Lords Sitting of 11 February 1971

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

WESTMINSTER ABBEY
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the excellent results which have been achieved by the cleaning of historic public buildings in London, they will consider suitable similar treatment for Westminster Abbey.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the cleaning which Her Majesty's Government have had done has formed part of the maintenance of those public buildings for which the Government are responsible and for which funds have been provided by Parliament. The maintenance of Church properties is not the responsibility of the Government and funds are not provided by Parliament for this purpose. The most that the Government can do—and I can assure the noble Lord that they are very ready to do this—is to make their experience available to the Church authorities if this would be helpful.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask if he can tell us whether or not the Church authorities have any plans to do such work in the future?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not know, and therefore I cannot give that information.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is not a grant available from any Government Department for this sort of work?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, so far as historic buildings are concerned, ecclesiastical buildings in regular use are specifically exempt from listed building control and as such are not eligible for grant on that score; and under the provisions for ancient monuments ecclesiastical buildings are statutorily excluded from the benefits of the Ancient Monuments Act 1931.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why there should be a Government grant for Westminster Abbey, in the light of the amount of funds controlled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is not a matter for the Government. No doubt Westminster Abbey, like St. Paul's Cathedral, has its Friends who might be willing to help.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while supporting the idea behind the Question, may I ask whether this is not a case where your Lordships' House might remove the beam in its own eye before thinking about the mote in its neighbour's eye?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Department will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in the event of any information being made available by Her Majesty's Government, they will, before any work is started on Westminster Abbey, make certain that all information is supplied from St. Paul's Cathedral, especially as to whether the recent cleaning is in any way responsible for the vast sum now required for its restoration?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. It is possibly more to the point that the Government have themselves cleaned the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, which noble Lords may know is a Royal possession entrusted to the Department of the Environment, and as the Chapter House is of a similar stone to the rest of the Abbey the information which we have obtained from doing that work is available if the Church authorities and the Dean wish to consult us in the matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND DISORDERS
3.9 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimate of additional expenditure likely to be incurred following the decision to adopt more drastic measures to deal with disorder in Northern Ireland.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the measures I told him about in reply to his Question on February 4, I may say that the additional expenditure cannot be precisely calculated but it is not likely to be great.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we are not spending far too much money in order to solve a problem which cannot be resolved by military means alone? Ought we not to consider some other device, some other expedient, perhaps—as I suggested in my Question last week to which the noble Lord referred—convening a conference of all the interested parties, including the clergy, the Stormont Government, representatives of the United Kingdom Government and even representatives from so-called independent and abrasive and aggressive elements, in order to try to reach some kind of solution? How long are we going on spending vast sums of money in order to keep the peace, which cannot be kept?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about a conference and I said I would pass the question on to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which I have done. If the noble Lord will put down a Question about it, I have no doubt the appropriate Minister will answer it, but it is not for my Department and it is not precisely to do with this Question. I would just say to the noble Lord that if the Army were not there it would be terrible to think what might happen. One must remember that until the Northern Irish decide other-
242
wise, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have never suggested at any time that the Army should not be in Ulster? I have gone so far as to say, as many of us have said—indeed there has been unanimity in this House on this matter—that we praise the fortitude and courage of our men in the Forces in Ulster. That is not my point at all. Is it not about time that the noble Lord realised that he has not got to wait for a Question from me or any other Member of your Lordships' House; it is for the Government to come along, through a representative Minister or Ministers, and make some kind of suggestion that might bring this horrible situation to an end?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the additional expenditure to which I referred as a result of his Question of last week. The additional expenditure relates to the Armed Services, and so I answered his Question, and the money we are spending there is related to the Armed Services. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I am sorry.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have noted the attitude on this matter of the trade unions in Ulster, of the main body of Churches and of that quite extraordinary demonstration by the women who held hands between the Forces of the two sides? Cannot Her Majesty's Government give some encouragement to those elements in Ulster which represent undoubtedly the majority of the people and which are seeking a solution to this problem without a confrontation of force?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think everybody would agree with the noble Lord that one wants to encourage as much as possible those forces which are opposed to violence, and this the Government will do in conjunction with the Government of Northern Ireland. I would just say this: I think there has been one encouraging factor in the last ten days, when we have seen the situation in Northern Ireland become much more violent (the subject of another Question

243
later to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell): one of the good things is that the crowds have been much smaller, and it appears that they are unwilling to come out in the streets and join in violence of that sort.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we all admire the fortitude of our troops between two contesting parties in Northern Ireland? But the noble Lord must be aware that there is now a terrible feeling in the country that we ought to bring our troops out and let those in Northern Ireland settle the matter among themselves.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that feeling will, I hope, be balanced by the feeling of more responsible people, who will realise what would happen if the British Army were not there to totally innocent people who do not wish to have any part in this violence at all. As I said, I think the feeling to which the noble Lord refers would be a most misleading and wrong impression to get about.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will understand that deep concern is felt on all sides of the House on Northern Ireland; many of us would have liked to put Questions down. We have refrained from doing so for fear of making the situation in Northern Ireland worse and the task of our Forces even more difficult than it now is. I hope the noble Lord will pursue with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. But before inviting my noble friend to put a Question down, I think that this may be an occasion when discussions could take place between the two Front Benches, either in this House or in another place, to see whether it would be opportune and whether a Statement could be made. This is a case where we need to be very careful and in which we can work together for a proper solution.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord knows very well that anything we on this side of the House can do together with the noble Lords opposite we will do. There is no Party issue here. Everybody in the House, not least the Government, is worried about the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course the Government are thinking of every
244
possible way of finding a solution, and not least the sort of solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. But it would be idle to deny that there are great difficulties in the way of his solution.

THE HARRIER AIRCRAFT
3.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon a decision will be reached on the Harrier as an aircraft carrier requirement.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, a decision will be taken when the necessary studies have been completed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is able to go a stage further and say whether an evaluation squadron will be carrying out trials at sea? Secondly, can he say if the Pegasus 15 engine involved with the Harrier will continue to be developed?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there will be trials at sea, as my noble friend knows, and, of course, if Parliament passes the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Bill, the new Rolls-Royce company, managed by the Government, will continue the defence contracts that now exist.

NORTHERN IRELAND DISORDERS: INTERVENTION BY I.R.A. MEMBERS
LORD SHINWELL: 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 what evidence is available on the intervention of members of the I.R.A. in Ulster and whether a statement can be made on the situation.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I cannot of course reveal the nature of the evidence, but there can be no doubt that extremist elements of the I.R.A. have

245
been involved in—indeed, have fomented—the recent disturbances.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be wise to have a consultation through the usual diplomatic channels with Jack Lynch, the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland, in order to ascertain whether he can provide any information about these elements in Northern Ireland that are operating in this detestable fashion? Has the noble Lord noted that the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland has gone out of his way to condemn these elements—and rightly so; and would it not be worth while to ask him, in the fashion that is familiar to Ministers engaged in diplomatic conversations, whether there is any information available which would assist the United Kingdom forces in Northern Ireland to deal with the situation more adequately?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord has made a very interesting and constructive suggestion, but I do not think he should assume that the Foreign Secretary is totally ignorant of diplomatic procedures.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, is he aware that I have long experience of Foreign Secretaries—much longer, extensively and intensively, than he has? I doubt very much whether the Foreign Secretary, even the present Foreign Secretary, has the acuteness and adroitness, and even ruthlessness, to tackle the problem in the manner I have suggested without pressure being exerted on him.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will have an even longer acquaintance of this Foreign Secretary.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, in view of the very serious situation now in Belfast, might it not be worth while to consider the internment of leading members of the I.R.A., as was done, within my recollection, some twenty or so years ago, when the I.R.A. leaders were interned on a ship in Belfast Lough?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that, of course, is primarily a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, but no doubt before such a step was taken
246
there would be consultation with Her Majesty's Government.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not there is any truth in the allegation which has been made that members of the I.R.A. have been paying schoolchildren to engage in violence against our troops? Can he further say whether or not the Government at Stormont have taken any steps, particularly through schools and teachers, to try to keep the children off the streets?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know specifically, but I think I am right in saying (I speak subject to correction, because this is rather different from the Question on the Order Paper) that the Northern Ireland Government have made parents responsible if their children are found rioting; and they themselves get into trouble and are fined. I may be wrong, and, as I say, I speak subject to correction. So far as I know, there is no evidence that children are being paid, but if there were we should have to deal with it very strongly.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has noted that the Question asks, "whether a statement can be made on the situation" in Ulster? Arising from that, may I ask, in view of the fact that this unhappy conflict has gone on now for nearly two years, whether it is not time that we began to deal with the basic causes of the conflict, rather than merely maintaining the confrontation of forces? Would Her Majesty's Government turn their mind in that direction?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will let the noble Lord into a secret. I had an argument with my Department about what exactly the Question meant—whether it was to ask for a statement about the situation in Northern Ireland, or whether the noble Lord was asking for a statement on intervention by members of the I.R.A. I came to the conclusion that Le was asking for the latter. If the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would like to put down a rather wider Question I should be happy to answer him.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord accusing me of having confused him because of the nature of my

247
Question? Was my Question not perfectly explicit? I asked merely about the I.R.A., and whether the Government had any evidence to support the contention that they were adopting certain unworthy tactics, and whether he would make a statement. He has not made any statement at all. All he has done is to try to fob me off with evasions and subterfuges. He can therefore be assured that I shall return to the subject before very long.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps, to avoid any further confusion about his Questions, the noble Lord will in future take me into consultation about the drafting.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, while not underestimating the responsibility of the I.R.A. for the present violence in Northern Ireland, which I deplore, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that it is extremist organisations on both sides, including, in particular, the Ulster Volunteer Force, that contribute to this violence, and that they should bear at least some part of the responsibility?
LORD CARRINGTON: Here again, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell (I speak subject to what he says), was referring to the disturbances of the last ten days or so. I do not think that these were due to extremist Protestants; I think they were due to the extremist elements of the I.R.A.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the blowing up of the statue of Wolfe Tone in Dublin was most unlikely to have been carried out by the I.R.A., even though Wolfe Tone was a Protestant; and that the removal of a tricolour flag from the funeral carriage passing through the centre of Belfast was also most unlikely to have been done by a Catholic?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the statue was in Dublin; the Question relates to I.R.A. activities in Ulster.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to ask a Question of which I have given private Notice: Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a statement on the steps they now propose to take to stop the postal workers' dispute?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30. This will be followed by a Statement, also to be made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, on the Yarrow and Upper Clyde Shipbuilding Companies.

BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE ETC.) ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRM- ATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
3.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. It is hoped to conclude the Committee stage proceedings by 7 o'clock this evening. If that does not prove possible, it has been agreed through the usual channels to adjourn the Committee stage at that time and to move on to other business.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Powers to search and obtain evidence]:
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 17, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill paragraph (a) of subsection (2), which gives a constable power to detain and search any person if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person is in illicit possession of a controlled drug. This power was introduced into the Act of 1967 by my noble friend Lord Stonham, and I should like to quote what he said on that occasion—it is in col. 746 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 5, 1967:
"… the police everywhere should be given power to stop and search suspected persons and vehicles. The Government recognise fully that to extend police powers in this way is a serious matter, but we must balance the seriousness of the drugs problem against the potential for infringing individual liberty."
I agree entirely with my noble friend that this is a matter of striking a balance between the claims of individual liberty and the serious aspects of the drug problem. What I hope to persuade the Committee is that is is clear in the light of experience that the balance is struck wrongly by this clause which gives the police an unrestricted power to search any person, even in the absence of arrest, if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person is in illicit
250
possession of a controlled drug. The first problem concerns this right to detain. A right to detain seems to be creeping into our law. We are all accustomed to helping the police with their inquiries at one end of the scale, and to arrest at the other end of the scale. The law relating to arrest, or wrongful arrest, is well established, but this vague power to detain is not so well established, and I think it has rather sinister potentialities when it is a means of detaining in the absence of arrest. That is the first point.
The next point about this power concerns the question of search and of reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of drugs. On what grounds can reasonable suspicion be established? It is not like the Road Safety Act. There is no nice easy test like a breathalyser that turns green, and it is not even like searching for suspected stolen goods. Under the Metropolitan Police 6s.ct in London, and similar local Acts in a number of other cities, the police search for suspected stolen goods. They are disposed to search people who are going about at night carrying rather bulky parcels. But if a person has some stolen jewellery which he has slipped into his pocket, how is "reasonable cause to suspect" to be established? In point of fact it cannot be, unless that person is known to have a record of stealing or of receiving stolen jewellery.
This is the real problem with drugs. It may be that the constable will see something passing; he may see something which he suspects is a syringe or a small package, and this may be late at night in an area where drug addicts are known to congregate. But those are exceptional cases, and people do not pass drugs in the street, for obvious reasons. What we come back to is that there is no real way of establishing "reasonable cause to suspect" unless a person is known previously to have been engaged in the drug business or to have been convicted of possession of drugs.
What happens in practice is something which was bitterly fought when it was proposed in gelation to the Road Safety Act; that is that the searches that are made are, in effect, random. At least they are random within a certain population. They are not totally random, and it is very unlikely that many of those present in this Committee this afternoon

251
will be detained and searched for illegal possession of drugs. What happens is that random searches are made of people whose appearance is unusual. That means, of course, of a particular and a now very considerable section of people; those who have an unconventional, or perhaps I ought to say a pre-conventional, appearance in dress or hair style. This seems to me to be a very unfortunate situation. It is partly inherent in the nature of the situation that you cannot establish reasonable suspicion. Therefore if the police are to search at all they are inevitably driven to making these random searches of people of a particular kind of appearance. The result is considerable resentment by a large number of innocent persons who are subjected to these searches.
The Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence was divided as to the merits of retaining or doing away with this particular clause. However, they were entirely of one mind on one thing, and I should like to quote what was said by those who did not wish to do away with this clause:
"… those of us who object to statutory limitation"—
that is to say those of us who do not wish to remove this clause,
"are prepared to say as strongly as the minority who favour it that dress and hair style should never in themselves or together constitute reasonable grounds to stop and search."
So the Committee was of one mind that the searches should not be made on personal appearance. But if they are not made on personal appearance, how are they to be made, and what form are they to take?
It was put to the Committee that one of the arguments in favour of this clause was that it was necessary to protect young people from drug traffickers, and I could not agree more that that is a most important consideration. It was argued that while there were powers of search under other Acts in certain cities, they were not nationwide, and therefore they should be made nation-wide. At this point we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma, because if a search means stepping aside in a doorway and asking somebody to turn out his pockets, or asking some woman to turn out her handbag, that is one thing; but that is not going
252
to catch the people who are trying to foist drugs upon young people. That is going to catch only the relatively unsophisticated young person who is foolish enough to go about with drugs in his pocket, or in her handbag.
Evidence was given to the Advisory Committee sub-committee on this matter by the Association of Chief Officers of Police of England and Wales, and the Chief Constables of Scotland Association jointly, in which it was stated:
"Experience has shown that drugs are concealed in body folds which a routine search of clothing, et cetera, would not reveal. One cannot carry out a proper search of a person for drugs in a street, for instance."
In oral evidence a witness on behalf of these Associations said:
"People do not carry the drugs in their pocket in such a way that a casual search on the street is going to reveal them. That has gone out a long, long time ago. They are much more skilful about these things. They use the folds of the body, and the casual search in the street is most unlikely to reveal anything."
I think it is fair to say that we understand that the practice of police forces varies, and that it is not customary, in the majority of cases, to carry out these very radical searches which involve going to the police station and stripping the person to be searched. But they are carried out in certain cases, and we are now in the dilemma that unless they are carried out we are not going to catch the important people; and if they are carried out and nothing is found, it is going to be extremely humiliating for innocent persons.
In point of fact, the great majority of the people who are detained and searched under this power turn out to be innocent. Constables honestly believe that they have reasonable grounds to suspect, but in the great majority of cases the "reasonable grounds" turn out to be not well founded. Indeed, the best record that was quoted to the Advisory Committee on successful searches came from Birmingham, where one in three were successful. In other parts of the country the proportion may be as little as one in 16. That means that there are a very large number of unsuccessful searches, which means, in turn, that innocent people are subjected to this process for a very small haul. In the great majority of cases the search reveals nothing—perhaps because it is

253
done in a doorway; perhaps because the police are considerate and do not take the suspect down to the police station as they do not want to subject him to this humiliating procedure. In these circumstances, we are impaled on the horns of this dilemma: that a thorough search is humiliating for the innocent, and a casual search is not going to find more than a few unsophisticated people.
I think it really comes down to the fact that this was a piece of panic legislation. This power got into an Act where it did not belong: an Act which was primarily concerned with the matter of treatment of drug addicts. It was slipped into that Act in 1967 (we had done without it until then), in the rather panic-stricken, possibly hysterical, situation which prevailed at the time, and it has now been carried forward into this Bi11. I know that it has been carried forward with the approval of both the late Government and the present Government. But, after all, this Bill was drafted more than a year ago; time has gone by, and it is a fact that there have been considerable changes in the drug scene. Nothing is truer of the drug scene than that as fast as one door opens another one closes. We live in continual change, and I think our experience of this clause has been that it does not catch the big fish, and the few little fish that it catches are really not worth the effort and humiliation; particularly the humiliation of the innocent people who are subjected to search.
I know it will be said that the police value this power, and that is very understandable. The task of the police is to enforce the law as it is, and a right to search naturally makes it easier to find people in possession of drugs. But I come back to what my noble friend said when he introduced the clause into the Bill in 1967. This is a matter of balance, and while one appreciates that the police find this power useful because it helps them in their task, that is not necessarily the final consideration. One may sympathise with their point of view but at the same time feel that because a certain procedure facilitates the task of the police that is not the last word ever to be said about it. It is a question of balance between the effectiveness of this unlimited right of search, which proves in practice to be a random search, and the potential threat to individual liberty. I submit that
254
in the light of the knowledge which we have gained since the Bill was drafted, the balance is struck the wrong way in the clause as it now stands. I beg to move.
3.42 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I find it difficult to understand the logic of my noble friend's argument. I listened to her very carefully, and towards the end of her speech she said that no sooner have we shut one door than another one is opened. In other words, she means that no sooner have we shut one door to the trafficker than he finds another one. At the same time, she is asking the Committee to weaken the powers of the police. We all recognise that the police, when dealing with this particular crime, have a very difficult duty to perform. They have not had a great deal of practice, and they are called upon to sum up an individual and make a decision on whether the evidence is such that they are warranted in examining him.
May I put this point to my noble friend? She does not dissent from the fact that to-day a policeman can suspect a person of carrying stolen goods and can examine him. If such a persons is charged and found guilty, he can be given a suspended sentence or be sent to prison. If he is sent to prison he will suffer incarceration, which is very unpleasant, and his reputation will be temporarily or even permanently damaged. That is the penalty which is imposed for carrying stolen goods. But in the case of drugs an individual can carry something which, if he consumes it himself and acquires a habit, will harm him permanently. In addition to that, if he is carrying drugs it means that he has certain goods which will harm a great many other people. Therefore, he is a public danger; he is a menace to the public. He will not be the only one to be damaged, and his offence is so serious that the community is now called upon to protect itself from him.
On other occasions I have read the relevant reports, and on Tuesday I read the report from the International Narcotics Control Board. This, by the way, is an answer to the noble Lord who asked me whether there was any evidence. The International Narcotics Control Board stated that there is evidence that the individual who consumes cannabis deteriorates and finally takes heroin. That is

