research Council itself was established in 1965 and took over, among other staff, 1,200 who were employed in the Rutherford Laboratory and the Daresbury Laboratory, which until then had been part of the National Institute for Research into Nuclear Science. In 1965, the Government accepted that it was reasonable for Science Research Council staff to retain A.E.A. superannuation terms both in the case of existing staff and—this is the vital point—in the case of new entrants.
This was effected by the terms of a clause in the Science and Technology Act 1965. What I am in effect urging is that the Science Research Council should be allowed the same powers to extend the Atomic Energy Authority Superannuation scheme to recruits after March 31, 1969, in the Astrophysics Group at Culham as they already have in relation to the staff at the Rutherford and Daresbury laboratories. Indeed, the working of this Amendment is closely modelled on the comparable provision in the Science and Technology Act. It resembles the provisions of that Act on this point in being permissive and not mandatory. The

1463
grounds for applying the authority pension scheme to all the staff employed in the Rutherford laboratory are equally applicable, indeed, more applicable, in the case of the staff who are the subject of this Amendment. In the case of the Rutherford laboratory it was an important factor that they were working very close to the staff at Harwell; in the present case the new staff concerned will actually be an enclave in the establishment at Culham.
I have been putting this, in a sense, on the grounds of substance. I want to underline the fact that the Amendment proposed is permissive and not mandatory. Indeed, its purpose and effect is to leave the door open for this matter to be determined by the Science Research Council in consultation with the appropriate trade unions. If the Amendment is not included, then the door is closed to the consideration of entrants after March 31, 1969.
Two arguments appear to have been used in resisting this proposal. The first has been that on the previous occasion in 1965 the predominant consideration in the mind of the then Government in making the provision to which I have referred was that this gave a recruitment advantage. Without going into this in detail, I think that if one looks at the record it will be clear that the recruitment argument, although one of those which carried weight with the then Government, was not the sole consideration in their mind. The second argument has been that it is not normal practice for the staff of one employer to be covered for superannuation purposes by the scheme of another employer. Again, I think one could deploy arguments at considerable length on this subject. In fact, there have been a number of cases where this has happened in the case of staff who were formerly with the Atomic Energy Authority; and in several cases when the staff have been put into other organisations the principle has been accepted of allowing them to continue to be embraced within the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. I can give examples of that if necessary.
If you look at Clause 20(3) of the present Bill you see that it permits those companies to establish superannuation
1464
schemes, separate from the scheme of the Atomic Energy Authority, but it does not compel them so to do. This is a modest Amendment. It is one on which there is feeling by the staff organisations concerned, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the lucid way in which he has moved this particular Amendment. I think that he has summed up the arguments on both sides. I have read the arguments put forward in another place on this question, and I have also had the benefit of a discussion with representatives of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. I am not persuaded by all the arguments which have been advanced in favour of allowing future recruits to the Science Research Council unit at Culham to enter the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme. It seems to me that the arguments which the noble Lord put forward apply very much to the staff formerly with the A.E.A. but that the extension to other staff is another matter. It is also a fact that people who are not employed by A.E.A. can enter A.E.A. pension schemes only if there is statutory permission for them to do so.
I can see the force of the argument that the Bill should leave this question open, in the same way that it is still left open at the Science Research Council establishment at Daresbury, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Science and Technology Act 1965. For that reason the Government are preparing an Amendment for tabling at the Report stage. The reasons for not accepting the Amendment put down are, first, that it is rather widely drawn by its reference to any Science Research Council establishment and, second, that the wording and structure of the Amendment do not fit very easily into the present wording of subsection (6). The purpose of the Government Amendment will be to provide an enabling power and it will not itself imply any judgment on the merits of the question whether recruits to the Science Research Council unit at Culham after March 31, 1969, should be able to join the A.E.A. pension scheme. With this assurance of a Government Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, it appears that the Amendment that is being prepared will completely meet the substance of the case that I was seeking to put forward. That being so, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord for his consideration of the matter and the action he proposes to take, and to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.