Lords Sitting of 9 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

PROBATION OFFICERS' CAR ALLOWANCES
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The rates of mileage allowances payable to persons who are authorised to use their private cars on official business are as follows:—

(a) Trainee probation officers:

As for civil servants—see (c) below.

(b) Probation officers:

Motor cars with an engine capacity of

501–99 c.c.

1,000–1,199 c.c.

1,200–1,699 c.c.

Essential user

Lump sum

£81

£90

§102

First 7,200 miles a year (per mile)

2·8p

3·2p

3·6p

Over 7,200 miles a year (per mile)

1·7p

1·9p

2·2p

Casual user

Per mile

5·3p

5·9p

6·7p

[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government at what mileage rate is reimbursement made for the use of private cars for:

(a) trainee probation officers;

(b) probation officers; and

(c) civil servants.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, trainee probation officers receive allowances at the same rate as civil servants, while car allowances for probation officers are in accordance with a scale recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the probation Service. I will, with permission, circulate a table showing the details of both scales in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the table referred to:
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for the Answer he has given, and particularly obliged for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of what he proposes to have published. I shall need to study it, especially as it is in a currency with which I am unfamiliar. May I ask the noble Lord, first, how long ago this scale was agreed upon and whether any negotiations are currently proceeding?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the current rates were introduced with effect from October 1, 1970. I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware that any negotiations are taking place on car allowances, although on the subject of the next Question I shall have more to say.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I say, I shall need to study this table. At first sight, although I am absolutely certain the noble Lord is giving me the truth, I am not sure that he is giving me the whole truth.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that the allowance for car mileage for trainee probation officers is the same as for civil servants. He then went on to say that the allowance for probation officers seems to be determined by the probation committee. Does that imply that a local probation authority can pay a trainee probation officer whatever they think or do they lay down a scale which happens to be, as he said, the scale applying to civil servants?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will want to study the table. What I said was that the scale for probation officers was recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, which is a body on which both the probation officers and the employers are represented. The trainee probation officers come under the Home Office and are paid now on a salary basis by the Home Office. While they are undergoing training, if they are entitled to claim car allowances they do so at the Civil Service rate.

PROBATION AND CHILD CARE OFFICERS' PAY
2.41 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: 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 is the starting rate of pay, at a comparable age and with comparable qualifications for:—

(a) probation officers:

(b) child care officers.]

LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the normal entry salary for a probation officer after professional training is at present £1,215 a year for a young graduate and £1,341 a year for a mature person. For social workers, including child care officers, the scale recommended by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services stipulates at present a minimum starting salary of £1,317 a year for those who are professionally qualified, but under a revised scale coming into effect on April 1 next no minimum is stipulated. The actual starting pay of a local authority officer is a matter for the authority to determine having regard to qualifications and experience.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again I am obliged to the noble Lord for the details he has given which again I should like to look at more closely. In short, can he tell me whether the rates are the same for a probation officer as for a child care officer?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it depends on the point in the salary scale at which the probation officer joins, and the increments depend on his qualifications, training and experience. But after April 1 this year it is probably true to say that the local authority welfare worker will on the whole be doing somewhat better as regards pay than the probation officer.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, if I may say so, is being just a little evasive. I am obviously on that basis, as I now understand it, he asking him to compare like with like, and