255
the background of the whole picture. The Bill gives permission to the police to stop and examine somebody who is carrying this evil drug; and in my opinion the position to-day is so serious that, far from trying to weaken the power of the police, we should do everything possible to strengthen it.
3.47 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment concerns one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of the Bill, affecting as it does the whole issue of civil liberties. It is the issue on which I felt bound on Second Reading to enter a personal reservation, while indicating the general support of noble Lords on this side for the main principles and provisions of the Bill as a whole. As my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger reminded us, the basic issue here is whether the powers of the police originally introduced in the earlier Act to stop and search anyone anywhere, when they had reasonable grounds to suspect them of being in unlawful possession of drugs, are wider than is really necessary for their admittedly difficult task of controlling and containing drug addiction and trafficking.
It is quite clear from the last speech that on this issue there will be different and strongly held views on what is the right balance between the police powers of law enforcement and individual liberty. I am in agreement with my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. Having studied at some length and in very great detail the careful and thorough report of the sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, under the able chairmanship of the right honourable Member for Ashford, I find myself in support of the minority view, which my noble friend has argued so cogently that I feel I should not detain the Committee further to-day by repeating the arguments. In brief, I am in favour, as she is, of reverting to the normal powers of arrest used by the police for all other kinds of suspected offences, rather than the continuation of the random stop and search powers which this paragraph would continue to provide. I do not believe that this would necessarily weaken the powers of the police and I object to a specific provision of this kind affecting only drugs.
In taking this view, one must accept that the judgments involved here are
256
essentially personal ones. Part of my judgment, in addition to considering the Deedes Committee's report, stems from my own experience as a magistrate. I also accept that both this Government and the previous Government agreed with the majority view of the Deedes Committee, although there were admittedly divisions of opinion during the Committee stage in another place which cut across political frontiers. I can only add—and I would say this specifically to my noble friend Lady Summerskill—that those of us who take a view opposed to hers on this issue are as genuinely and sincerely concerned with the need to control drug misuse in all its various manifestations, particularly among the young, as those who favour the stop an dsearch powers. But it is our belief that the continuation of these exceptional procedures will have an alienating and divisive effect, particularly on the young; and the dangers to civil liberties which are involved are such that militate against the very objectives we seek.
In this context I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if he would tell the Committee, when he replies to the discussions on this particular Amendment, what administrative action the Government have taken or are planning to take about the unanimous conclusions of the Deedes Committee report. I am particularly concerned with Recommendation (ii), which suggests:
"If the stop-search powers are retained, detailed statistics should be kept of the use made of them for examination by H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary …"
I should also like to know what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the Police Force on Recommendation (v) of the Deedes Committee; the unanimous recommendation that
"The police should accept—and senior officers should accept the need for enforcing—the principle that particular modes of dress or hair style should never by themselves or together constitute reasonable grounds to stop and search."
Thirdly, I am particularly interested in the action which has followed Recommendation (viii); namely,
"The powers of stop and search should not distinguish between different illegal drugs."
Progress in implemeting these unanimous and important recommendations of the Deedes Report could go some way to allay the concern that has been

257
expressed in many quarters about the operation of the random stop and search powers, and would reassure those of us who are concerned about their continuation. I hope the Committee, in considering the noble Baroness's Amendment, will deal with it unemotionally. It concerns a vital issue of civil liberties, going far beyond the question of our individual views about the use or misuse of drugs.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend Lady Wootton has quoted remarks I passed in 1967, when your Lordships accepted this particular provision. As usual, she has quoted them with the utmost fairness, and I do not propose to dispute her selection, because what I said then I would say to-day. I have not changed my mind about this in any way at all. Nor do I give way to my noble friends in their feeling for those who may be detained and searched in this way. I was aware of their feelings in 1967, and took them fully into account before I said a word. Indeed, I can say now that I well recall how astonished I was that this particular proposal excited so little opposition. I thought then, and I hope they will think now, that this question of balance largely depends on the view that one takes of the police and the way that they conduct their affairs. I do not accept from my noble friend that these searches are at random, and that the only people detained and searched are those with long hair and a scruffy exterior. Indeed, it may well be that they are in the majority because they are among the people who most handle these drugs. I do not say that this is the case, but it may be the case. But they are not stopped for reasons of their appearance. For a constable to have reasonable suspicion he must act on more than the physical aspects of the person he stops. The police have information, and they act on that information. That is a reasonable ground for suspicion.
Although it is now more than three years since this measure was passed, I have not so far heard any allegations that the police have exercised their powers arbitrarily or brutally or inhumanely. In fact, I do not recall any complaints under this section. A measure of this kind is, I think, distasteful to all of us.
258
In many ways it is an infringement, and on the surface an unjustifiable infringement, of individual liberty. But I happen to have met some of the people who are the end product of the drug-pushers' activities and, knowing of the really frightful tragedies (among young people, too; people under twenty) ending in horrible deaths, I find it comparatively easy to say that we were right in passing that provision in 1967.
However distasteful it is to grant the power of search and detention without warrant, we must have regard to the difficulties of tracing and catching the traffickers in drugs; and when, in considering a Bill of this kind, we decide on the penalties and perhaps somewhat airily agree that they should be ten years or fourteen years, we must not in the same Bill flinch from giving the police the powers to catch these people. If we advocate and justify the end that we have in mind, then we have to give the police the means to carry it out. I say—and I, too, have discussed this with the police and with the drug addicts; with all parties to the transaction—that this power in the Bill is right, and should be retained. I hope that the noble Lord will resist the Amendment.
3.58 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Wootton and in doing so say that I am very concerned at the discussion on a great many of these Amendments which have been put forward, because on the whole the opposition to them has not been based on the merits of the particular Amendment—the debate has always been turned into an attack on those of us who are allegedly supposed to be "soft on drugs". This is not only grossly misleading and a gross misrepresentation of what is being said, but is ignoring what to my mind is a far wider problem. There is in my mind, and I think in the mind of those who are supporting this Amendment, no intention at all of trying to facilitate the use of drugs or of trying to hinder the police in the exercise of their duty; but on the question of the difficult balance between civil liberty and the powers of the police, I find that I have to come down on the side of the police having the powers to arrest but not to stop and search.

259
I would say—and I hope that my noble friend Lady Summerskill will take particular note of this—that in the evidence of the Law Society (which I do not think is a body that one could describe as being "soft on drugs") their witnesses expressed support for the sugestion that the power to stop and search should be withdrawn and replaced by a power to arrest and search. They favour arrest followed by a search at the police station, rather than arrest and search in the street. This seems to me to be pretty powerful support for this particular Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider putting in an Amendment on the Report stage in line with that of my noble friend Lady Wootton and with the recommendations of Professor Glanville Williams and other people distinguished in their own right who are anxious to deal with the drugs problem and also to preserve human liberties.
I think it is quite absurd to say that one can always find an objective reason for being suspicious about a person. Let us be frank. Policemen are human beings; they have prejudices like the rest of us. They will sometimes encounter a person whose appearance is abhorrent to them; and although that person is entitled to his own taste in clothes and appearance and although it may be unfair to that person, it is. I think, stretching matters too far to say that the policeman should not stop that person when he quite genuinely—and I repeat, genuinely—believes him to be, because of his appearance, the sort of person who is probably carrying drugs.
With great respect to my noble friend Lord Stonham, who said that this is not done at random, I suppose it depends upon how you define "at random"; because I have personal knowledge of young people who have come out of a dance hall and who have been stopped by the police and searched. Indeed, in some cases the same people have been searched on successive weekends, although nothing was found on them. I suppose that this was on the principle that, as all penguins look alike, so do all people with long hair. Although it was explained to these young people—and I tried to do so myself—that the police were only exercising their duty and that perhaps people who had been concealing drugs had come out
260
of that dance hall in the past, I am afraid I did not get very far. They were convinced that, in their own words, this was just an excuse for the police "giving us I a going over".
It seems to me that anything that alienates young people from the Establishment even more than they are alienated at the moment (and in this context the police represent the Establishment) cannot really help in this problem. After all, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to use draconian measures or are we dealing with a problem which is part of a culture, a problem which is more social than criminal and, in fact, is often more of a social than a medical evil? It is true, as Lord Stonham said, that the effects of escalation into hard drugs by some people is absolutely horrifying; but from experience to date, this does not apply to the majority of young people who may have experimented at some time with cannabis.
So far as the analogy with stolen goods is concerned—and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, put this forward—surely the point is that people who are stopped by the police on suspicion of carrying stolen goods are stopped late at night or early in the morning and when they are carrying a case or a bag which may indicate that they have something with them to which they are not entitled. I think that the nearest analogy to the stop and search business is the case of the suspected persons. Those of us who are magistrates will agree that we find this an extremely difficult and unpleasant type of case and that we go to great lengths to make certain that we are convinced that it was right to arrest the person in that case. But the person has been arrested and brought before a court; he or she has not been stopped and searched.
One of the answers given to us is that if the search has been wrongfully carried out or the police cannot show that there were reasonable grounds, the person has civil redress. How many young people or teenagers either know of these rights in the first place or, if they do, are prepared to take on these people whom they believe to be against them anyway? I feel that stop and search in a Bill of this type is counter-productive and indeed in the long run is going to do more in

261
some ways to encourage the transport of drugs, because it acts as a challenge to a number of young people who think it all rather daring. By deleting this paragraph your Lordships would take that away. Making it a power of arrest—with search, if you like—makes it clear. It would also be a clearer indication to the police of what their powers are and would result in more thought and consideration being given to the circumstances before the police arrest.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In rising to support my noble friend, there is one particular matter to which I should like to draw attention. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give some opinion on it. The matter concerning me most here is that mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk. I have read of many cases where a large number of people, fifty or a hundred, on leaving some public place have all been searched by a police constable. When searches of that nature take place, I do not see how it can be said that the police constable had reason to suspect that all those people might have been carrying drugs. In the words of the present subsection:
"If a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person is in possession of a controlled drug …"—
he may
"search that person"—
the word "person" is in the singular—
"and detain him for the purpose of searching him".
I am wondering whether that means that the constable in question must have reason to suspect that the drugs are being carried by a particular person and that the constable is not enabled to search a large number of people simply because they are in a particular place at a particular time, with a particular kind of hair style or in a particular kind of dress. If the noble Lord could give an assurance that these suspicions have to be directed at one person or at a specific person, it would remove some of the apprehensions I feel about this clause. But as it seems to me that a completely new and deplorable principle is being brought into British law, virtually for the first time, on what may not be at all a serious offence, and that a constable is thereby
262
being permitted to search without a warrant, I shall in any case follow my noble friend into the Division Lobby.
House resumed.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now reply to the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dela-court-Smith; and I shall use the words used by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment in another place. He said:
"Since I reported to the House on February 4, I have continued to keep in close touch with the situation, and my Department contacted both the Union and the Post Office as recently as this morning. These contacts have confirmed that both sides still hold firmly to their previous positions.
"I reaffirm my readiness to hold further discussions with the parties just as soon as I have any indications that this would be useful, but I regret to tell the House that my judgment is that any intervention on my part at this juncture would not achieve the result which we all desire.
"I shall of course continue to keep in touch with both sides, and I repeat my promise to keep the House informed as soon as there is anything to report."
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for repeating that Statement, but I feel that many noble Lords will find it a profoundly disappointing one. Arising from it, perhaps I may put some questions to the noble Lord, who I think knows of my long and continuing association with Post Office trade unionism? First, would he not agree that the fact that 200,000 of our fellow citizens, members of a Union which does not have strike pay and has not a tradition of striking, have remained on strike for between three and four weeks, indicates that there is a widespread and deep sense of grievance,

263
the existence of which ought to be recognised?
Further, is it really his position, and the position of his right honourable friend, that the publication of the Wilberforce Report introduces no new element at all into the situation? I ask that specifically as a prelude to a further question. The Minister said in his Statement that he had kept in touch with the parties. Would be not confirm, as a result of this contact with the parties, that while the Union concerned has repeatedly emphasised its flexible approach and its willingness to negotiate, the Post Office Corporation, right up to the time of the Statement made this morning, and after the publication of the Wilberforce Report, has not departed in the slightest degree from the position it took up before the dispute began?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure we all share the noble Lord's disapointment that it has not been possible to bring the two parties together, that they have not come together so far, and that there has been no end to the strike. The noble Lord asked me whether the circumstances which he mentioned do not indicate a widespread and deep sense of grievance. My Lords, this is a matter for the two parties to thresh out together. He asked me whether the publication of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry Report introduced any new element. To that I must say, "No"—for this reason. The Wilberforce Court of Inquiry made quite clear that they were dealing with the specific circumstances of the industry into which they were inquiring. They made quite clear on what grounds—for example, grounds of productivity and the like—they were making their recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked me, finally, to contrast the willingness of the workers' side to come to negotiation with the refusal of the other side to move from their present position. The fact remains that until there is some indication of a willingness on both sides to accept some form of arbitration—call it whatever you like—there is no means, in view of the gulf between them, of bringing the two parties' views into line.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, are we to take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that the strike is to
264
continue indefinitely? Is the noble Lord not aware of the very serious effect of the strike on the business community of this country, apart from human hardship caused by the inability of people and families to communicate? Is it not a fact, too, that the Wilberforce Report showed quite clearly that there were many problems, and many cases where the workers in that industry have real cause for complaint; and that it looks from the Wilberforce Report that this can be put right? Is it not time for the Minister to bring the two sides together; to start immediately to bring them together, and to make them talk? My Lords, until they are made to talk there will be no solution.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said yesterday it is a question for the Minister to judge at what point it is possible to bring the two sides together. And as I said in the Statement that I repeated, he will do so as soon as he sees any prospect of anything useful coming out of his so doing.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord must surely accept that if his right honourable friend were to call the two sides together, to meet in his office, they would come. Will the noble Lord accept that it appears to be the feeling among many on the workers' side that it is the Government's intention that they shall be brought to their knees? I do not believe it is, but while this situation exists there will not be a settlement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there cannot be any question of the workers' being brought to their knees so long as they do not accept what appears to be the obligation upon them to go to arbitration. If they will accept that, then of course the two parties will automatically be brought together.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, did not the noble Lord see yesterday the statement alleged to have been made by the acting Chairman of the Post Office? When the Minister of Labour called him and the General Secretary of the Post Office workers together previously the acting Chairman of the Post Office is alleged to have stated that he attended that meeting only for public relations and political purposes, and had no intention whatever of entering negotiations? To

265
one who was associated with industrial affairs for many years that seems a very bad statement for the chairman of one side to make during a dispute.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is going to quote what the acting Chairman of the Post Office said, he should quote it with complete accuracy. I have not before me the actual words the Chairman used, but I have seen in the newspapers what he is reported to have said—
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I said "alleged".
LORD DRUMALBYN: —and it does not coincide with what the noble Lord has said. I do not think it would be right to take this into consideration. Nor would my right honourable friend for one instant start to criticise the actions of one side or the other at a time when the necessity is to bring them together.
4.19 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, is it not the fact that the Government, through the Prime Minister, have declared that their policy is totally opposed to so-called inflationary wage settlements? Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister has also said that that doctrine is applied particularly to the public industries? How in those circumstances is it possible that the chairmen of nationalised industries can fail to be influenced by the Government statement? That is the first point. The second point is: are the facts not in parallel between the dispute in the electricity supply industry and that in the Post Office? Is it not the fact that in both cases as a consequence of the strike there is a very great deal of public inconvenience, and indeed industrial loss?
Further, is it not the fact that in both cases the unions have refused to go to arbitration, which they regard, in consequence of the statements of the Government, as wholly biased? Is it not also the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment has it in his power to appoint a Court of Inquiry, just as he did in the case of electricity, which would enable the parties to come together, whether or not they agree to the broad arbitration principles? Is it not a fact that the Post Office workers have no material means of support from their Union in this strike and that it looks very much as if what the Government are aim-
266
ing at is to starve these people into some kind of settlement?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that, if I may say so, is a very good advocacy of the case on one side; but I cannot agree that the facts are as stated. There are so many wide differences between this case and the case of the electricity workers. For one thing, the electricity workers were "going slow", whereas the Post Office workers are on strike. For another thing, it was at the request of the workers that there was a Court of Inquiry into the electricity dispute. No one has ever maintained that arbitration was biased in this case. I think that one must distinguish these cases entirely, as indeed the Court of Inquiry did.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put one point to the Minister? We all are longing to see something done that will bring the parties together and bring this dispute to an end. I think we all appreciate that there must be great strength of feeling when people can stay on strike when they are not receiving any subsistence, any strike pay. Instead of bandying about quotations, which may or may not have been used, would it not be a useful measure for the Minister to have both sides together in his presence and to put quite simply to them. "Are you prepared to go to arbitration on this matter?" I do not think that that has been done. Surely it would be useful for both sides to meet, not merely in order to elicit information but also so that the general public may know—because, after all, public opinion is a tremendous force in these matters—that both sides have been confronted and had their points of view put.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. I think that, if I take the feeling of the House on this matter, it is that I should carry that suggestion—which, if I may say so, is a modification and improvement on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—to my right honourable friend, and lf hope that something good will come out of it.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister is going to do this. But he said in a previous reply that there was a difference between the two cases: that in one case

267
there was a go-slow, and in the other a strike; that in the instance of the go-slow, it would appear justifiable to have a Court of inquiry, but not in the case of the strike. I may be misunderstanding the Minister—I see that he is shaking his head. However, will he bear this in mind when talking to his right honourable friend?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as regards the last question, am I not right in my recollection that before the Inquiry was held the go-slow was called off?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it was really part of the setting up of the Inquiry that the go-slow should be called off. I should not like to enter into the question which the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has raised, because I have been asked whether a great many things were facts and the general outcome of my answer to that series of questions was that the two cases were not entirely on the same level.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, when the noble Lord said that the parties should try to get together, did that indicate that they were going along parallel lines and never meeting. I wonder how long the Government are going to let this situation continue. Is it not the duty of a Government to govern at some time? And is this dispute going on for months and months? In answer to a question by another noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he would take the suggestion back to his right honourable friend. Why on earth has not his right honourable friend thought of it before?—unless this was just something to placate the House?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I be allowed to answer that last question first? I hoped that we were reaching some kind of agreement about what the House wishes me to do. The point is simply that in the opinion of the House it would be appropriate for me, as my noble friend has asked, that I should represent to the Minister that he should bring both sides together and ask them why they should not go to arbitration. That is what I have been asked to do, and that is what I will do.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, while I appreciate that we have spent some time on this matter, and while
268
I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord to be helpful, may I put to him one final point? I think I should be expressing the will of the House correctly if I asked the noble Lord, when he represents these views to his right honourable friend, not to confine them to the specific point of going to arbitration. There is so much which can be said about procedural difficulties—indeed, this ground was covered in earlier meetings with his right honourable friend. I hope that the noble Lord will put to his right honourable friend the need for the Minister himself to try to suggest that the parties should introduce some degree of flexibility in the way in which they proceed to resolve their difficulties, both in the interests of the Post Office and in the interests of the public.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I shall certainly convey that also to my right honourable friend. Perhaps I might mention that my right honourable friend did say in another place at an earlier stage that he still did not rule out any form of investigating inquiry, and both sides are well aware of that. So the door is still open, and perhaps I may suggest to the House that the two sides should be invited to go through it.