5
is saying that the welfare worker is paid more than the probation officer. I wonder whether this is justifiable. Is not the Probation Service being regarded as the Cinderella of the services? Is there any justification at all for this?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is very difficult to compare like with like because the local authorities have no maximum salaries; they are entitled to pay what they like to get the people they like. It is true that there has been very great expansion in local authority social work departments recently. The Government greatly value the contribution by the Probation Service, and I can say that representations which have been made recently to my right honourable friend on the subject of probation pay are at present under consideration.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that young graduates entering the Probation Service can start at £1,215. But is it not true that if he or she decided to go into the local authority service and not into the Probation Service he or she could get a starting salary of £1,650 per annum?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I speak subject to correction, because these are detailed matters, but I do not think that would be the case at present under the current rates of pay.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I refer the noble Lord to a letter he sent me on February 1 of this year?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will study my own correspondence with greater care.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord again on this matter? The impression that he has tried to give to your Lordships' House is that there is very little, if any, difference between the one Service and the other. If it can be shown that there is a difference, will he look at the matter again sympathetically?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is not a very great difference at the present time; but, as I said, I think that
6
from April 1 the gap will open up. Representations on the subject of pay for the Probation Service have bee a made to the Home Secretary. This is a matter in the first instance for the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service who have held two meetings on this subject recently. The question of pay for the Probation Service is now under review, and the considerations that the noble Lord is advancing will certainly be taken into account.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I know that the salary scales for probation officers are under review at the moment. But is it not the case that, since the Probation Service scales are national scales and immutable, and since the local authorities can pay, in effect, whatever they have to pay in order to get the people they want, in practice at the present time child care officers ire receiving about £300 to £400 a year more than probation officers of similar age, experience and qualifications?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great experience in this field and, as I have said, the recent expansion of social wok departments throughout the country has meant that local authorities are now taking on more qualified social workers. As a result, since there is no ceiling on the salaries that can be paid, there has tended to be a move upwards. These are exactly the considerations that my right honourable friend will have to take into account when he receives representations from the Joint Negotiating Committee.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, in asking this supplementary question, may I declare an interest? I am a youth club warden of five years' experience, the club having a membership of 850. I am on a salary of £1,120 a year, being the I.L.E.A. scale. Will all these salaries please be taken into consideration.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Question related to the Probation Service, but I note what the noble Viscount has said.

HUNTERSTON AREA: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider it safe or wise to propose building three deep water ports, a modern steel mill and an oil refinery within 1½ miles of Hunterston "A" nuclear power station in North Ayrshire in view of the fact that planning permission for the power station was only approved on the grounds that it was sited in a sparsely populated area.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that all planning applications in the Hunterston area will have to be referred to him. He has asked me to assure this House that he will not consent to any development unless he is satisfied about nuclear safety aspects, including the arrangements for emergency action in the unlikely event of an accident at the power stations.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her reply, may I ask whether she is aware that an evacuation plan has been in existence since the station began? May I ask her, further, whether she is aware that there is considerable apprehension in the area of explosions in either the oil refinery or the steel mill, or even in a tanker in ballast, which might affect the nuclear reactor? I would further ask my noble friend whether there has been a re-assessment of the danger of this occurring since the public inquiry took place last year?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the emergency arrangements are still in force. The oil refinery proposal has not yet been approved, and there have not yet been firm applications for any of the other developments which were the subject of the public local inquiry. On a preliminary assessment, however, it was decided
8
that prima facie there was no reason why developments should not take place. In any case, once detailed applications have been put forward they would have to be approved between the developer, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and finally the Secretary of State and the Nuclear Inspectorate.
LORD HOY: My Lords, in view of the long delay that has taken place with regard to proposed development at Hunterston, and of the fact that at the present time Scotland has 118,000 unemployed, can the noble Baroness tell us when the Government are likely to reach a decision on this project?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Question refers to various projects. There have been no firm applications, either for the deep water ports or from the British Steel Corporation. There has been one firm application for the oil refinery. This has been examined by the Nuclear Advisory Safety Committee, who have found that were this refinery to be established it would not be incompatible with nuclear safety. But of course there has been new development since the inquiry, and there has been a circular from the Department of Trade and Industry to all interested parties, and if they so wish, another inquiry will have to take place.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, with great reluctance, I must press my noble friend further on this matter. Is she aware that quite recently the site for a nuclear power station on the Tamar was turned down because it was too close to Plymouth? What seems to be contemplated here is the building of a small "Plymouth" round a power station. Does my noble friend really believe that this is either safe or wise?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee had specifically examined the proposals for the oil refinery. Furthermore, at the local inquiry there was a statement from the Nuclear Inspectorate about the various factors which would have to be taken into account in any industrial development. These factors still stand, and it cannot be taken for granted that any industrial development will be

9
approved without the procedure which I have already described to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, if it is agreed that this really is safe, may I ask my noble friend to give an assurance that it will be given wide publicity, in order to allay the considerable local apprehension about what is going on at the moment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give that assurance.

CLYDE ESTUARY: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: 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 why, if the deep water of the Clyde estuary is unique in Europe, it is proposed to allow it to be exploited by an American oil company rather than for the direct benefit of Scotland.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, planning applications are considered on their merits, irrespective of their country of origin. The proposal by the Chevron Oil Company, to which the noble Earl presumably refers, is still the subject of public inquiry and I cannot discuss its merits.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the site chosen for the oil refinery will displace 30 families, interfere with four extremely profitable farms and pollute an entire beautiful section of the Clyde coast which has a growing tourist industry? Does she really believe that this is in the interests of Scotland, when it is for the benefit of an American oil company?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend's prognostications will not be fulfilled so far as pollution is concerned, because there are very tight arrangements regarding pollution control. The Question refers to the deep water of the Clyde estuary as being unique in Europe, and
10
not only the oil refinery, but the other industries which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, would have great social and economic benefits for Scotland were it possible to attract them here.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to the Answer of the noble Baroness, and as the Scottish home market for oil fuels is already catered for, so far as one can see, for many years ahead by existing refinery provision, can she say, first of all, what balance-of-payments advantage is expected to accrue from the export of surplus products of a refinery of the order of 3 million tons capacity a year? Secondly, can she say what she expects will be the indirect employment spin-off arising out of a refinery which itself will employ only a couple of hundred people? No doubt it will produce petro-chemicals as well.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, at the inquiry, the reporter, Mr. Keith, Q.C., accepted that an immediate benefit of £18 million would accrue to the balance of payments. There was some dispute as to what the continuing benefit would be. Regarding future developments in Scotland as a whole, I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry took into account the proposed expansion of that Grangemouth Refinery, and they have, of course, circulated this memorandum to all the interested parties to whom I have already referred.
LORD HOY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness remember that these people want facilities in the Clyde which are not available elsewhere, and simply to put a test of nationality on people who want to come in ought to be frowned upon in Scotland? No hotelier in Scotland will refuse custom simply because the applicants are American.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am grateful for that question, because it is perfectly true that in Scotland we have been able, happily, to attract a good deal of overseas investment, and we hope to attract more.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that while there may be a few people with a sincere but nevertheless vested interest in keeping

11
industry out of this area, as my noble friend Lord Hoy has pointed out, there are 118,000 people in Scotland with a vested interest in getting industry into the area?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of consideration which exercises my right honourable friend, but he has first of all to receive the planning application.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness answer the question which I asked before, namely, what she would expect to be the indirect employment spin-off from a refinery of the scale envisaged, employing only about 200 people directly?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not answer the entire question in detail. I do not think I could answer the last part of the question, because it has been estimated that there would only be about 375 people directly employed, and I am not yet in a position to consider the results of a petro-chemical complex as a whole.

CLOSURE OF THE "DAILY SKETCH"
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to ask a Question, of which I have given Private Notice, namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the closure of the Daily Sketch.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will answer that Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
May I inform your Lordships that the House authorities are anxious, now that the postal strike is over, that the Moses Room should revert as soon as possible to its normal use as a Committee Room. I would therefore ask your Lordships to check whether you have any mail there and to remove it. It will not be possible for mail to be kept indefinitely, and means of its disposal will have to be considered if it is not collected during this week.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That Standing Order No. 43 be amended as follows:
In line 10, after "commitment" insert "(or re-commitment)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I remind your Lordships that last May this House amended Standing Order No. 43 to allow the discharge of a Committee stage if it appeared to the Peer in charge of the Bill that no Amendment had been tabled and that no Peer wished to speak in Committee. This procedure has been used on a number of occasions and I think your Lordships will agree that, by and large, the small change has been a useful one.
However, when we amended Standing Order No. 43 the question of discharging a Committee on Re-commitment stage had not been considered by the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee subsequently recommended that a Re-commitment stage should be treated in the same way as an ordinary Committee stage, namely, that the Peer in charge of the Bill should be able to discharge the order of Re-commitment. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that the Second Report of the Procedure Committee was approved by this House on March 2, and the Motion standing in my name merely implements the Procedure Committee's recommendations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 be amended as follows—
In line 10, after ("commitment") insert ("(or re-commitment) ")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on recommitment of this Bill. Before the House goes into Committee, I should inform your Lordships that this is a pure Consolidation Bill, which has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. Although it is