UPPER CLYDE AND YARROW SHIPBUILDING COMPANIES
4.28 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like, with the leave of the House, to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited is a subsidiary of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited—(U.C.S.)—in that the latter holds 51 per cent. of the former's share capital. It has long been the intention of the parties concerned to bring about the separation of Yarrow (Shipbuilders) from U.C.S. and arrangements now made enable this to be done. The 51 per cent. shareholding in Yarrow (Shipbuilders) owned by U.C.S. is now being acquired by Yarrow & Company Limited which thus becomes the 100 per cent. shareholder. In this way Yarrow (Shipbuilders) becomes independent of U.C.S.

269
"Yarrow (Shipbuilders) is predominantly a naval yard with a long tradition of building excellent warships for the Royal Navy and overseas Governments. Both Yarrow (Shipbuilders) and U.C.S. have encountered difficulties in recent years and both face problems of serious cash deficiency. In view of the importance of Yarrow (Shipbuilders) for the present orders and future programme of the Royal Navy, it has been decided that the Ministry of Defence should make a loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) (on terms to be agreed) towards meeting the company's requirements for working capital. These are at present estimated at a maximum of about £4½ million during the next three years. This facility should enable Yarrow (Shipbuilders) to maintain its programme and to regain profitability.
"U.C.S. is strengthening its own financial position further with the help of shipowners for whom it is building, and it is confident of its ability to achieve a viable future. It is proposing a capital reconstruction to reflect the realities of its balance sheet. Precise details remain to be worked out, but the intention is that the Government for their part would agree to a substantial writing down of equity and a writing down and conversion of fixed interest public loans into a smaller equity holding. The aim would be to maintain a total public holding of some 48 per cent. of the U.C.S. voting equity but with an increased dividend entitlement after the capital reconstruction. No new public funds are to be provided to U.C.S.
"A supplementary estimate will be submitted to the House in due course."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the Government on the realism which permeates the whole of this Statement and by asking the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State my appreciation of the fact that he has not felt himself bound by some of his previous statements when faced with the fact that the needs of the shipbuilding industry require this continued intervention
270
of public funds. It has been my lot on more than one occasion to congratulate Ministers on carrying forward the policies of the previous Government (the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has been the recipient of these thanks on more than one occasion), so it is no unusual experience for me to express my thanks to the Government for recognising the real needs of the situation and not being bound by any Party dogma.
I have only two questions to ask. Do the Government expect that these measures will maintain or, better still in the present position of Scottish unemployment, expand the employment opportunities in shipbuilding on Clydeside? Secondly, as Parliament will be unable to form a balanced judgment without the details of the capital restructuring and other financial information, will the Government issue a White Paper on this matter at the earliest opportunity?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Government's decision about U.C.S. has been taken in the light of the balance sheet and trading accounts up to August, 1970, or whether they are still acting on accounts for an earlier period?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his reception of this Statement? I think we are all very glad indeed that these steps are being taken in view of the obvious disquiet and misgiving that existed on the Clyde. What we hope—and we cannot say that it is more than a hope—is that these actions will result in two viable and prosperous companies that will expand employment on the Clyde.
I was asked also whether the Government will issue a White Paper when precise details are available. I will convey that suggestion to my right honourable friend. I am not certain whether it would be entirely appropriate. I think that Parliament ought to be informed in some way or another, but I cannot commit my right honourable friend at the present time as to how that should be done.
The answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is, No; but the Secretary of State has had access

271
to the cash flow statements of both companies and has had the fullest information from them as to the present state of their business.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this decision has been reached by the Government after consultation with the Shipbuilding Industry Board? I am of course familiar with the shipbuilding industry; and also the Clyde situation. Is the noble Lord aware that both the U.C.S. and the Yarrow shipbuilding firm have encountered non-profitability for several years: in other words, that they are both "lame ducks"? Does not the decision of the Government make nonsense of the "lame duck" theory?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's second question, I should have thought quite the contrary. What the actions of the Government are intended to do, and what we hope very much they will do, is to make these two companies—which I quite agree have not so far proved themselves, as was hoped when U.C.S. was set up in 1968—viable and prosperous. This is the reason for the steps that are at present being taken. As to the consultation with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, my right honourable friend is in constant touch with them.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, is the Minister not accepting the fact that there are circumstances when public intervention in the affairs of industry can result in "lame ducks" being cured? Is he not in fact saying that there is a real prospect that this particular duck will be able to waddle along satisfactorily on both feet? While I appreciate that the Minister is not necessarily in a position to accept the suggestion that a White Paper should be issued, do I understand him to say that he accepts that some form of public statement will be made which will put Parliament in full possession of the facts?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that Parliament has a right to be told the facts, but I think the noble Lord will realise that, so far as U.C.S. are concerned, it is primarily a matter for them to make clear what their position will be. However, as I said, I will convey what the noble Lord has said to my right
272
honourable friend. As to his opening remarks, I hope that these ducks will not only waddle, but fly.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend can say whether, prior to being incorporated in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, the firm of Yarrow Limited had ever been in trouble financially during the whole of its long history?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my memory is not all that long, but not to my knowledge. This has not been a very happy marriage.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
4.38 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In the debate on the Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, which we were discussing before the two Statements, we are concerned with what is undoubtedly one of the principal controversies that has divided those who have made a specific study of drugs and the best way in which they can be controlled. The effect of this Amendment would be to deprive the police in most areas of the country of the powers that they have under the present legislation.
Clause 23(2) of the Bill under consideration is based on the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967. As we have heard from the noble Baroness when she moved the Amendment and from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, those powers were added by way of an Amendment moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. There was general agreement at that time, both here and in another place, about the need for powers to be given to the police to search any person who a police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect was in possession of a controlled drug, and to detain him for the purpose of searching him. The noble Lord has reminded us how little opposition there was in Parliament to that proposal.
Outside Parliament, however, concern was expressed; the National Council of Civil Liberties and others maintained that these powers imposed restrictions on individual liberty which were not justified

273
in the circumstances. When the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, was chairing the Sub-Committee on Cannabis of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, she and her colleagues took account of that feeling and commented as follows:
"This question of police powers cannot be realistically considered in relation to cannabis alone and it has been outside our task to examine the general issues. In the course of our inquiry, however, we have been made strongly aware both of concern about the effect of the exercise of these powers upon the relationship between the police and the public, and of the difficulties faced by enforcement authorities in recent years for which their wide powers of arrest and search have been thought to be essential. Because these features have contributed to so much of the current 'protest' against the existing law we recommend that as a matter of urgency the Advisory Committee should begin a general review of police powers of arrest and search in relation to all drug offences with a view to advising the Secretary of State on any changes that may appear appropriate, particularly as regards cannabis."
That was in paragraph 97 of the Report published in 1968.
This recommendation was accepted by the previous Administration, and in October, 1968, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence set up another Sub-Committee, this time under the Chairmanship of Mr. William Deedes, the Member for Ashford, to inquire specifically into powers of arrest and search in relation to drug offences. The noble Baroness was again a member of this Sub-Committee, which reported in May, 1970. The conclusions of the Sub-Committee were not unanimous, and the members of the main Committee were also divided in their opinions. A minority in the shape of the noble Baroness, supported by two other members of the Sub-Committee, argued that the practice of stop and search should be discontinued and replaced by arrest, with search following either in the street or at a police station. Where the search revealed nothing the person should be released forthwith, while in those cases where some substance was found which needed analysis, the police should release the person concerned on bail. The noble Baroness, in moving her Amendment, has amplified her arguments to-day.
I must point out to noble Lords that the majority of the Sub-Committee did not share this view. I can do no better than quote what they said on this matter.
274
In paragraph 122 of the Report we find the following:
"The majority"—
the majority of the Sub-Committee—
"think that, given the special difficulties of detecting illegal trafficking and possession of controlled drugs, it would be against the public interest to tie the hands of the police in such a way that the police become unduly concerned that the possibility of complaint for wrongful arrest would prejudice the proper exercise of their duties and functions as regards drugs offenders. We believe that the general body of the public appreciate and accept that enforcement of the drugs law cannot be effectively carried out without police inquisitiveness. There is no doubt in our minds that the difficulty of identifying drugs with certainty and establishing that they are lawfully held makes it logical to provide for search to precede arrest. We are convinced that if, as we believe, the public wish the drugs law to be properly enforced and police activity not to be restricted … it would not see the introduction of arrest-search as a reassurance but the reverse. The act of arrest, even if nothing comes of it, carries in most minds serious implications."
The Government accept that this is a difficult question and that there are finely balanced arguments, but the fact remains that it was thought necessary by the Government of the day to introduce these powers in 1967, and the previous Administration (in a decision which is supported by the present Government) after careful thought, decided that they must be continued in the present Bill. In the meantime, the Criminal Law Act 1967 has strengthened the powers of the police, giving, in the case of arrestable offences, powers to arrest without warrant any person who a police officer has reasonable cause to suspect is committing an offence carrying a maximum sentence of imprisonment of five years or snore. This power does not cover stopping and searching a person in advance of arrest, although I should point out to the Committee that in the Metropolitan Police District this power has existed for over a century since it was first placed on the Statute Book in Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. The power to detain and search somebody reasonably thought by a police officer to be in possession of drugs would, therefore, not be affected in the Greater London area, whatever the result of a vote on this Amendment in Parliament.
As the Sub-Committee pointed out in paragraph 109 of the Report to which I have already referred, finding a substance that may be a controlled drug is not

275
the last but is much more likely to be the first step in a process of inquiry to identify possible criminal actions or transactions. Thus, the stop and search provisions fit logically into a sequence of police action, where arrest follows upon suspicion strengthened by what has been found. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, asked me quite properly about what administrative action is being taken on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Report on Powers of Arrest and Search in Relation to Drug Offences. I can tell her that since Lady Wootton indicated her strong opposition to this aspect of the Bill on Second Reading, I have checked again with the police and can confirm that in their opinion the retention of these powers is absolutely essential if they are to carry out the obligations placed on them to enforce the law. Police forces are aware of the need to exercise great care in the way these powers are used, and the implications of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Sub-Committee are being discussed with a representative body of chief constables. When these consultations have been completed, the Home Secretary has it in mind to issue the Report to the police service, commending certain recommendations for adoption as standard police practice. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that the Government accept the majority recommendations. She mentioned particularly Recommendations (ii), (v) and (viii). Recommendation (viii) is not only accepted but is incorporated in the Bill which is before us.
I think I have said enough to explain why, in the view of the Government, it is not possible to accept the Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and why it is therefore necessary for me to advise that it should be rejected.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I wonder if the noble Lord can find it possible to answer my question about whether suspicion has to be directed against a particular person, or whether it can be directed towards a group of people who are subsequently found perfectly innocent.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, I can. We want to get through this Committee stage as quickly as possible, and I tried to confine my reply to the main line of
276
policy. This is a point of detail, but since the noble Lord presses me for an answer I will give it to him. The question is: What is the position when the police are faced with a group of young people, some of whom may have drugs in their possession and some of whom may not? Will they search only those who they suspect have drugs in their possession, or will they search the whole lot? The answer is that it will depend on the circumstances. If the police see a group of people coming out of premises where they have reason to believe that drugs are being used, there may be a reasonable suspicion that each person coming out of those premises may be in possession of a drug. In those circumstances the police might search every member of a group; but if people were coming out of a football match, for example, the police would not seek to search every one of them. I have taken two extreme cases deliberately. You could take others—for example, a restaurant or a café. Whatever the premises, it will depend on the individual circumstances, and in each case the constable must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual person detained and searched is in possession of a controlled drug.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Perhaps I may comment very briefly before the Committee decides on this matter and express a few views which I know are widely held by the young generation to-day. They are very acutely aware of the rapid deterioration of any rapport between them and the forces of law and order in this country. And whatever they think of the drug scene, whether they approve or not—and it is much wider than many noble Lords are aware—they are in no doubt that this clause will further worsen the relations with the police. They firmly believe—and have good reasons to believe—that they are being persecuted for their appearance and the length of their hair.
So far as the information is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, I would remind your Lordships that the very distinguished mother of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, had her house raided on information supplied maliciously to the police. Although I have no desire to-day to make any aspersions on the police, there is no doubt

277
also that the young people widely believe that an immense amount of "planting" is going on at the moment by those in the Drug Squad. In this matter some of the views of the older generation expressed in this House this afternoon often show great ignorance of the whole of the drug scene, and they are expressed so dogmatically that they are held in contempt by a great many young people in this country.
The young generation do, however, recognise that it would not be responsible for any Government to abdicate responsibility for the control of drugs in one way or another. But the use of methods which are suggested in this clause, and which young people feel are objectionable, can lead only to greater division between the generations and give a great boost to those who are pushing drugs for criminal means. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in this Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My noble friend Lord Stonham used the argument that the police have information—and this may well be so. But I should like to point out that in the great majority of cases the information proves to have been misleading, because in the great majority of cases where searches of this kind are made they do not produce any result. I want to emphasise that this Amendment does not propose to remove the power of search when it is a question of arrest. Arrest and search we think are quite proper; and where there is sufficient evidence for an arrest then a search may properly be made. What we view with alarm, from the point of view of individual liberty, is that searches should be made on suspicion—a suspicion which, as I tried to point out to the Committee, in the great majority of instances cannot be based on any really solid grounds.
As I said before, this provision got into the 1967 Bill in the rather particular
atmosphere of that time: we were very justifiably alarmed about the drug scene, and possibly slightly lost our sense of balance in relation to threats to individual liberty, which also are real. Is it not rather odd that there is no comparable power to search for flick-knives, which are not less dangerous objects than a great many of the drugs which might be found as a result of successful searches? The fact that there is no such comparable power illustrates that this provision was inserted in the earlier Act at a moment when perhaps our emotions had rather carried us away on a particular social problem, which is only one of a great number of much wider problems.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the clarification he gave and for the replies he gave to my noble friend Lady Serota. I am glad to hear that the matter of the code of practice in search is being considered by chief constables, and that it is the intention of the Home Secretary in due course to issue a standard code. But there is no such code at present, and since I do not know what the code will contain when it appears, I cannot feel justified in accepting that as a reason for withdrawing this Amendment. I suppose that the best we can hope for is that in the end this provision will nullify itself. I have already pointed out that the "big fish" know a great deal better than to walk about carrying drugs, and the "litle fish" will doubtless learn. The best we can hope for is that eventually nobody will walk about carrying drugs; and if we cannot get rid of the proposal now, with the threat that it carries, we shall get rid of it eventually when nobody who is searched ever has drugs, but in the meantime the nuisance will become intolerable.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 121.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Broughshane, L.

Gifford, L.

Amherst, E.

Brown, L.

Grantchester, L.

Amulree, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Archibald, L.

Constantine, L.

Henley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Faringdon, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, Bs.

Foot, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brockway, L.

Gaitskell, Bs. [Teller.]

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Listowel, E.

Platt, L.

Thurso, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Rea, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Monson, L,

Royle, L.

White, Bs.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

St. Just, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs

Noel-Buxton, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reading, M.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Gray, L.

Redmayne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Rhyl, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grenfell, L.

Robbins, L.

Arwyn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rockley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hacking, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

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

St. Aldwyn, E.

Audley, Bs.

St. Davids, V.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Balfour, E.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Headfort, M.

Salisbury, M.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Sandford, L.

Bethell, L.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Shannon, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Carrington, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Somers, L.

Cawley, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ilford, L.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strang, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Leatherland, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Lindgren, L.

Strathcylde, L.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McLeavy, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teviot, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Moyle, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Williamson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wise, L.

Glasgow, E.

Phillips, Bs.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Younger of Leekie, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.8 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to ("is") in line 27.
The noble Lord said: This turns out to be more in the nature of a probing Amendment than a drafting Amendment, as I first thought. The subsection in question sets out the circumstances in which a search warrant may be issued, and one of the circumstances is that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a document relating to a dealing or a transaction which was an offence under the Bill is in the possession of a person on any premises. That is in subsection
280
(3)(b). But in the same paragraph it adds:
"… an offence under this Act, or in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out in a place outside the United Kingdom, an offence against the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place …"
At first I thought that these words were unnecessary, because if your Lordships will look at Clause 20(2) you will see that it says:
"A person commits an offence if in the United Kingdom he assists in or induces the commission in any place outside the United Kingdom of an offence punishable under the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place."
It seemed to me that if a person committed such an offence there was no need to specify it particularly in subsection

281
(3)(b) of Clause 23, but I have since noticed that in Clause 20(1) it is also an offence to do any act,
"preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission in any place outside the United Kingdom of an act which, if committed in the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under this Act.
It therefore seems to me—and I do not know whether this is the Government's intention or not—that since paragraph (b) states:
in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out … outside the United Kingdom",
it must mean that if in such a transaction the offence in question was not against the provisions of the corresponding law in force in that place, but was an offence against the provisions of this Bill, then there would not be grounds for the warrant being issued. I am wondering whether that is the Government's intention. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I accept that it is probably the case that a person who is in possession of a document relating to a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out abroad, which is an offence against the law in force there, will in the majority of cases be caught by one or other of the subsections in Clause 20 to which the noble Lord has referred. If so, the first part of Clause 23(3)(b) would suffice, and those are the words his Amendment would leave in. But this would not necessarily be so. The second part of 23(3)(b)—the words which the Amendment proposes should be deleted—refers to a transaction or dealing abroad which is an offence against the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place.
The test here is not whether the transaction or dealing would be an offence under the Bill, but whether it would be an offence abroad. Assisting in, or inducing the commission of, an offence abroad is an offence in the United Kingdom under Clause 20(2). But, on the other hand, a person may have a document in his possession without committing an offence under this subsection. Clause 20(1) is different in that it is concerned with acts done in the United Kingdom—and possessing something is such an act—preparatory to or in furtherance of something done abroad which would be an offence if done in the United Kingdom. If the act done abroad
282
would not be an offence under United Kingdom law if done here, it is not caught by that subsection, and the first part of Clause 23(3)(b) would not suffice. More often than not an offence abroad would be an offence also in the United Kingdom if committed here, but one can not say that this will always be so. The Government agree that the point is a fairly fine one and it may be that, in practice, the circumstances will seldom occur in which one would need to rely on the overseas part of Clause 23(3)(b). Nevertheless, it has some meaning not wholly covered by the first part of the paragraph dealing with offences under the Bill.
With that, I am afraid necessarily rather technical explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be content. The point has been looked at with some care since he put the Amendment down; a good deal of thought has been given to it; and although we do not attach enormous importance to this clause, we do feel on balance that the Bill is better with the words included.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I have no intention of pressing the Amendment. I should like to have time to study the rather complicated reply the noble Lord has given. I still feel a certain amount of doubt, because it still appears to me that if this document relates to an offence which was intended to be carried out outside the United Kingdom and which was not an offence against the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place but was an offence against this Bill, there would be insufficient ground for allowing a warrant to be issued. But I am quite content that the noble Lord, if necessary, should discuss the matter with his officials, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11.
Page 18, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is consequential to an earlier Amendment. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he accepts the substance of what I was proposing in that earlier Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to move this

283
Amendment. I hope that it will be convenient and useful to the Committee, and indeed it may invoke a sigh of relief, if I say that all the other Amendments standing in my name would have followed had I been able to persuade the Committee to agree to put cannabis in a class of its own. So all the further Amendments standing in my name will not be moved, with one exception only; that is, Amendment No. 21, where I was proposing to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Class B. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is wanting to put it into Class C, and I understand that he will be good enough to look after that Amendment when we reach it. I hope it will be some relief to the Committee to know that all those other Amendments in my name fall to the ground. If I may say one word by way of personal explanation, I am afraid that it is essential that I leave the House by about half past five, and perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not on each occasion get up and say that the Amendment is not moved.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [General Provisions as to regulations]:
5.18 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 24, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Before making any regulations under this Act and before making any order under this Act (except an order made in any provision of this Act under which, in case of urgency, an order can be made with immediate effect) the Secretary of State proposing to make the regulations or order shall consult such organisations as appear to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Redmayne, my noble friend Lord Ferrier and myself. In the course of the debate on Second Reading I asked my noble friend Lord Aberdare to consider the question of consultation by the Secretary of State with various bodies—the Pharmaceutical Society, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries and so on. The purpose of this Amendment is to remind my noble friend of this situation. One
284
of the essences of this Bill is surely consultation, and in order that the Bill shall be really effective that consultation is an essential factor.
The Medicines Act, by Section 129(6), imposes a duty upon the Minister to consult with various organisations of a registered nature, such as the Pharmaceutical Society, before making regulations. There is an exception, as I understand it, in the case of regulations of a really urgent nature. But there are a number of aspects of this admirable Bill on which the pharmaceutical industries (and may I say at once that I have no interest to declare) feel it would be valuable to give the Bill more teeth. A number of the products in the Schedule are of course products of the various pharmaceutical industries in this country, and they are as anxious as anyone that this Bill should work and that the drugs which they produce should not fall into the wrong hands.
I do not think I need say any more about this Amendment. I quite see the difficulties with which this Government, or any other Government, might be presented if it were made obligatory for them to consult with every organisation, particularly the very small ones. But there are, as I mentioned on Second Reading and as was mentioned in another place, a number of long-standing organisations, particularly concerned with the pharmaceutical industry, with whom consultation would be most useful, and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on this matter. I beg to move.
5.23 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for moving the Amendment, which in fact was down in my name although our interests are similar. I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my place; having waited so long I was caught out by your Lordships' procedures. Not having heard all that my noble friend had to say, I shall be very brief.
My interest in the matter is on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society. I think my noble friend's interest is rather on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course the need for consultation was debated on both stages of the Bill in another place; it is hard to say anything new about it, and I think it will be hard

285
for the Minister to find any new answer. In my opinion there is no question that, since one learns something about the procedures of Government, in point of fact a Minister is better served by a statutory need to consult rather than by trying to maintain general assurances given in the past. I should have thought that the Government would welcome having this Amendment written into the Bill.
I should like to say a word on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, who put his name to this Amendment but regrets that he is unable to be in his place. His view, as a manufacturer of long standing, is that the Government should ensure that draft regulations are workable and effective by using fully the expertise of the industry. The safeguarding of dangerous drugs, both in the factory and in transit—and especially in transit—is very much the constant concern of the industry. Equally, the industry pay a great deal of attention to the design of containers and of vehicles. They pay much attention to the proper security in respect of the drivers of vehicles and, equally, in regard to the routeing and timing of deliveries, all of which are necessary safeguards, all of which are the result of considerable experience and from all of which the Government, by consultation, can gain a great deal. I hope that I may omit the other cogent argument which I was going to put to my noble friend and which has already been put forward. He will be fully familiar with it, and will know the answer; and perhaps he will give it a rather more thoughtful reply than was given in another place.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: On the face of it, this appears to be an entirely innocuous Amendment, but I hope that the Minister will not accept it. I think it is entirely superfluous because the big interests will be consulted by the Ministry. The noble Lord said that he represents the pharmaceutical industry.
LORD REDMAYNE: If I may interrupt the noble Baroness, in so far as I represent any interest, I said that it was that of the Pharmaceutical Society rather than the industry. While the two are similar, the views of the industry and the Society do not necessarily coincide.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Should I be wrong in calling them close relatives?
LORD REDMAYNE: I am not so sure about that, either.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am quite sure that the Ministry will not fail to consult those interests that have a legitimate interest in this matter. But we have to recognise that the number of proprietary drugs on the market, and those concerned with producing them, are legion. If this Amendment were to be accepted many of the producers would feel that these drugs were related in some form or another to the controlled drugs, and would undoubtedly then make representations to the Ministry demanding to be represented on whatever kind of Advisory Committee might be set up. I think this would be entirely wrong. The Ministry would be embarrassed by so much attention, and I feel that we should leave it to the Ministry, who know very well what interests should be consulted. We should leave them to consult without putting in a clause which might, as I have said, prove to be an embarrassment.
5.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): As my noble friends have both made clear, a similar Amendment was moved in another place and was subsequently withdrawn. My noble friend Lord Auckland made it clear that this Amendment substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 129(6) of the Medicines Act 1968. I would point out that there is one fairly considerable difference between the Medicines Act and the Bill before us; namely, that under this Bill the Secretary of State has to consult a statutory Advisory Council before making regulations, whereas under the Medicines Act there is no such obligation to consult the Medicines Commission. So to that extent there is already in the Statute the requirement for consultation.
It is also true that there never has been statutory provision in our dangerous drugs law for consultation, yet I hope that both my noble friends Lord Auckland and Lord Redmayne, from their own experience, will be able to confirm that such

287
consultation has always taken place and has always been effective. I can give the same categorical assurance that my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office gave in another place: that effective interests will be fully consulted wherever the basic powers of control under the Bill are involved. We very much value consultation both with the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical profession, and the Pharmaceutical Society, and of course also with the other medical interests involved, and we shall continue to consult with them.
My noble friend Lord Redmayne quite rightly went on to ask why, if we accept that this consultation will in fact take place, we do not put it in the Bill. I think the reason why we would rather not have it in the Bill has been best expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because the Amendment reads that,
"… the Secretary of State … shall consult such organisations as appear to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order."
Like the noble Baroness, I have some fear that a great variety of somewhat strange organisations—indeed some of them even representative of interests misusing drugs—might be able to come in under that umbrella. I can give the assurance that we shall continue to consult with all those involved, as well as statutorily with the Advisory Council, before any regulations or orders under the Act are made. While I agree with the good sense of the Amendment moved by my noble friends, I very much hope that, for the reasons I have indicated, they will agree to withdraw it.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am very grateful to my noble friend for the reply he has given. I can assure him that I never had any intention of pressing the Amendment, and I made clear in my opening remarks that it was only the registered societies that both my noble friend and I had in mind. I can see the difficulties which the Minister mentioned in relation to all kinds of organisations—some of whom may be interested in drugs in a far less scrupulous way than this Bill provides for. I think that perhaps the Amendment itself is defective in one way. I have been looking at it again, and it seems to me that the addition of the
288
words "to the Minister", after the word "appear" in line 6 of the Amendment, might make it look a little more convincing. However, my noble friend's answer has been a very reasonable one, and I thank him for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc. of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs]:
5.33 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE LORD REDMAYNE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) two pharmacists; and"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really related to the previous one, except that, since the Minister refuses statutory consultation—with which I do not disagree—this Amendment is of greater importance from the point of view of the pharmacist. The Schedule provides that the Advisory Council should number not less than 20, of whom at least one should represent each of the six relevant professions or industries that are set out. Of course, the remaining 14 out of 20, or not less than 14 out of 20, are to have wide and recent experience of the social problems with which the Bill is concerned.
It is obvious at once that this drafting gives the Minister a wide discretion as to the composition of the Council, and I do not doubt that he will use that fact in his answer. But it seems to me that on the face of it, as drafted, there is a danger that at some time the Council could be unbalanced in terms of the technical advice available to it. As I say, that must be all the more true if in fact the Advisory Council is to be regarded as the primary body for consultation. On that, as was said in another place:
"There will be experts from all the various interests concerned."
That is quite true; there will be six experts, each from one interest. I think that the Minister, perhaps particularly in respect of the pharmaceutical profession, will want to be sure that he has the experience of that profession to draw on at all times. For that reason, and because now, of course, there is no expert

289
committee in the Bill as there was in the Bill produced by the previous Government, it seems to me not unreasonable that the practice of pharmacy should specifically have two representatives.
Although I realise that other professions named in the Bill can use the same argument, there are certain reasons which make it more important that the pharmacist should be represented. For example, the Committee will be aware that most of the legitimate distribution of the drugs mentioned in this Bill is made by the 30,000 registered pharmacies in this country. The Committee will know also that the Pharmaceutical Society, as such, has always had great responsibility in this field. It was provided as long ago as the Pharmacy Act 1868, that the first poisons list should be prepared by the Society's Council, and none other. Equally—and experts on this subject will know this much better than I—when the Poisons Board was instituted under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, of the 16 members of that Board 5 were to be pharmacists. Therefore, it is perhaps a little strange that now, in a Council of 20, they should have only one representative, and perhaps not so very strange that I should suggest that they should have a minimum of two at all times.
It could be argued, as the Schedule is worded, that, since there is a representative, first, of the practice of pharmacy, and second, of the pharmaceutical industry, that is to all intents and purposes a dual representation. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, it is perfectly true that it cannot always be said that the professional and the industrial view are identical. Indeed, I think it would be true to say that if one was matching one against the other, it would often be wise to have the amount of advice weighted on the professional side as between those two.
I do not make a great deal of this point. I think it is a perfectly good point, and I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would be a reasonable safeguard to achieve a proper balance of expertise on the Council, and that he will accept this Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I am afraid that I must speak very strongly against this Amendment. Your Lordships will notice that
290
there is only mention of one person representing the practice of medicine. I should like to point out to your Lordships that the Advisory Council might contain a Professor of Pharmacology, who would be a very good man to have on the Advisory Council. He might be a medical man, but there would be nobody in the actual practice of medicine on this Advisory Council at all. I think the medical profession have a far better case to make out for two representatives and, one might even add, "one of whom should be in the actual practice of medicine", rather than that they should have two pharamacists.
So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to let the Schedule stand as it is, and lean on the good sense of those whose business it is to appoint this Advisory Council to see that it is a well balanced Council and that medicine is properly represented. If each section wants two representatives, I believe you will have an unwieldy body of people who are busily representing something, and that will not make for the best decisions.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I want to support what my noble friend and colleague has said. The world of pharmacy has been very fortunate this afternoon to have enlisted the sympathy and support of the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. I am quite sure that when he gives this a little further thought, he will realise that it can only be regarded as ridiculous that two pharamacists should be included on the Council, when the other fields of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and chemistry other than the pharmaceutical industry are not mentioned in the same way. The practice of pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry are indeed fortunate to be represented separately. Far from asking for more, I should have thought that the noble Lord ought to have been a little modest, and ought to have said that perhaps we could combine these two and have one representative only. But, no! The Ministry are being very generous and are giving the world of pharmacy a representative under sub-paragraph (d), and the industry a representative under sub-paragraph (e). The noble Lord should be very satisfied, and should go back to his friends and tell them that they also should be satisfied.
LORD ABERDARE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, will realise what a difficulty I am in now, because as soon as he asks for two representatives many other interested parties ask for two, also. I appreciate the importance of the pharmaceutical provision, but would make it clear that, under paragraph 1(1) before the members of the Advisory Council are appointed, the Secretary of State has to consult, "such organisations as he considers appropriate". So once again there will be full consultation with all appropriate organisations. Then, under subparagraph (2) at least one person experienced in the practice of pharmacy has to be appointed. So there is that safeguard; that each of those important interests is assured of one representative on the Council.
That is certainly so in the case of the practice of medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, seemed to suggest that there would not necessarily be a medical practitioner on the Advisory Council. But the interests listed in sub-paragraph (2) include the practice of medicine, and one person on the Council will have to have had, "wide and recent experience of that activity". I can once again fall back on my colleague in another place, the Minister of State at the Home Office, who gave a categorical assurance about the Advisory Council. He said:
"… I can give an assurance that as in the Advisory Committee"—
that is, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence—
"which is now to be abolished, there will be a broadly balanced grouping of medical, scientific and lay experts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Commons) Standing Committee A, 3/11/70; col. 34].
BARONESS SEROTA: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he also give a categorical assurance that social scientists and social workers will be on this Council?
LORD ABERDARE: I cannot give a categorical assurance, but I am sure that organisations of that sort will be considered for representation on the Council. There is another point on which I might help my noble friend. We very much hope that this Council will not operate—and I am pretty certain that it will not operate—by taking votes on questions. We hope that it will come forward with
292
agreed advice to the Government. But should it happen that one member of the Council was unable to agree with his colleagues, then we would expect such conflicting advice to be offered to the Government and it would be up to the Government, no doubt after further consultation with the interests concerned, to decide on the recommendations of the Council—whether the majority or the minority recommendation. But, as I said, we very much hope that that will not happen and that we shall get agreed advice. I mention that only to reassure my noble friend that the pharmacist representative on the Council will not be in any danger at any time of being completely out-voted, with the voice of the profession not heard. I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD REDMAYNE: I am most grateful to my noble friend for taking the matter so calmly. I thought at one moment that I was getting involved in a heated professional broil. But I am sure that the answer he has given is perfectly reasonable, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Controlled Drugs]:
5.46 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 31, line 37, leave out ("Cannabis and cannabis resin")
The noble Lord said: In the light of views which I have expressed in the past, I feel that I ought to give an assurance to the Committee at the outset that this Amendment is not designed to bring about the legalisation of cannabis, although that would be its effect if taken by itself. It is to be read with Amendment No. 23, and I solemnly undertake to move Amendment No. 23 in the happy event of the acceptance of this Amendment, so downgrading cannabis from Class B to Class C. I do not want to go over the ground that was covered on the first day of the Committee stage in the debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but it has to be borne in mind that his Amendment had the effect of introducing a completely new category with radically reduced penalties.
The penalties for Class C are still extremely severe. Five years and two years respectively are long periods for which to go to prison for supplying or possessing cannabis. But the main argument in respect of this Amendment is perhaps the same, that if drugs are to be classified and the penalties classified with them according to the harm which they are likely to cause, then that classification can be made only with reference to the available medical and scientific knowledge, which drives one inexorably to the conclusion that cannabis causes less harm than, and has the least potential for harm of, any of the drugs listed in Schedule 2.
Last week, I attempted to summarise the conclusions of medical research and the reports of very thorough commissions of inquiry. After I had done so, several noble Lords made assertions to the effect that those conclusions were nonsense. This must be a matter upon which we should be guided by the evidence and not by hunch. If I have distorted the conclusions of the various reports and inquiries to which I referred, if there is evidence from research or experiments proving the contrary to what I was asserting—namely, proving that cannabis has in itself some intrinsic, serious, proven harm—then let someone say so. I did my best on Thursday to give an assessment which was a proper and not a distorted assessment in the light of current knowledge and research on this subject.
The most frequent assertion which was made about cannabis was that perhaps it was not very harmful in itself, but it would open the gates to the use of, and later addiction to, the much more serious drugs. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken dealt with that argument very effectively, but I should like to make two more points. The first is that, without going over once again the various items of documented reporting and research on this matter, I would refer to the opinion of our own expert, my noble friend Baroness Wootton, and her Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that the noble Baroness's Committee had been frequently misunderstood, but there really is no room for misunderstanding about paragraph 51 of the Sub-Committee's report, where they say this:
"It can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis use does not lead to
294
heroin addiction. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned no comprehensive survey has yet been made, but 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 this drug".
I leave the Sub-Committee's opinion, very strongly expressed, as it stands, and would challenge anyone to say that it is wrong.
The second point is this. To me it is a wholly novel proposition to classify drug offences and to fix penalties on the basis not of the harm that is done by the drug but on the basis of the harm which it might do if people were tempted in a certain direction. What we are saying, in effect, by placing cannabis in this category and making it subject to such heavy penalties is, "The reason why it is such a serious offence is not because you are harming anybody else by possessing cannabis, and not because you are doing any harm to yourself, but because you might be tempted to commit some quite different offence—namely, the possession of LSD or heroin—and thereby you could do yourself very great harm". That may be an argument for retaining the prohibition over cannabis: it cannot be an argument for imposing such high penalties—and I do not want to trespass on the next debate—or for putting the drug in such a high category.
If one takes the example which was raised earlier this afternoon of an offensive weapon—it may be a flick-knife or a cosh—that, again, is a thing the possession of which is prohibited by law, and for good reason. It is not because you are doing anything with the cosh but because, by possessing that cosh, you may well be tempted to inflict serious harm, not on yourself but on another; and therefore it is a crime to carry about offensive weapons in a public place. But the penalty for possessing an offensive weapon is not related to the serious harm that you might do with it. It is fixed much lower—two years on indictment and three months on summary conviction. In the same way, how can one justify, on the basis of the information as we have it, the putting of cannabis in Class B, along with the much more serious and dangerous amphetamines, and making it subject to the high penalties

295
to which it is, when all one is really saying is, "It may be that you are right in your argument, but, of course, some people are led on to other things"?
In my submission this is an important Amendment because by the way we classify these drugs, and particularly the more commonly-used drugs, we are setting standards for young people, in particular, which we expect them to observe and to respect. There are, perhaps, two alternative views. One is that by putting cannabis in Class B we are saying that this is an evil substance, so evil that we are prepared to give the courts the discretion to "clobber" those who merely use it with imprisonment for up to five years and those who supply it with imprisonment for up to 14 years. I say, with great respect, on the basis of all the information which is available—and that must be the standpoint from which we approach a classification into degrees of danger—that that is not a view which does this Committee great credit. By putting cannabis into the lowest category, Class C, we are saying, in effect, "We believe this is a dangerous drug, and you risk quite heavy terms of imprisonment in its use and supply, but we recognise that it is less harmful than the other substances, particularly the hard drugs like heroin and ones like amphetamine, and therefore we reasonably take a less serious view of its use and supply than we do of addictive drugs". That view is a humane view, a sensible view, in accordance with the medical evidence, and is one which takes account of both the views of those who believe cannabis to be most dangerous and of the views of young people, who do not believe that this is so. I would ask the Committee to take very seriously what I believe to be a very moderate Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not see fit to accept this Amendment. My reason for saying that is this. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, when he argued along the same lines on the first day of the Committee stage, drew a parallel between cannabis and alcohol, and to a certain extent he was justified in doing so. I think most of us have either known or heard of some very sad cases of the wrecking of lives by the over-use of alcohol. But there is this difference. Alcohol is in general used by
296
adults and responsible people who are capable of using it in moderation, and who know just how to control it. Drugs are not so. Drugs are not, as it were, a social amenity at present, and I sincerely hope they will never become so. They are, in general, used by the young, and the rather weaker young—those of weak character who are seeking for some form of excitement or experimentation and who are very likely to be led on to something much worse. That is why I feel it is important not to let them take even the first step.
5.58 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If I intervene at this stage it is to point out that we have to conclude our proceedings at 7 o'clock. We have the very important group of Amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, which have been twice postponed already; and here, important though the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is, we are on ground that we covered very thoroughly on Amendment No. 1. However, he made a very strong case in speaking on Amendment No. 1, and he reviewed scientific international literature on this subject with some care. I think, therefore, that it is only right I should give the noble Lord a reasonably full reply at this point before we move on to later Amendments.
The noble Lord asked me whether I was able to agree with his assessment of the scientific evidence. He asked, in moving this Amendment, whether anyone could say that he had distorted the evidence. The answer to that question is: No, but he has selected it; it is selective. I have looked into the question, and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that opinions differ. There is a very extensive international scientific bibliography on cannabis, which amounts to over 2,000 titles. No fewer than 148 of these were selected by Sir Aubrey Lewis as being of particular interest when he prepared for the Advisory Committee on Cannabis a digest which was published as an appendix to the Report. In introducing his selection, Sir Aubrey Lewis comments:
"The bibliography on cannabis is extensive … and disorderly. Because almost every theme is beset with contradictory observations and opinions, the digest has to be inconclusive on many of the problems raised."

297
In the second stage of the Committee's deliberations, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1894. The obvious point to make here is that generalisations drawn from one culture more than half a century ago have to be qualified if one seeks to apply them to another culture and another age. The findings of the New York Mayor's Committee in 1944 (to which reference was also made) were based on limited experiments carried out on selective samples of cases in custody in prison and elsewhere. The studies of Zinberg and Weil in America were based on a very small sample of cases, and the validity of their findings, particularly in the circumstances of cannabis use in this country, would need to be established by replication of the experiments on a much larger scale. The need for such research in this country is recognised and will be facilitated by Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is a feature of the cannabis debate that arguments and counter-arguments proliferate. This applies to scientists as well as to politicians. Contrary opinions to those quoted by Lord Gifford include the Report of the New Zealand Board of Health Committee on Drug Dependence and Drug Abuse, published in 1970; the work of Farnsworth at Harvard in 1956; and that of Dr. Ochsner of New Orleans early in 1970. Perhaps the quotation from scientific literature most relevant to this debate—the only one I would leave with your Lordships—is from the Canadian Le Dain Commission, also mentioned by the noble Lord. This was a Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs. In paragraph 147 the Commission said:
"Usually reliable authorities have publicly taken diametrically opposed positions, not only on moral and social policy issues, but on supposed 'hard' scientific facts as well. Although the current world literature on cannabis numbers some 2,000 publications, few of these meet modern standards of scientific investigation. They are often ill-documented and ambiguous, emotion-laden and incredibly biased and can, in general, be relied upon for very little valid information."
It is therefore not possible to look for some magic touchstone in international scientific literature which would guide our approach to this problem. For an authoritative expression of international expertise we can turn to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, a part of
298
the United Nations Organisation to which we have treaty obligations. Here we find, as I mentioned last week, an undertaking by member-States, including the United Kingdom, to
"effectively counter any publicity which advocates legalisation or tolerance of the non-medical use of cannibas as a harmful drug."
The underlying difficulty is that what we are really talking about on this Amendment, and on Amendment No. 1. is the level of penalties. It is the level of penalties that is the common feature binding together the widely-differing drugs in these different categories. Let us look at Class A. It includes narcotics like heroin and morphine, stimulants like cocaine, psychotropic drugs like mescaline and LSD. We find in it methadone as well as heroin, though methadone is known to be less harmful than heroin and, indeed, it is used as a substitute for heroin in treating heroin addicts. The difficulty is that the relevant degree of danger cannot be quantified precisely. Who can say that one type of drug is more dangerous to one kind of person, if used in one kind of way, in one kind of situation, than another which is used by another person in a different way in a different environment?
The noble Lord is in a difficulty. He has made it clear that he would like to see the use of cannibas legalised. He told us on Second Reading that he did not support the prohibition of cannabis; but that he does not believe public opinion would be willing to go so far as that and he is moving, instead, to reduce the penalties; to move cannabis from Class B to Class C, which would have the effect of lowering the penalties. We must be clear in our minds what the effect of this Amendment would be: it would have the effect of reducing the penalties by a very slight amount. In magistrates' courts there is no difference in the maximum period of imprisonment: six months for Class B or Class C drugs. The only difference on summary conviction would be in the amount of fine, which is £400 for Class B and £200 for Class C drugs. What this Amendment seeks to do is to reduce the penalties.
The mover tells us that he personally would like to see cannabis legalised but does not think the public will go as far as that. Therefore what matters is the act of reduction, the idea behind this

299
Amendment and Amendment No. 1 being to get the penalties reduced. The Government do not accept that. We feel that this is the crux. You cannot settle the argument by looking at international scientific literature. For that reason I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: If my noble friend's ultimate aim is to get cannabis removed from inclusion among controlled drugs, he may take comfort from the fact that when he is Home Secretary with the power to remove cannabis from the list of controlled drugs he will be able to do so, whether it is in Class B or in Class C. Probably he will have to wait for that day.
LORD AVEBURY: Before we finish this discussion, may I put a point of view that I should have preferred to put on Amendment No. 1, but we were running out of time? I am not in favour of legalising cannabis or reducing the penalties; but it seems to me that there is a grave danger in putting cannabis in the same classification as the amphetamines. The young generation know that cannabis is not dangerous. If we, in our wisdom, tell them that cannabis is dangerous they, in their own minds, have already caught us out in a lie. In their own minds, therefore, any other drug that we say is in the same classification as cannabis is equally safe or "undangerous". There is a grave risk in leaving cannabis in the same class as the amphetamines. I would ask the Government to look at this point to see whether we could not overcome the problem by putting amphetamines into Class A.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I note the noble Lord's view, but we are going back over the same ground as we covered on Amendment No. 1. The Committee recorded their decision on that occasion. I can take account of what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot hold out any hope of making a change. But I can add this to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. We should bear in mind that this is not a classification for all time. We still need to know much more about cannabis and about how drugs are used and misused. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will have power to move any drug up or down the scale,
300
or out of the Schedule altogether. This will be a matter kept constantly under review.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: I greatly appreciate the very careful and full reply which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was good enough to give me on the scientific and committee research; and much of what he said, of course, will be of great value to the Committee and to the public at large in coming to an assessment of this question. For instance, he said of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, very reasonably, that generalisations taken from one culture should not be used in assessing the effect of drugs in another culture. That is a very reasonable point, but one which could well be borne in mind by, I think, no fewer than three noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading of the evils of cannabis by relating it to their observations of its effects in the Middle East.
The noble Lord further quoted from the le Dain Committee and their finding, on reviewing all the various evidence, that on this issue widely conflicting and differing views are held by experts. True enough. But what one does find—and the noble Lord was good enough to confirm it—is that when one looks at those who have considered various conflicting views and tried to give an assessment of their validity, one finds that, while they express great caution, they come to the same or similar conclusion. Indeed, the le Dain Committee, as the noble Lord well knows, after a very thorough inquiry, recommended drastically reduced penalties and, indeed a drastically reduced status for cannabis in the classification of drugs; and they recommended that there should be no imprisonment for possession of it at all.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he will know that this Bill very substantially reduces penalties for possession of cannabis, as I have pointed out once or twice in the debate. In the magistrates' courts the penalties for the possession of cannabis are halved.
LORD GIFFORD: I thought the noble Lord might make that point. I do not want to make a point in reply which could be made on the next Amendment,

301
but it must be borne in mind that the reduced penalties not only reflect what a bad law we had before, so far as cannabis is concerned, but they also reflect, or should reflect, the fact that there is a new offence of possession with intent to supply. Therefore it is unnecessary to have the offence of possession, carrying a heavy penalty, to catch the trafficker who is found guilty of being in possession of large quantities but against whom there is no evidence of supplying. But that is a point which may be elaborated during the discussion on the next Amendment.
We have had a short but interesting debate on this Amendment. I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who talked about alcohol and made the assertion that alcohol, in his experience, was used by a large number of adults and responsible people. I want the Committee to realise that it is that kind of assertion, coupled with the kind of measures taken in this Bill, that make the young so disillusioned. Because on the one hand they see considerable numbers of people—adult people—becoming highly agressive, violent, killing each other on the roads and becoming alcoholics through the abuse of alcohol, and they also know quite well that among young people it is not just the weaker that use cannabis. It is used by young and responsible people, and society must come to terms with this.
LORD SOMERS: I must interrupt the noble Lord. I never denied that for a moment. I merely said that, on the whole, alcohol was used by adults and responsible people. I do not deny that there are, of course, other cases.
LORD GIFFORD: I take the noble Lord's point.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was right in saying that the most important result of this Amendment would be to effect a reduction in the level of penalties, it is not the only point involved; because, as I said, if by categorising a drug you are giving your views to society as to its danger, the view being given to-day is that it is as harmful as amphetamines. But, having
302
said that, I appreciate that the effect of this Amendment, if accepted, would be to reduce the penalties in a rather similar way to that proposed by the noble Baroness by the following Amendments. I appreciate that perhaps the same substantive and effective discussion on penalties generally could be held on her Amendments, and therefore I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 31, line 39, column 1, after ("Dexamphetamine") insert ("Diethylpropion").
The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as possible in moving this Amendment. This is a plea for a drug which goes by the name of Diethylpropion, and is sold commercially under the name "Tenuate", to be included with the amphetamines to be found in Class B. The only clinical use for this drug is as a suppressant of appetite. In that and in other respects it resembles the amphetamines. It is known to be a cerebral stimulant; in other words it has the "pep pill" action of amphetamines. It is known to produce a state of euphoria which is immediate, and it has been known—there is ample evidence of this—to produce a temporary state of psychosis resembling schizophrenia. For these reasons it seems to me a priori a drug of which we ought to take some note.
I think an argument which might be raised against including it in this Schedule is that the evidence of its use is, so far, slender—and perhaps I may here interpolate that I should have added that it has been known to cause drug dependence. I do not accept that the evidence is slender. To my mind, the evidence is clear, but so far the cases are few and far between. I think the reason why the cases are few and far between is that doctors have been in the habit of using a lot of other drugs; indeed, I must confess that while I was practising medicine, which is only a few years ago, I never heard of this drug at all. So I think that the reason why cases are few and far between is simply

303
that the drug has not yet been used on a wide scale.
It has also been said that these cases have occurred only when Diethylpropion has been used with other drugs. I do not think this is absolutely true; but even if it is, I do not regard it a reason for not including it in the Schedule. The case that I would make particularly is that if practically all the other drugs which have this action are included in Class B, and Diethylpropion is left out, there will be an immediate switch to prescribing Diethylpropion and we shall have the same kind of problem as has arisen with the amphetamines. The reply may be, of course, that there is power to add it at any time, if further experience shows that what I have been saying about its use is right. But it could equally well be withdrawn at any time if further experience showed that it was harmless. I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, not because I do not hold strongly that the drug should be included, but because I very much doubt whether most of your Lordships are in possession of the relevant information about it, since up to the present, this drug has not been greatly used.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for having chosen a drug whose name is at least fairly easily pronounceable, and not one of the others which appear on the Schedule. As he said, Diethylpropion is one of the amphetamine group of drugs and is the base of the proprietary preparations known as "Tenuate" and "Tenuate Dospan" which are appetite suppressants and used in the treatment of obesity. Until recently it was controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, as its chemical structure was covered by the generic formula in the Schedule to the Act intended to cover all the amphetamine drugs that were being misused. Under Section 6 of the 1964 Act the Home Secretary has to consult the Poisons Board with regard to the modification of the Schedule of drugs and it was for that reason that about two years ago, when the Poisons Board recommended that Diethylpropion should be decontrolled, this came about under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order 1970.
The Board made this recommendation, after examining the technical evidence regarding
304
the drug, its properties and use, and also evidence that it had rarely, if ever, figured in the annual statistics of prosecutions involving controlled drugs and that no information indicating significant misuse of the drug had been presented. The Order, which specified by name those of the amphetamines to be controlled, was anticipated in the drafting of Schedule 2 to this Bill, was subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure and was considered in this House on October 27 last.
So the fact is that Diethylpropion was not originally placed under control because it was specifically recognised as a drug of abuse or because it seemed a likely alternative to amphetamine and dexamphetamine, which were, and remain, the most common drugs of misuse. It was controlled as it were by accident, because its chemical structure fell within the generic formula which turned out to be much wider in effect than was expected or intended. It has never become a drug of misuse, and in the light of the Poisons Board's recommendation it was not considered justifiable to have persons put at risk of criminal prosecution for unlawful possession when no such risks attached to a wide range of other drugs whose liability to misuse and actual misuse are of the same low level. This was the reason for not including it in the Schedule to this Bill.
May I finally say, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, expected me to say and as my noble friend Lord Windlesham said on the last Amendment, that if it should become a drug of misuse in the future, it can be added to the Schedule by Order in Council under Clause 2(2).
LORD PLATT: I think that I have no option but to withdraw my Amendment, but I do so with considerable reluctance.
BARONESS SEROTA: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I am one of those members of the Committee who, though I do not understand the contents of this particular drug, do realise from what has been said that it is one that can be used in the treatment of obesity. The noble Lord will recall that on the Second Reading one or two noble Lords ventilated their concern about the control of certain drugs

305
that were currently being used by slimming clinics. We should like an assurance from the noble Lord that this particular drug is not one of those that is currently being used in slimming clinics.
LORD ABERDARE: As the noble Baroness is aware, the drugs most used for slimming are the other amphetamine drugs. I should not like to give an assurance straight away, but Diethylpropion is an appetite suppressor and it is used for that purpose by the medical profession. I have no doubt that the Advisory Council would go into this extremely carefully, if it should turn out to be a drug of misuse, but for the present moment it is not considered to be so.
BARONESS SEROTA: I appreciate the noble Lord's position on this matter. I raise the point because it is of some concern, and I should be grateful if he would keep this under consideration. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, would wish that to be done, in view of what he has said, and the fact that this is a drug that could be misused in an area that is worrying some of us greatly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Prosecution and Punishment of Offences]:
6.25 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 38, line 10, column 4, leave out ("14") and insert ("10")
The noble Baroness said: I hope that I may cheer up the Committee by saying that this extremely elaborate sequence of Amendments is a good deal simpler than it appears. They follow a consistent pattern. My intention is to move the Amendments together so that it will not be necessary to deal in great detail with every individual Amendment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is agreeable that we should have a general discussion on penalties, and then it will only remain for me to say a few words as we come to each Amendment in its appropriate place.
The first batch of Amendments take out "14" wherever it appears and put in "10". These Amendments are to prevent
306
the maximum penalty in the existing law from being raised. The maximum penalty under the existing drugs law for any offence is 10 years' imprisonment, and it is now proposed in the Bill that this should be raised for a whole range of offences to 14 years. My first objection is that we ought to be extremely careful before we impose such a penalty in any connection at all. It is well-known that after 10 years prisoners tend to deteriorate in personality. I think that the higher penalty is unlikely to be a general deterrent. There are few things that people will do with the prospect of 10 years' imprisonment that they would hesitate to do with the prospect of 14 years' imprisonment. I would also say that our law does not provide a penalty of 14 years in many cases. For very serious offences, the courts may give a life sentence, and in many cases life is preferable to a sentence above 10 years. It is more flexible and has the additional advantage that the person under life sentence is on licence literally for life. But I am not suggesting that we should have a penalty of life imprisonment here. What I am proposing, partly on general principles, is that sentences above 10 years are something to be looked at with extreme care and only to be written into the law in quite exceptional cases.
Coming to the application of this principle to the Drugs Bill, I would point out that it is proposed to raise the existing penalty of 10 years to 14 in cases which might broadly be called trafficking. Trafficking covers production, supply, possession with intent to supply, cultivation of cannabis, allowing premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis or other drugs, and also acts in the United Kingdom to promote an act abroad which would be illegal in that country. Broadly, therefore, it is proposed to put up the trafficking penalties from 10 years to 14 years. I think the objections to that are these. Again I think it goes back to the atmosphere at the time when the Bill was drafted. At that time we were being very much agitated by what one might call the heroin curve. The heroin curve was going up, and we were looking at America and contemplating that the curve would go up and up. One of the more encouraging features in the present situation is that it looks as if the misuse of this particular drug has for the time

307
being, perhaps, under the present law and particularly the 1967 Act, been contained. Indeed, one of the worst anomalies of this Bill is that one of the most dangerous practices at present is the injection of a drug which is not in the Bill at all; that is to say, the injection of barbiturates.
So my first objection is that it is quite inappropriate at this stage to be actually raising penalties in respect of any of the drugs with which we are concerned. Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not proposing to lower the penalties for trafficking in any Class A drug. I would remind the Committee that concern was expressed in another place, both on the Government and on the Opposition side, about the high level of penalties. There is one other special feature about the high penalties for trafficking: they increase the risks of trafficking, and it is well established from American experience that increasing the risks also increases the profits. In a sense, the higher you put the penalty the more you are raising protective tariffs for the iniquitous people who are engaged in this traffic.
But perhaps the far most convincing argument against raising the penalty for trafficking from 10 years to 14 years is that the 10 years penalty itself is practically never imposed. It has been in force since 1965; that is to say, for five years. During that time it has twice been imposed. What, then, is the purpose of the proposal to raise the penalty for trafficking to 14 years? It is not as if the courts were, so to speak, banging their heads against the ceiling, imposing 10 years and saying: "We wish we could impose 14 years." Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 27, which in relation to the illegal production of Class A drugs proposes to leave out 14 years, which is the new penalty in the Bill, and to maintain the existing penalty of 10 years.
LORD BROCK: When one is confronted with this rather impressive array of figures one is inclined to rationalise them in a simple way. My own approach to this matter depends on two things. We have to consider the way in which these drugs will be used or misused. If a person is just taking drugs, the penalty should be small and effective, but it is doubtful whether he should go to prison at all. One presumes that whether a
308
young offender or a first offender goes to prison on a drug charge is at the discretion of the court, but there must be a grave objection to his going to prison and thereby being exposed to various entirely unfavourable influences.
At the other end of the scale we have the person who trafficks in drugs. Here I can see no reason whatsoever for diminishing the penalty: in fact, the tendency should be to increase it. That has been the Government action. It has been stated that anyone trafficking in drugs is taking part in murder—not only one murder, but several murders, and it may be many murders. The penalty for that can quite justifiably be life imprisonment, or whatever it entails. To suggest that the penalty for trafficking should be reduced—certainly to a period of less than 10 years, such as five years—does not seem to me to be at all acceptable. The gradation of the penalties in respect of the various drugs is quite illusory. The penalties imposed for trafficking in drugs, whether they are Class A or Class B drugs, should be heavy. I personally think the penalty should not be reduced from 14 years to 10 years, but, if anything, should be increased from 14 years to life.
6.37 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was pleased to learn from my noble friend that she intended to take this large group of Amendments together, because I believe that earlier in the debate she said that there were 27 of them, and I am sure the Committee would not relish 27 speeches from those people interested in this matter. I propose to make one speech, and it will apply to every Amendment on the Marshalled List which seeks to reduce penalties and thereby reduce the severity of the punishment.
My noble friend did not mention precisely what the offence was, but my noble friend and colleague Lord Brock has touched on it. What the Committee have to recognise is that these heavy sentences are not those which will be suffered by some ignorant boy or girl, or some young man or young woman, who has been foolish enough to take cannabis and to have a "trip". These are heavy sentences which will be given after long and careful thought to individuals who are the enemies of the people. Those who have arrived at these heavy sentences

309
have decided that in the interests of the community and the health of the community, both physical and moral, these particular individuals must be removed from our society, and removed for many years.
I do not deny that long imprisonment causes deterioration in health. But of what are these people guilty? Most of them are utterly merciless. For money they are prepared to debase and degrade, and to ruin the health of people. They are prepared to see an individual die in the utmost misery, having endured the most frightful agony in terms of losing friendship, being alone and waiting for the end. I am sure that my noble friend must have been to the drug addicts' clinic. She must have sat there with them and seen these appalling creatures: the very dregs of humanity, who have been reduced to this condition because there were cold, calculating people prepared to sell them drugs for a sum of money. How can we say that we must be merciful to these people? Did they show mercy? No; they are completely merciless. That is why fairly heavy penalties have been arrived at.
I want to say about these Amendments that I oppose every one of them on the ground that the punishment is well deserved and is necessary in order to protect society. The time may come, perhaps, when smaller punishments will be given, but I do not believe that the times or the circumstances surrounding these crimes of trafficking in drugs call for a more lenient attitude. Time and time again we have heard people say—as the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, says—that cannabis is harmless. I have read to the House reports of authoritative organisations, and I would remind the noble Lord that the International Narcotics Control Board said:
"There is evidence that many heroin consumers have begun with cannabis."
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked for evidence. We are trying to protect these unfortunate individuals; these weak, inadequate, miserable creatures finding it difficult to face up to life. We are trying to protect them, because we know that once they start on cannabis they may well turn to heroin and harder drugs.
My final word is this. I say to my noble friend (for whom I have the greatest respect) that I believe she is misguided. I
310
believe that as Parliamentarians it is our duty to protect the physical and moral welfare of the young people of this country. We are failing in our duty if we put on the Statute Book legislation which can be interpreted by the young people of the country as indicating that this House wishes to take a more lenient view of this crime. Therefore, I intend to oppose each one of these Amendments.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I must come to my noble friend's rescue. My noble friend Lady Wootton has been consistently misunderstood in everything she has said about drugs from the moment she began. I have been in great trouble at dinner tables for defending her. It is always thought that she wants to legalise cannabis, whereas as everybody in this House knows, she objects to legalising cannabis. Now she has made a suggestion that an increase—not a decrease—of sentence from 10 years to 14 years should be taken out of this Bill, not because it would be less severe for people who traffic in drugs, but because it is irrelevant to their trafficking. We are to have a debate next week on the question of long sentences, and so one does not want to go into that matter now. But it is important not to confuse the point of view of my noble friend Lady Wootton—which is that to increase sentences from 10 years to 14 years is to use a rule of thumb which is meaningless—with the idea that one wants to let off people who are doing the kind of damage which my noble friend Lady Summerskill did not in any way exaggerate.
I went into the same Lobby as my noble friend in opposing moving cannabis into a category by itself for the very reason that she so eloquently stated—that in the eyes of the young this might look like a softening towards this serious and awful problem. I have been to drug centres and seen people who are skeletons and miseries, and I do not need anybody to convince me about this. But as somebody who is interested in penal reform, I say that so long as legislators think that by adding to length of sentences over a certain period they are doing anything at all, those of us in this House and elsewhere who have any acquaintance with the facts must try to disabuse them. Therefore, in this first instance of taking

311
out the sentence of 14 years, I am very happy to support my noble friend.
6.46 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Let me repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Brock, have said. We are debating here only the penalties for offences concerned with trafficking and certain other specific activities set out in Schedule 4. There is a completely different set of penalties where possession is concerned. We have to accept that the trafficker is the source of virtually all the pain, suffering and grief that constitute the most tragic aspects of the contemporary drug scene. Without people who are willing to traffic and trade in these harmful substances, it is inconceivable that there could be a drugs problem on any widespread scale at all. We are talking here about the sources of supply, whether it is illicit production, import or distribution, and in so doing we have to keep in our minds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, that behind each person whose life is ruined there stands a trafficker. This is the context in which the penalties have to be seen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, have argued that, as a general proposition, penalties of up to 14 years' imprisonment are too high. But 14 years is the level of penalty which has been set by Parliament in recent legislation for such offences as burglary, handling stolen goods, blackmail, or possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life or resist arrest. Your Lordships and Members of another place felt that a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment was appropriate in each of those instances. Where those offences are concerned, the courts may sentence offenders on conviction on indictment to up to 14 years' imprisonment. Who can say that the man who organises and takes part in a systematic trade in dangerous drugs is doing less harm to society than the burglar or the blackmailer?
The noble Baroness may want to develop her thoughts about long sentences when we come to the debate next week on prisoners who are serving long terms of imprisonment. There are general arguments about the level of penalties, the
312
place of long sentences in the penal system, their effect on the criminal and on the prisons, and so on. But to-day I have to point out to the Committee that in this Bill the penalties are based on the same levels which have been adopted by Parliament in recent legislation. Having said that, I want to point out that it is only in the most exceptional cases that the courts use the maximum penalties available to them. This applies both to penalties available on indictment—and, of course, these very long terms of imprisonment apply only in the higher courts—and also to the much lower penalties available in magistrates' courts. Since the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 came into operation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has reminded us, there have only been two occasions when the higher courts have used the full penalties open to them under that Act. The first occasion was one offence for trafficking in heroin in 1965, and the second was one for trafficking in cannabis in 1969—both very grave offences.
It is helpful to know what is happening at the moment—how the courts are using their powers. We must not get the idea that if a 14-year maximum penalty is authorised there are going to be vast numbers of people pouring into the prisons to serve sentences of up to 14 years. I have therefore analysed the convictions in 1969 under the existing drugs legislation. If we take first those cases dealt with in the higher courts—and we can assume that these are the people who are involved in the more serious offences—we find that well under half (370 out of 822) were sent to prison or borstal: nearly one quarter (178 people) were fined, and about one in eight were put on probation. The majority of offenders were dealt with not in the higher court but by magistrates.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Would the noble Lord make it clear whether he is speaking about Class A offences, or whether he is speaking about drug offences generally?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am speaking of all drugs offences under the 1964 and 1965 Drugs Acts in the calendar year 1969. That is the most helpful way of looking at the size of the problem. In the magistrates' courts we find that nearly half the total—the total was 5,336—were

313
fined, and about one in five were placed on probation. Out of these 5,336 persons fewer than 300 (274) were sent to prison or borstal. Four hundred and fifty-nine received a suspended sentence, and a further 130 or so young men were sent to a detention centre. If I may offer just one other statistic, if we look at the first offenders convicted in all courts—higher courts and magistrates' courts—of offences involving the possession of small amounts of cannabis—that is to say, up to 30 grammes, or about enough for 60 or 70 individual reefers—we see that only 21 people were sentenced to serve terms of imprisonment in 1969, with a further 120 suspended sentences.
I quote these figures to show that the courts normally feel it appropriate to impose penalties well below the maximum available to them when sentencing people who have been convicted of drug offences. And there are parallels. Burglary, for example, which I mentioned earlier, attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years on indictment, though in practice most of the sentences imposed for this offence are of three years or less, and it is rare for anyone to be sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment for it.
In consequence, it might be said that, since on the whole the courts impose much lower penalties than the maximum available, high maxima are not needed. But this is an argument that the Government cannot accept. We say, in exactly the same way as did the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite when they were in office, that the courts must have wide powers to deal with the very worst offences. We are confident that the courts can be trusted to use the maximum powers available to them only when they believe the circumstances of the case before them fully justify it, and that in all other cases more modest penalties will be imposed.
We are coming near the end of the time available for the Committee's proceedings to-day. I have spoken at some length on this Amendment because it governs the other 25 or so Amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. Like other noble Lords in the Committee, I greatly respect the knowledge and integrity of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and have listened
314
with close attention to the arguments she put forward in support of this series of Amendments. But I must advise the Committee that it would not be right, in the view of the Government, to accept this Amendment, or any of the other Amendments in the series. I therefore urge the Committee to reject each of them.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge for having at least clarified the situation and defended me from a number of false accusations to which I have long been subject, both inside and outside this House. I would say only this to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. She is kind enough to say that I am misguided. I would retaliate by saying that she has extraordinary ideas of mercy. She begged us not to accept this Amendment, on the ground that we were going to show mercy to these horrible people. It is not my idea of showing mercy, to retain a power to send people to prison for 10 years; but it may be hers. I must say again that I am not proposing to do anything to reduce the penalties in Class A for trafficking below the level at which they stand at present. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, seems to have given the oddest argument in reply. He wants to put up the maximum penalties for Class A trafficking, and the evidence given in support of this is that the courts in fact do not come within miles of the existing maximum penalties. Why this is an argument for putting them up, I fail entirely to understand.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What I said was that we felt the courts must have these powers to deal with the exceptional case, but that the courts would use the powers only where they were absolutely sure the circumstances justified it.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The exceptional case must be infinitely more exceptional than any case the courts have yet had, because on only two occasions (I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information) have they given sentences even up to the existing maximum. So why the Government should want to increase the maximum by 40 per cent. is more than I can understand. However, I do not propose to pursue

315
this matter, as time is short. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 38, line 10, column 5, leave out ("14") and insert ("5").
The noble Baroness said: I want to say a few words about this Amendment because I think that here the logic has broken down. All through this Bill, where the proposal to raise penalties from 10 to 14 years is included Class A drugs are treated in exactly the same way as Class B drugs. What is the point of segregating Class B drugs from Class A drugs, if they are to have the same penalties for trafficking, possession and all the rest? I can understand that it may be considered equally wicked to sell anything which is a prohibited article. But in that case there is no ground for discrimination between Class B and Class C.
I should have thought, on the other hand, that it was much more sensible to discriminate all through; to say that since the Class A articles are much the most dangerous, therefore the penalties should be highest for Class A; rather less for Class B, and less again for Class C, and that this should apply to trafficking just as much as it applies to possession. It is totally illogical to have the same penalties for trafficking in drugs in Class B (which covers a very wide range: it has already been pointed out that it covers amphetamines and cannabis) as for trafficking in Class A drugs. One has to remember that trafficking covers a great variety of actions. It may cover very small-scale actions, which doubtless would not attract the maximum penalty, and it may also cover large organised business. But surely in either case there ought to be a discrimination. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is true that the maximum penalty for trafficking in Class B drugs is the same as that for Class A drugs, and therefore trafficking in cannabis, amphetamines and other drugs scheduled in Class B is subject to very heavy penalties. But this is really because the extent of misuse of these drugs is so very great that it is thought that the courts ought to have the same powers to deal with offences of trafficking whether the drug concerned is in Class
316
A or Class B. It is the widespread extent of misuse that is the justification for making the maximum penalties the same.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The Committee on cannabis over which I had the honour to preside considered making a distinction between trafficking and possession, there being no such distinction in the present law. Considerable difficulties were raised, and we therefore suggested that the matter might be re-examined; and I gather it has been re-examined. But I am sure we did not contemplate that if it was found possible to distinguish trafficking from possession—as we should have liked to do—the only way to do it would be to put up the penalties for trafficking. We thought it would be very much more reasonable to make a new scale of penalties which would put trafficking on top and possession lower. And if the drugs are going to be classified into three grades, I would suggest now that the appropriate maximum penalties are those which my Amendments throughout suggest—that is to say, 10 years for Class A, five years for Class B, and two years for Class C offences. This pattern—10, 5, 2—runs through all the remaining Amendments that have to deal with trafficking and kindred offences.
I should like to say that in making that proposal I have in one respect departed from the recommendations of my own Committee, and departed in the direction that my noble friend Lady Summerskill would doubtless approve of as a sign of incipient grace in myself. As at that time we could not discriminate between trafficking and possession, we put the maximum penalty for either at two years. Now that it has apparently been thought possible to discriminate I have accepted a penalty of five years for Class B trafficking. It is on the grounds that I think it is totally illogical to have separate penalties for possession of these drugs A, B and C but the same penalty for trafficking that I moved this Amendment. However, it is obviously not possible to pursue the matter further, in view of the unyielding attitude of the Minister and the Government, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 38, line 16, column 5, leave out ("6") and insert ("4").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 35, 37 and 39 embody the recommendations of the Cannabis Committee, over which I presided. This is the only one of this whole series of Amendments in which I have proposed to alter the penalties in the magistrates' courts. In these Amendments I have proposed that the six months' penalty in the magistrates' courts for Class B drugs should be reduced to four months, and I propose that the fine should be reduced from £400 to £100 for Class B drugs. This is because these were the considered recommendations of my Committee. I think they were about right then, and not much has happened since to make it desirable to change them. May I mention now that I shall not move Amendment No. 38 because it would be consequential upon the acceptance of Amendment No. 37.
I hope that I have made clear the intentions behind these four Amendments which embody the recommendations of the Cannabis Committee. I was very glad to see that in the Committee stage in another place the Minister of State called attention to some of the recommendations of the Committee in much more favourable terms than they have ever enjoyed before. He said that they were very important, and he added that the recommendations of the Committee may have had some influence in reducing the sentences passed upon first offenders in possession only of small quantities of cannabis, which of course is a Class B drug. This encourages me to stand by the recommendations of my Committee in toto, and that is why I propose to move these four Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
LORD GIFFORD: These four Amendments to which the noble Baroness has referred are all concerned with possession, and I could wish that the question of penalties for possession were not passed over in a hurry, because it is necessary to consider the whole rationale of penalties of long terms of imprisonment and terms of imprisonment imposed in the
318
magistrates' courts for the possession of dangerous drugs. We are (are we not?) getting ourselves into a bit of a tangle when, on the one hand, we say of the trafficker that he is merciless and that he is one of the prime causes of the agony of drug addiction, and when we say that the rationale of our high penalties for trafficking is to protect the moral welfare of the young people of our society. When we are faced in the courts with the young people who are the victims of the wiles of the trafficker—people whose only offence has been to be in possession of any of these dangerous drugs—on indictment the courts have a discretion to impose, in the case of Class A drugs, seven years, Class B drugs five years and Class C drugs two years' imprisonment; whereas the magistrates have a discretion to impose terms of imprisonment of 12 months, 6 months and 6 months in each case.
The young person who is in possession of any of these substances ranging from heroin down to cannabis is presumably the young person one is trying to educate; to whom one is saying, "Do not be led into the dangers of addiction by sampling these drugs". These are the people one is trying to deter from going further with their experiments—and in the case of the hard drugs I accept that intention in this Bill wholeheartedly. Why then is it necessary to have available to the courts swingeing terms of imprisonment for those who are not concerned with the supply of drugs in any way? What the Le Dain Committee in Canada recommended was that possession of any drug should not be punishable with imprisonment at all. That this is a correct approach becomes even more clear with the introduction of a new offence of possession with intent at the time—and I must take the time of the Committee to elaborate the point which perhaps I failed to get across before.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that under the old law there was only an offence of supplying and an offence of possession. Therefore, if someone was found with a vast quantity of drugs in his possession, neatly parcelled up into packages, and with scales besides, unless there was evidence that he had actually been supplying them he could only be charged with possession, and

319
therefore there was an argument for allowing the courts a discretion to impose heavy terms of imprisonment. This is no longer the case, because the person who will be charged with possession will be a person against whom there is no evidence that he intended to supply.
I wish to refer to one point which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made during the Second Reading debate—and I hope that he will listen, because it is a serious point. The noble Lord said, refering to penalties,
"Your Lordships will agree that these penalties are still very substantial. They are, however, maximum penalties, and the courts will no doubt continue to work well below them, as they do now. This wide margin is deliberate. It will leave the courts discretion to distinguish between the first offender, the persistent offender and the trafficker who can be charged only with possession but from the evidence in whose case more serious inferences may be drawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/1/1971, col. 228.]
If I read the noble Lord aright, what he is saying there is that it is perfectly permissible for the courts to sentence someone before them on the basis that he is a trafficker when he is only charged with possession, and that would be a lamentable state of affairs when it is open to the prosecuting authorities to charge him with trafficking. Also, it takes away the basis for continuing to press for penalties of this magnitude for the simple offence of possession.
In conclusion, may I say that it is all very well to say that the courts will use their discretion and deal with offenders coming before them in a humane way. It is my experience that, by and large, that is the case; that one does get, particularly in this city, a very reasonable and humane attitude taken by magistrates and benches of justices to offenders who have been in possession of drugs. But if justices or judges take the view, as some do, that persons before them charged with simple possession deserve to go to prison, who can blame them in that attitude when the penalties are fixed in this inordinate way? And it is not enough to say that any excess of bigotry can be cured on appeal, because the appellate authority in some regions may be no better. Great hardship, I do not say is frequently caused but can be caused when justices or judges take these penalties as the sort of guide which many noble Lords have taken them as, as a reason for "clobbering" drug
320
offenders. I hope that my words will be taken note of and the whole rationale of penalties reviewed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have been trying to help the Committee as regards time. I am very conscious that we are now, and have been for some minutes, on borrowed time; we were hoping to finish at seven o'clock. This is the dilemma: there are two further Bills for consideration and a number of Orders. I quite appreciate that the noble Baroness should wish to move this Amendment and speak to it, because she spent so much time and work in drawing up the Report on Cannabis, and these are the penalties which were proposed. At the same time, we have twice debated the matter very extensively: on Amendment No. 1, the proposal to put cannabis in a separate class with lower penalties, and on Amendment No. 21, the proposal to move cannabis from Class B to Class C, which would have the same effect of reducing the penalties. The level is a little different in each case, but the principle is the same, and I should not be using the time of the Committee in the most fruitful way if I went yet again through the reasons why the Government did not feel that it was possible to reduce the penalties for the possession of cannabis below those which are already included in the Bill. When we have disposed of this Amendment, perhaps the noble Baroness would let us know whether or not she feels she would like to move the remaining Amendments, in which case we ought to adjourn for another day, or whether she feels that the point has been made and the argument fully explored.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I have no alternative but to withdraw this Amendment and to say that I shall not move those that follow. I shall not do so without protest. This is the third time that this debate has been conducted under a timetable, and there is no guillotine in this House. It is the only time—the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so—in the twelve years that I have been in this House that I have heard a Minister say that he must reject all the Amendments that follow before they have been moved or spoken to. In the circumstances, I do not propose to continue this discussion. I ask leave to withdraw

321
this Amendment and I give an undertaking not to move the others, but I do it under protest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)

FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFIC WARDENS (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1971
7.17 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELVELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971 laid before the House on January 14 be approved. This Order was approved in another place on February 3. It is in similar terms to the Order applying to England and Wales which was approved in December of last year, and it extends and consolidates the functions of traffic wardens in Scotland.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the use of traffic wardens on certain duties can be of considerable assistance in relieving the pressure on the police, who are thereby free to concentrate on more serious traffic offences and on crime prevention and detection. The functions
322
traffic wardens may perform are specified by the Secretary of State by means of an Order subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, but it is for the chief constable of each area to decide whether and on what duties they shall be employed.
As the road traffic wardens in our towns and cities have become more firmly established since their introduction to Scotland in 1962, their functions have been extended, first in 1966, when traffic wardens were allowed to direct and control moving traffic at road junctions and other places, and now in the Order before us to-day. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to consolidate all these functions in one Order. Accordingly, the Order provides a comprehensive list of what duties traffic wardens may be called upon to perform. The new functions proposed in the draft Order will enable chief police officers to employ traffic wardens to do the following things: to enforce the vehicle excise laws, to obtain the names and addresses of owners or drivers of cars where a traffic offence of a type with which traffic wardens are allowed to deal is believed to have been committed. It will also be an offence to disregard directions given by the traffic warden when directing traffic, and this applies to pedestrians as well as to road traffic. For this purpose traffic wardens will be able to obtain names and addresses of pedestrians.
My Lords, there are over 550 traffic wardens employed in Scotland to-day. In terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, traffic wardens must be suitably trained before undertaking their duties, and chief constables have made the training arrangements which suit their particular circumstances. The police, the local authority associations and motoring interests have been consulted about the draft Order which has also been considered in the normal way by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1971 laid before the House on January 14 be a pproved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)

SALMON AND MIGRATORY TROUT (PROHIBITION OF FISHING) ORDER 1971
7.21 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE rose to move, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1971, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Order, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on January 28, 1971, does three things. First, it extends for a further two years the prohibition on drift net fishing for salmon and migratory trout in an area of sea off the coast of Scotland and the Tweed. Secondly, it extends the nature of this prohibition to include certain other specified methods of fishing; and, thirdly, it takes account of last year's negotiations in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission about high seas fishing for salmon. The changes in the form and content of the Order, as compared with the former Extension Orders with which your Lordships' House is familiar, are due to the inclusion in it of provisions arising from these international negotiations.
My Lords, in 1962, for reasons well known to your Lordships, we imposed a prohibition on drift net fishing for salmon in an area off Scotland. The prohibition was to last for two and a half years, but it was extended by the Government of noble Lords opposite on four occasions. I therefore seek your Lordships' agreement to a further extension of the ban for two years, which is provided for in Article 4 and Part II of the Schedule to the Order, though there are certain changes which I feel I should explain.
These changes result from the international negotiations on the high seas fisheries for salmon which have developed in recent years. These were carried out in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the international body which covers the North Sea, the North East Atlantic and the area around the British Isles. In May of last year this Commission made certain recommendations for regulation of fishing for salmon in its area, the regulations to apply in 1971 and 1972. These were to be reviewed if
324
substantial changes occurred in catches of salmon on the high seas or in home waters or in the fish stocks. These recommendations included the establishment of two completely closed areas off Northern Norway, a closed season for salmon fishing outside national fishery limits from July 1 to May 5 in certain areas, including waters around the United Kingdom, and other measures, such as minimum-size limits on salmon and mesh of nets, and prohibition of fishing for salmon by trawls, or trolls or monofilament nets.
Although these recommendations did not go so far as the United Kingdom would have wished at the time, they were nevertheless useful. But they cannot be carried out precisely as they stand, since the powers to regulate size limits of fish and mesh of nets do not apply to sea fishing for salmon. This Order therefore imposes a complete prohibition on all fishing for salmon in the Convention area around the British Isles as a whole but outside national fishery limits. This is instead of carrying into effect the detailed recommendations, which would themselves merely have allowed our fishermen to seek salmon for only about seven or eight weeks in the year and then be subject to the various restrictions on gear and fishing methods. In practice, British fishermen do not fish for salmon in the area that would be open for this short period, so it is no real hardship to close off the area altogether. We thought that this was the easiest way to do it, and it is done by Article 3 and Part I of the Schedule to the Order.
Your Lordships will agree perhaps that it would be odd indeed to prohibit all methods of salmon fishing outside the 12-mile limit, to prohibit drift netting inside that limit, but to allow the other methods to be used inside the limit. Therefore it seems sensible to make the two areas the same. But we cannot introduce a similar general ban inside the limit, since this would interfere with certain traditional methods of salmon fishing. What we have done, therefore, is to specify a number of methods of fishing for salmon which may not be used inside the fishery limits, and by so doing we have extended the ban in this area beyond drift netting to cover also, so far as possible, the other methods which were described by the Commission. So, apart from individual and unsuccessful experiments some time

325
ago, these methods have not in fact been used for fishing for salmon. We shall also make known before long what we propose to do about the Hunter Report. In the meantime, I trust that your Lordships will approve this Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1971, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
7.26 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for her brief but perfectly satisfactory explanation of this Order. She referred to the fact that the previous Government had extended the ban on drift net fishing on a number of occasions. That is perfectly correct. During that time, however, a great deal of work was done in trying to find ways in which the recommendations of the Hunter Committee, either as put forward or in variation, might be put into operation in Scotland with the maximum degree of support—because as the noble Baroness is well aware, it is difficult to find suggested changes in the law which do not meet with opposition from one section or another of the affected community.
A great deal of progress was made during that time, and I think I should not be wrong in saying that had the Election resulted otherwise we should now have been in a position to put before Parliament our proposals on the implementation or otherwise of the Hunter Committee. I am quite certain that we should have done exactly as the noble Baroness has done, extending the ban for another two years. All I would do, therefore, is to ask the noble Baroness whether she expects that at some time during this extension of two years the Government will come forward with firm proposals on what they suggest should be the permanent solution of this admittedly difficult problem.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I suppose I should begin by declaring a fairly obvious interest, in that my title derives from the name of a famous Scottish salmon river. I have infinite joy in managing that salmon river from source to sea, including its estuary fishing, its rod fishings and its hatchery. I can there-
326
fore say that from a practical point of view I welcome this Order, because with it come a number of other Orders controlling fishing for Atlantic salmon in other parts of the Atlantic, and because, as the noble Baroness has told us, this represents a measure of international agreement between countries of the North East Atlantic and North West Atlantic which are interested in the Atlantic salmon.
There are, however, two points that I would raise, though the noble Baroness has already partially answered the first by saying that the Hunter Report will not be dropped with a dull thud and an audible sign of relief into her wastepaper basket, but that Her Majesty's Government will, in fact—shortly, as I hope—be coming forward with positive suggestions based upon the tremendous amount of research that was represented in the Hunter Report. I hope that when this is done we shall see the salmon law of Scotland based not upon 19th century conceptions backed by mediæval notions but upon something a little mote 20th century, and that we shall see a general tidying up of the law of salmon fishing, salmon management, and fishing for salmon around our coasts.
The other point I should like to raise is this. In these arrangements, which were reached internationally, there were two hopes expressed which could not be given specific effect to as they were the province of the sovereign States involved in the Convention. One was the hope that each State involved in reaching agreement on the fishing for salmon on the high seas would also take steps to control the fisheries inside their own territorial waters. I hope that we shall be able to watch this situation through the Commissions, and so forth, who are watching the fisheries on the high seas.
The other hope was that countries around the North Atlantic would try to add to the population of salmon by implanting smolts. This is a subject which some people have tried to say is not proved scientifically and which they have tried to belittle. It is indeed a subject which can be of enormous interest to all countries which breed the Atlantic salmon. From our own experience on the Thurso River, I am perfectly convinced that one can greatly increase the run of smolts to the sea. I maintain that it is

327
no coincidence that, during the last six years, when the catches of many rivers have not been as good as people would have liked to see, and have not been as good as they have been in the past, our catches have been 20 per cent. up on the long average going back to the 19th century. I maintain that it is not unconnected with our efforts to rear salmon in a specially cleared loch, and in certain selected parts of the upper waters of the river.
I should like to see Her Majesty's Government give more encouragement to this sort of thing, because we in the Thurso have tried to interest the Fresh Water Fisheries Laboratory in our experiments, and have indeed offered them facilities to work alongside us on these experiments, and these offers have not been taken up. I made an offer to the last Government 'to take over a river which belongs to the country, the River Strathy, and to carry out improvements on it, particularly improvements to water storage, to the actual mouth of the river and the construction of pools. This offer to manage the river was refused, and instead we were given an assurance that more licences would be issued to catch the average catch of 36 salmon which come out of that river.
I hope that this prohibition of certain types of fishing on the high seas will encourage us not merely to sit back and think that we have done a job for the protection of the Atlantic salmon, but that it will merely be a point from which we will look forward to increasing the usefulness of this great natural resource, because if we really tried we could double the number of smolts running to sea out of the rivers of the British Isles. I am quite convinced of this. I am also quite convinced that an enormous amount of work needs to be done to increase the number of salmon which go into the North Atlantic. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give us assurances that not only will the fisheries for salmon in the sea and in the rivers be looked at from the point of view of preserving what we have, but that primarily they will be looked at as an area in which we can improve an already great asset.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I have no interest in any salmon river to
328
declare, nor am I a fisherman, but I have some interest in the legislation from which this Order springs. I was Parliamentary Secretary in 1962 when the Bill was introduced, and I remember the opposition in Committee in another place, the prolonged debates and the claims that what we then proposed to do would not work and was grossly unfair. I am an extremely happy man this evening to hear all these speeches from all parts of the House in support of what we then proposed.
7.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think any other noble Lord wishes to speak, and therefore I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood for taking part in this brief debate. I would say to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, that of course it is very good to see agreement on legislation in which he had some original hand—perhaps in drafting—in the first place.
On the major question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the Hunter Report, it is quite true that his Government took some time to consider the Hunter Report. It was published in 1965 and the Election was in 1970. Therefore, if I have it right, that is five years of careful and close examination, and leaving no stone unturned.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will excuse me, she has not quoted me exactly. I did not say that we had taken all this time to consider this Report. I said that we had done a considerable amount of work, and even allowing the usual conventions to a new Government, it does not seem to me that the civil servants in St. Andrew's House started all over again in June, 1970, doing the work which they had been doing in the two or three years previously.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord worked very hard on the Hunter Report, but I would recall to him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has always taken a personal interest in this particular Report, and indeed has made many speeches upon it. Therefore, I can certainly give the assurance for which he asks, that

329
within the period of this particular Order—which is, after all, two years—we shall most certainly give views on what we should like to do with the Hunter Report, and that it will not be dropped into the waste paper basket as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, thought. Therefore, I should think that, even if the noble Lord only started in the last term of office, which I suspect he did not, we might be just a little bit quicker.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke from great personal knowledge of fishing from one of the most famous fishing rivers in Scotland, and we all recognise the work that he has done to try to improve the smolts in his river. I would quite agree with him that, quite apart from this Order, which controls certain types of fishing both outside and inside the limits, we ought also to be considering very seriously how we can improve stocks. As he rightly said, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission recommended that all those States which were party to the Convention should do their best to plant smolts. So far as we are concerned, my Department's Fresh Water Fisheries scientists, as part of our programme of research, are setting up an experimental smolt-rearing station, and I hope that in time we shall see results similar to what he has managed to achieve on his own. I am sorry if, as he says, he has not had a visit from any of the scientists from the research station. I understood that some of the advice that had been given to him came from the Department's scientists. We shall have to see what can be done about that in the future.
To all noble Lords who have been good enough to welcome this Order, I should like to say that before I came into this House I really had the most terrible nightmare, because first of all it was Hospital Endowments Trust, then Traffic Wardens, and then of course it was the Salmon and Migratory Trout. I suddenly had the nightmare that all the traffic wardens would be directing the salmon and the migratory trout, and they would all be put into a trust and redistributed.

POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS 1971
7.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations 1971, laid before the House on January 28 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Regulations consolidate in one Instrument, the Police Pensions Regulations 1966 and the nine subsequent amending Regulations. The Regulations do not affect the existing level of police pensions, and all present rights are safeguarded. However, the opportunity is being taken to incorporate a number of improvements. The most important of these relate to the augmented award for the widows or children of police officers who die as a result of injuries received in the execution of duty in certain defined circumstances. There are also improvements concerning the transferability of pensions to other employments in the public sector. I have come equipped to give a great deal fuller explanation of these Regulations than that, and if any noble Lord wishes to take up any point on them I shall be happy to provide some further information, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I move the Regulations in this rather brief way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations 1971, laid before the House on January 28, be approved.—(Lord windlesham.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am pleased to set the noble Lord's mind at rest. We are very happy with these Regulations and wish to see them passed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long, but can the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, say whether these Regulations were discussed in detail with the Police Federation; and, if so, are they in agreement? Also, can he give any forecast when these Regulations and the nine preceding Regulations, for some of which I was responsible, will be consolidated in legislation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, on the first point, I understand that the Regulations, including all the changes made by them, have been drawn up by

331
tile Home Department in consultation with the local authority and police staff associations, and have been agreed with the Police Council for the United Kingdom, on which, as the noble Lord knows, the Police Federation is represented. I cannot answer the second question off the cuff, but I will look into it and send the noble Lord an answer.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
7.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My attitude to betting is well known, and it may seem somewhat strange to see my name on a Bill of this kind. But, equally, I have always been opposed to injustice, and it is for that reason that I am bringing this Bill before you. It will remove one of the pressing restrictions which unfairly hampers the sport of greyhound racing, usually regarded as a working man's sport.
Parliament has seen fit to make special statutory arrangements to protect horse racing, but it did not extend that protection to greyhound racing. It must be recognised, though, that there are a considerable number of people who follow greyhound racing, which involves the breeding and training of an animal of ancient lineage. I make the point that there is a great difference between the exercise of skill by punters, who attend a racecourse and watch the activities of the greyhounds and make their selections, and the action of a person who merely goes to a betting shop to back his fancy. Since greyhound racing was first introduced into this country in 1926, it has expanded considerably—it is the next largest spectator sport after soccer—but its support on the course has seriously declined. In 1948, more than 25 million people attended the meetings organised at tracks by the National Greyhound Racing Society. Last year the total attendance had dropped to some 7 million. The reasons are not far to seek.
In 1934 Parliament decided that the sport should be subjected to a number of statutory restrictions because of the
332
social circumstances which then appertained, when a far different view was taken of betting, particularly betting by a working man. That Act has remained largely unchanged and was eventually consolidated in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. One of its restrictions was removed by my noble friend Lord Lindgren in 1969, when he successfully promoted a Bill to increase the percentage that could be deducted from the greyhound totalisator for operating expenses. The Home Secretary made the necessary Order later in the year and that has been instrumental in saving a large number of greyhound racecourses from being closed, because it is that percentage from course betting—they can now deduct 12½ per cent. compared with 6 per cent. formerly—which provides the major part of the operators' income.
In a situation where most tracks are barely viable, great pressures are exerted on them for their property value for development, because they are generally situated in areas of high urban development. A course is at present limited to 104 meetings a year, so with only two meetings a week it cannot possibly make full use of the large assets which must necessarily be employed and cannot show a reasonable return. Under these conditions, many are in danger of closing, but in many areas their closure would be quite disastrous, because greyhound racecourses are used for other sports, such as speedway, stock car racing, soccer, rugby and a host of other events. For instance, Wembley Stadium is a national institution because it stages football internationals and the Cup Finals, but it could not be kept open for only a few football matches; it would not be viable. So we have the position that Wembley, a national institution, is kept going only by the regular operation of greyhound racing.
I do not disguise from your Lordships that the legalisation of betting shops in 1961 has been another prime cause of the sharp decline in attendances. Previously, the punter went greyhound racing, where the betting is conducted under strictly controlled conditions. He now has the opportunity of going to a betting shop where he can sit in the warm, and he does not go to the local track. But one of the main restrictions, which stems directly from the 1934 Act and which is

333
still with us, is that greyhound racing, alone among betting sports, is restricted to these 104 days in a licensing year; and a licensing year is taken from July 1 to June 30. Moreover, inexplicably, all the tracks in a licensing authority's area must race on the same day.
Furthermore, existing legislation provides—and I find this even more remarkable—that the schedule of days on which betting is to take place for the whole of the forthcoming year must be approved by the licensing authority by May of the previous year. That means that track operators must forecast what will happen in their local area by way of football matches, big boxing shows and so on, up to 14 months in advance, in order that they can so arrange their schedule that they do not clash with other sporting events. Of course such forecasting—indeed, it could almost be called crystal gazing—is well nigh impossible, with the result that there is considerable clashing between greyhound race meetings and ether sporting events. It often involves, too, great public disappointment, because these other events cannot be held. This, in turn, causes difficulties in relation to the dispersal of traffic, and the public are in a sense denied the freedom of choice in the sports they wish to follow which they would otherwise enjoy.
My Lords, it appears to me abundantly clear that in this year of 1971 there is no need for such repressive legislation. It is certainly no longer required. The sport is conducted on a very satisfactory basis by the stewards of the National Greyhound Racing Club, who exercise a firm control and discipline over the racing al the 52 leading racecourses in England, Scotland and Wales. There are a number of other tracks which are outside the jurisdiction of the stewards, but I understand that plans are now being discussed to bring those tracks under one body, albeit in a loose fashion. The need for a change in the statutory arrangements therefore becomes more pressing as time goes on. I could instance what happened last year in the East Sussex County Council area, to illustrate this point. The show jumping authorities at Hicksteada—very popular venue for show jumping—wanted for the first time to have betting on a number of days in 1970 and 1971. Brighton and Hove Stadium, which is in the same area, had been operating continuously
334
for nearly 43 years, and naturally it was expected that their days would be chosen—they had had them long enough. But the county council overruled them in favour of the Hickstead show jumping. Whether or not there should be betting on show jumping is quite immaterial, but it just goes to show how ridiculous the law is in this respect.
When, in 1934, Parliament thought lit to introduce this restriction, there were at that time 270 greyhound tracks operating in the country. In 1949, which was the first year after the war when greyhound racing was allowed to operate fully under the 1934 provisions, there were not 270 tracks but 209. Since then there has been a further continuous decline, resulting in only 140 tracks—just over half—operating last year. This means that in 1970 there were available to the general public some 14,500 days of racing; that is, in 1970 there were just over half the number of meetings as were held in 1934. That is a very serious decline.
Let me give a few examples of the many closures that have taken place. In South London up to 1962 there were six tracks holding 624 days of racing, This year there will be only two tracks. In Lancashire the number has fallen from 17 in 1949 to 13. Glasgow has three tracks, one of which is scheduled to be closed for a motorway extension. That will leave two, which compares with five in 1949. In the County of Warwick, including Birmingham, the number of tracks has declined from six to two. Nottinghamshire has only one, compared with five. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there used to be 26: now there are 14. It is the same all over the country—creeping extinction of a sport by accident of Act of Parliament. This, I am sure, is not what Parliament intended. But the squeeze continues. Last year the attendances at those greyhound courses which race under N.G.R.C. rules declined by over 6½ per cent.
To sum up, the present position is that greyhound racing cannot compete on a fair and equitable basis with other betting media which have been granted the benefit of more modern legislation. For example, the Gaming Act is very restrictive—we saw to that—but the restrictions which apply to bingo and other forms of gaming are not nearly as

335
restrictive as they are on greyhound racing, because bingo-goers can gamble every day. And, of course, greyhound racing depends entirely upon the public paying to attend the course. During the last ten years alone, 7½ million patrons have been lost. It must be borne in mind that greyhound racing, unlike horse racing, is not favoured with the benefits of a levy, which is largely derived from off-course betting. Betting on the greyhound totalisator is restricted to those persons who come to the course. There is no credit for off-course betting as with horse racing.
Your Lordships will understand, therefore, why the main purpose of this Bill is to permit a modest increase—I think a very modest increase—in the number of betting days on which a greyhound track can operate. The Bill proposes that there should be 130 betting days in a licensing year compared with 104 at the present time, both figures inclusive of the four special betting days. Tracks in a licensing area—that is, county council and county borough council areas—will also, if the Bill is passed, be able to select their own betting days. They will not have to be selected annually, but can be chosen on a monthly basis. The track will thus have to give prior notification, seven days in advance, in writing, to the licensing authority of the days on which it proposes to race the next month. Such an arrangement will ensure that the licensing authority will be able to check that the number of betting days in a licensing year does not exceed the permitted number.
In addition, the Bill imposes an extra discipline, which I think is a very good idea but which has not been brought into betting legislation before. It is that the number of betting days to be held each month will be restricted to a maximum of 13, excluding the four special betting days. I think it is necessary to include this method of control so that Parliament does not open the floodgates to all kinds of other activities being allowed on which betting could take place. The figure has been determined by assuming that three meetings a week would be held in each calendar month and it also allows for the movement of the calendar when there are four and a half weeks in a month.
336
I should perhaps explain that the special betting days, which are part of the present 104 and will remain part of the 130, differ from ordinary days only in that they have sixteen races instead of the normally permitted eight. They take place mostly on bank holidays and gala days. There is no change in that what-soever; no increase at all.
As regards the Bill itself, Clause 1(1) is the operative section. It increases the number of days from 104 to 130. This arrangement would enable the track, if it wished, to race on three days a week for a period of six months instead of twice a week all the year round, as is the present general practice. Subsection (2) sets out the restriction that there should not be more than 13 betting days in any period of one month. The remaining subsections give effect to the necessary procedural amendments to the main Act. Clause 2 makes provision for prior notification to the licensing authority by the track betting licence holder, with not less than seven days' notice, of the number of meetings proposed for the following month. With regard to Clause 3, the Repeals clause, I repeat that repeal measures will include repeal of the whole of the Dog Racing (Betting Days) Act 1963 whereby at present it is possible for tracks to recover in a licensing year four days that are lost through bad weather or similar circumstances. It is not necessary to retain this Act and keep this potection, because any day lost through weather will now be taken in another following month—not necessarily the next one—provided that all the meetings are kept within the licensing year. It is also proposed to repeal the provision for notifying the licensing authority 12 months in advance and for tracks in the same licensing area to race on the same days.
It may be said that the Bill, if passed, will enable more new greyhound stadiums to start operating. This may be possible in theory, but in practice it will be utterly impossible, because promoters just could not, and certainly would not, provide the very large amounts of capital needed to run greyhound racing on a separate basis. Few new tracks have been opened since the war, and this year still more established tracks will be closed down. In my view, the most the Bill will do is to help those tracks still running to keep on

337
running. Above all, it does not seek to depart extensively from the overall and I think somewhat arduous, statutory control which Parliament has seen fit to impose on greyhound racing alone. Rather does it seek to ease some of those restrictions which in the course of years have become most onerous, pressing, and indeed unjust. It is for these reasons that I commend this little Bill and ask your Lordships to give it what I hope will be a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stonham.)
8.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT WARD OF WITLEY: My Lords, I must begin what I assure your Lordships is not going to be a long speech by declaring the special interest which I have in this particular subject. For several years now, I have been President of the National Greyhound Racing Society of Great Britain. This, as your Lordships may know, is a voluntary association of all those greyhound tracks which race under the rules of the Greyhound Club.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, we have at present 52 member tracks—although the number is bound to dwindle in the next few months—and the representatives of these tracks, who sit on the Council of the Society and work in conjunction with the stewards of the Club, are responsible for the shaping of the overall policy of the sport. This Bill is, therefore, of the greatest importance to the Society, and we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for introducing it to-night. Although the noble Lord has said that he is not a betting man, he has nevertheless for a long time taken a keen interest in greyhound racing. He has been most helpful to the sport; and the way in which he has opened this debate to-night shows, I think, how well qualified he is to speak on the subject.
I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is to speak in a few minutes. It is not the first time that he has taken part in a debate about greyhound racing. As the noble Lord reminded us earlier, Lord Lindgren introduced a Bill in 1969 which, by enabling a somewhat larger percentage of the Totalisator revenue to be retained by the track, has gone some way to meet
338
the ever-rising cost of maintenance and of providing the proper facilities for security as well as amenities for the public. But helpful as this concession is, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will agree that it provides no real or lasting solution to the difficulties that beset greyhound racing to-day.
Although the causes of these difficulties are many and complex, there are, I think, two main causes—and I hope that in saying that I am not over-simplifying the problem. The first is that the betting offices which were legalised in 1961 have kept people away from the tracks; and, the second is that the legislation which governs the sport, and which dates largely from the early 1930s, is thoroughly outdated. It is, of course, the second part of the problem that we are discussing to-night. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising the important point which has already been made: that the betting offices, because they provide a handy means of betting without the trouble and expense of going to the tracks, have caused a decline in attendance at greyhound meetings of more than 42 pet cent. since 1961. This represents an annual rate of decline of 4 per cent. Your Lordships will readily appreciate the serious consequences to greyhound racing if such a rate of decline is allowed to continue.
We in the Society believe that there are two steps which must be taken at once to arrest this decline. The first concerns the level of betting tax at the race meetings. That lies outside the scope of this debate and so I must leave it aside. The second step is to ease some of the outdated statutory restrictions so that promoters can make greyhound racing more attractive to the public. This Bill, by giving promoters greater flexibility in the choice and number of days of racing, represents an important move in this direction.
I submit that the Government, any Government, cannot afford to let greyhound racing die. Over the past 22 years no less than £126 million have gone to the Exchequer from the sport; and there is no reason why it should not continue to be a valuable source of revenue if only a little attention is brought to these difficulties before it is too late. As President of the Society, one of the things I am most anxious to ensure is that the

339
reputation of greyhound racing should be above reproach. If this is to be so, it is clear that the conduct of the sport must also be above reproach and must be seen to be above reproach. In our efforts to prevent, so far as is humanly possible, any unlawful interference with the running of greyhounds, we have introduced the latest and most reliable analytical methods by which it is now possible for all greyhounds to be tested before each race. But we have to bear our own costs of security and analytical work, besides the cost of installing facilities to make these things possible. Unlike those responsible for horseracing, we have no statutory levy to support greyhound racing.
To sum up, my Lords, our aims are twofold: first, to stop the disastrous decline in attendance at the tracks, and secondly, constantly to improve the security and amenities at those tracks. If greyhound racing were allowed to die, as I submit it surely will unless something is done, the public would be deprived of a sport and a leisure pastime which thousands of ordinary people greatly enjoy. So I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill which I believe will help to bring new hope to the industry.
8.10 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stonham and the noble Viscount. Lord Ward of Witley, have indicated that in 1969 I brought a Bill before the House. That Bill contained a clause similar to that which is in the Bill presented by Lord Stonham to-night. Due to technical difficulties with regard to drafting, which are not unusual in respect of a Private Member's Bill, the clause had to be withdrawn. However, the Department with which my noble friend Lord Stonham was then associated indicated that they had every sympathy with the general principle of what I thought was intended at the time that the clause was included in my Bill. In the interim period, there has been an opportunity to examine this matter further, and I fully support this Bill as one which can be commended and I hope, as did the two previous speakers, that it will be given a Second Reading.
The Bill which I introduced in 1969, as has already been indicated, received
340
the approval of both Houses, but it was confined to the increase of the permitted percentage for the operating expenses of greyhound totalisators. The Home Secretary made the necessary Order effective as from December 8, 1969, and the percentage was increased from 6½ per cent. to 12½ per cent. This has already been referred to. I want to emphasise that this was only a palliative. Greyhound racing cannot continue under the pressure of the outmoded restrictions which date back from 1934 when the sport was operated under very different conditions with regard both to the tracks and to the social conditions obtaining in the 1930s. Parliament has seen fit to allow other betting and gaming media to have the benefit of more modern legislation, and to me it seems quite wrong that greyhound racing should continue to bear a burden which is not imposed on other betting sports.
It may be said that the Bill extends betting in this country. If there are such critics, I would point out to them that it enables greyhound racing to be carried on only for an extra 26 days a year but it controls the amount of betting in each month. Parliament does not so control betting shops which can open on every weekday. I would remind the House that the forthcoming reforms projected for local government, whether based on the Redcliffe-Maud Report or this Government's White Paper, will affect the boundaries significantly.
As I believe my noble friend Lord Stonham said, the licensing authorities are the county councils or the county borough councils. If their duties or boundaries are affected in any way by the new proposals, the licensing areas will have to be adjusted to the possible detriment of greyhound racing. Previously, whenever there has been an alteration of local authority boundaries, such as there were in London and Teesside, Parliament has made special arrangements whereby greyhound racing has not been adversely affected. This Bill, if it becomes an Act, will obviate the need for any special arrangements to be made for greyhound racing in any future local government reform. As was said by my noble friend Lord Stonham, it will free the second largest spectator sport in the country from an unnecessary burden. I would again commend the Bill to the House.
8.15 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is no need for me to go over the ground at any length. It has been covered so thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, by my noble friend, Lord Ward of Witley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. All of them have close connections with greyhound racing, and they have explained the background to this Bill and the purpose of the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put before Parliament. I can say at once that there are some aspects of the case for amending legislation with which the Government have a good deal of sympathy.
Greyhound racing is governed by legislation passed in 1934 in an atmosphere in which memories of the depression played a very important part. The image of dog racing, the nature of gambling on dog racing and the social condition of those who gamble on dog racing have undergone a radical change since the early 1930s. But here we are, two Royal Commissions and three major Betting Acts later, and the controls governing the greyhound industry are still basically the same as in the mid-1930s. The legislation in 1934 sought among other things to control the total volume of betting on dog racing by imposing strict restrictions on the number and frequency of meetings in any one area. Before 1934 some places had experienced dog racing five, six and seven times a week.
After 1934 dog racing on any one track was limited to 104 days a year, an average of two days a week. This might rise to three days a week in those places—for example, coastal resorts—where summer racing predominated. Moreover, all tracks in one licensing area were required to operate on the same 104 days. As a result there was an immediate and drastic curtailment of gambling on the dogs, which was what the architects of the legislation at that time intended. However, in large areas of urban concentration, such as the Greater London conurbation and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the proximity of several licensing areas, coupled with the fact that, if there was unanimity in an area, tracks could virtually choose their own betting days, has meant that in these areas where the demand was naturally
342
greatest, enthusiasts could go dog-racing five or six days a week if they so wished.
The 1934 Act contained provisions which could have solved this problem. Licensing authorities could combine into joint authorities so that the days fixed would be the same over a much wider area. The Royal Commission which reported in 1951 recommended strongly that this further limitation should be achieved. The volume of on-course betting on dog tracks has fallen and, more important, the availability since 1960 of off-course cash betting every week-day in every area has made the restrictions on track meetings largely out of date.
What we have to consider to-day is perhaps less the effect on the total volume of gambling—though that is still an important factor—but rather the possible amenity effects of allowing tracks to fix their own days and of increasing the total number of days racing permissible in a year. The closing down of a number of tracks in recent years, as we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, has reduced the number of areas in the country in which there is more than one track accessible to local inhabitants, and there are probably no areas where tracks are so close that meetings on different days would be likely to cause any substantial amenity nuisance. But it is worth bearing in mind the extra traffic and crowd control burdens which may be imposed on the police, not only now but also in the future if tracks develop elsewhere for greyhound racing or other betting sports.
As for the total volume of gambling, the advent of licensed betting offices, when off-course cash betting was legalised by the Betting and Gaming Act 1960, fundamentally altered the pattern of betting on dog racing. Off-course cash betting on dog racing is now perhaps ten times the volume of betting on the course. Off-course betting is not, of course, confined to racing on any one local track, and if there is no local racing a punter can just as easily put his bet on a dog race anywhere else in the country. Accordingly, although the changes proposed in the Bill may produce some increase in off-course betting, the amount of this may not be very significant. As for on-course betting, there is little likelihood that attendances, and hence betting, will increase

343
by more than 25 per cent. In any event the amount of on-course betting is only a small proportion of the total. This is the background against which the present proposals must be considered.
With regard to the proposal to allow individual tracks to choose their individual betting days, the Government see no objection in principle. It involves a fairly complicated alteration to the existing law to ensure that local authorities are given adequate notice in advance of the actual days chosen and which of them are to be "special" days on which double racing will take place; and indeed some notification in arrear of the days on which racing did not take place after all. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has reminded us, he introduced a Bill in 1969 which originally sought to free betting days. But the Bill was defective in drafting in this respect, and he dropped the proposal at that time. The proposals in the present Bill are much more workmanlike, but I am advised that there are still some defects in the drafting. If these can be remedied, I think I can best express the Government's attitude towards this measure as one of benevolent neutrality. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, smiling. I hope he will not accuse me of plagiarism. I know that he used exactly these two words in describing the Government's attitude to the earlier proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren.
The proposal to increase from 104 to 130 the number of days on which betting may take place presents a little more difficulty. There are two aspects of this, and neither of them is easy to assess. One is the social aspect of the possible increase in the incidence of gambling, and the other is the amenity aspect. I do not think I need do more than add briefly to the amenity point. What I have already said about the freedom of tracks to fix their own days applies with greater force, of course, if the number of days is increased. As for the incidence of gambling, it does not seem likely that any significant increase in Totalisator betting would result from these changes.
My Lords, since 1948, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, and from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, greyhound racing has declined considerably. The number of meetings has fallen by about 20 per
344
cent. and the total of attendances by almost 70 per cent. The amendment proposed would allow the number of meetings to be increased by a maximum of 25 per cent. which, assuming that the number of tracks remains constant, would restore the number of meetings to something like what it was in 1948. It may well be, however, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that further tracks will close as a process of rationalisation, with the result that the likely increase in the number of meetings would be less than 25 per cent. It seems certain however that, whatever the effect on the number of meetings, any increase in attendances would be highly unlikely to do any more than make good a very small fraction of the drop of 70 per cent. in attendances that has occurred since 1948. From the point of view of the possible social effects and the volume of on-course gambling, this is the important consideration. Any increase in the level of on-course betting is likely to be negligible and would certainly not reach anything like its immediate postwar level. It has, however, to be remembered that the increase would also be reflected in off-course betting where total turnover is about ten times larger than on-course. Although most dog track meetings are held in the evening, when betting shops are closed, the probability is that there would be some increase in off-course betting as a result, although the extent of this is difficult to estimate.
A further consideration is that the proposals would apply not only to dog tracks but also to other sports. There is no sport at present which would be affected; but this, we must remember, is a field that can be overtaken by sudden fashions and it is not impossible that some new craze such as trotting, involving considerable betting on a track event of some kind, might suddenly be introduced and become popular on a widespread scale. It would be very undesirable for such a development to be able to take advantage of an increased number of betting days. This objection could, however, be overcome if the proposed increase in the number of betting days were confined to betting on dog racing.
The Government therefore, to summarise, recognise the aims of this Bill and would not wish to dissent from them. There are, of course, inevitably some

345
practical implications, for those living near tracks, for the police concerned with crowd control, and for the total volume of gambling which noble Lords will no doubt wish to take into account. There are also some defects in the drafting which must be remedied. But, overall, the Government's position is one of neutrality. We shall watch the further progress of this Bill with interest and study carefully the comments which have been made in the Second Reading debate to-day and those which will be made on subsequent stages of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would express my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his reply. If his words "benevolent neutrality" mean to him what they used to mean to me, this Bill will have a fair wind. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Lindgren and the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, for their very knowledgeable support. I do not think, so far as Lord Windlesham's doubts about this Bill are concerned, that there is any danger of a major increase in on-course betting, although I agree that if all goes well, there should be, as I hope there will be, an increase of some 25 per cent. As this is going to take place on one day out of every fortnight, it will scarcely be noticed, except that it will be an increase which may well be sufficient to make viable those tracks which are teetering out of business. I say "business", but this is a sport and a very good one. Greyhounds are beautiful animals and the sport is remarkably well controlled. I think that great credit is due to the National Greyhound Racing Association at a time when under other conditions they are being absolutely ground down. It has been desperately hard for them to continue. They have insisted on maintaining their standards: indeed, I think they have improved their standards, which of course is very costly. However, they have done that, and it is greatly to their credit. I think it may well be their eventual salvation.
I apologise for the errors in drafting, and naturally I shall be happy to look at them in Committee. One thing we do adhere to is the increase in days and the freedom of the operator to choose his days. I do not think that that will lead to other difficulties. We are not asking for a handout. Nobody helps greyhound
346
racing. So far as off-course betting is concerned, as the noble Lord probably knows, the greyhound authorities have forbidden bookmakers to quote tote odds. They just will not have anything to do with off-course betting. If it takes place it will not be their responsibility. My Lords, I cannot remember when a Bill had such a warm reception as this one has had. I can only express thanks to all concerned. And now let us finish the job by giving the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
8.32 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Druinallyyn.)
Clause 21 [Savings and Transitional Provisions]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 19, line 8, at end insert ("on that date became an employee of the Council; or
(b) at any time after 31st March 1969 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) was or is taken into the employment of the Council to undertake research in astrophysics at that laboratory.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to implement an undertaking that I gave on the Committee stage. It should not be taken as in any way introducing a new principle. The basic principle is clearly that staff of one employer in the public sector are not normally covered for superannuation purposes in the scheme of another employer. This principle is departed from in cases where employees are compulsorily transferred with their work, and it is felt justifiable in such circumstances to provide for continuation of the pension terms enjoyed with the previous employer. But such special treatment should be confined to the staff affected. These are the principles on which successive Governments have worked.
At the same time, it is recognised that particular circumstances may require special legislative treatment, as in the case of the Laboratories transferred to the Science Research Council in 1965. In that case the Science Research Council was empowered by the Science and Technology Act 1965 to allow new recruits to join the A.E.A. pension scheme as well as to permit the A.E.A. employees transferred with the laboratories to remain in the A.E.A. pension scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Snow, said, the reason for giving the Science Research Council this power was,
"that the close proximity and long association of the Rutherford Laboratory with Harwell and the Atomic Energy Authority creates special circumstances, and that there might be recruiting and other psychological difficulties'.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/65; col. 24.]
At the same time, the noble Lord made it clear that the Government did not intend that the power should be used at Daresbury.
As I said at the Committee stage the Government have accepted the argument that the Bill should not prejudice any further consideration of the question whether in fact the A.E.A. pension scheme should be offered to new recruits at Culham. The Amendment itself implies no judgment on the merits of the question. At the same time, I should make it clear that the Government have no present intention that advantage should be taken of the enabling power provided by this Amendment.
When moving this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said that his noble friend's Amendment had this as its purpose and effect:
"to leave the door open for this matter to be determined by the Science Research Council in consultation with the appropriate trade unions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/2/71; cot. 1463.]
Perhaps he himself would wish to add that the exercise of that power would have to be approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister for the Civil Service, in accordance with the terms of the Science Research Council's Charter.
There are two reasons for preferring an Amendment in this form rather than the form of the noble Lord's Amendment in Committee. First of all, it is not so
348
wide as that put down by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in Committee. The Amendment now before your Lordships refers only to people taken into employment to work on astrophysics at Culham and not at any Science Research Council establishment. It is in respect of the staff at Culham that the case for an Amendment to the Bill has been argued and accepted, and it is therefore right to restrict the Amendment in this way. The only other reason is that the drafting is more in accord with the existing structure of the subsection. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long at this late hour. I just wish to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for having faithfully carried out the commitment he undertook at the earlier stage of the Bill. He has met the essential point and he has carefully protected the Government from anything beyond that; and that is the main point on which my Amendment was argued. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 2 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOW-BRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.