13
a Consolidation Bill, as it is also a Scottish Bill it falls to me to have charge of it in the House. Your Lordships may remember that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who takes charge of English Consolidation Bills, undertook to inform the House of the category into which a particular Consolidation Bill fitted and to draw the attention of the House to the Joint Committee's Report. The undertaking appears in the Second Report from the Procedure Committee which was agreed to by the House last Tuesday. I am glad to confirm that the same practice will be adopted in regard to Scottish Bills.
In their Report, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills draw two points to the attention of the House. In the first, they correct an anomaly which arose as a result of an omission in the amending provisions of the Rent Act 1965 by inserting the words "or receiving" in Clause 103(1). The effect of the Amendment is to equate the legal position of a person who receives a premium with a person who requires the payment of a premium in the circumstances set out in Section 29(1) of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act 1954. In the second, they extend permissive functions of local authorities existing in certain of the enactments being consolidated to the whole of the legislation consolidated in the Bill. Subject to these points, the Committee are of the opinion that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(Baroness Tweedsmiiir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and there is a further Amendment to be moved in Committee this afternoon. I shall therefore go through the Bill in the usual way.
Clauses 1 to 136 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Restriction on rent increases]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved the following Amendment:
Page 115, line 33, leave out ("seven-shillings and sixpence") and insert ("37½p ').
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical Amendment and is necessary to convert the amount at present shown to its equivalent in decimal currency. It arises at this stage because, when the Bill was before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in January, the fact that the Bill would not be passed mid after Decimalisation Day, February 15, was overlooked. Perhaps your Lordships will be glad to know that 37½p are in fact exactly 7s. 6d. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I notice that by the Amendment as printed the noble Baroness not only takes out "seven shillings and sixpence" which appears in the Bill, but also takes out a hyphen which does not.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 14 to 20 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
3.4 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report he now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 9 [Prohibition of certain activities etc. relating to opium]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("it") in line 28.
The noble Lord said: my Lords, perhaps I should preface my remarks with a few words of apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. Noble Lords who were present at the time will remember that the proceedings on February 11, the third day when the House was in Committee on this Bill, were concluded, owing to the pressure of

15
other Business, before the noble Baroness had adequate opportunity to move all the series of Amendments to Schedule 4 concerning the level of penalties. We had a fairly full debate on the first Amendment of the series, in which the noble Baroness and certain noble Lords addressed themselves to the general considerations affecting levels of penalty for drug offences, and in my reply I tried to deal with some of the principal arguments lying behind the whole series.
The noble Baroness decided not to press that Amendment to a Division, but I think she would have liked to say a little more on some of the later Amendments. I indicated that it would be possible for the Committee to adjourn to another day for this purpose, but I agree that the noble Baroness was left in a very difficult position. I have already apologised to her privately, and I hope that I am not out of order in doing so again, for the Record, at this point in the Bill's progress.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together since they both deal with the same point. The two Amendments have been tabled to meet the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, during the debate in Committee on February 9 on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to delete subsection (1)(c) of Clause 9. That is the provision which makes it an offence for a person,
"to have in his possession any pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium or any utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking."
Noble Lords opposite were concerned with the position of a person who owned, for example, an opium pipe as a collector's piece. I explained to the Committee that the paragraph as drafted was intended to affect only a person who had such a pipe or utensil in his possession with the intention of using it for opium smoking or in the preparation of opium for smoking. The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Foot, however, submitted that the provision might equally well apply in the case of a person who had pipes and utensils in his possession that were capable of being used for the purposes in question.
After listening to those arguments, I gave an undertaking to consider whether the drafting of the provision could be improved so that its intention would be put beyond doubt, and that is what these two Amendments are intended to do. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is deleted and replaced by some new wording which makes it absolutely clear that the offence of possession of opium pipes and utensils is contingent upon their actual use or intended use. Use or intended use can be either by the possessor of the pipes and utensils himself or by another acting with his knowledge and permission. So far as utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking are concerned, the new sub-paragraph provides that they must have been used for this purpose either by the possessor himself or with his knowledge and permission.
A consequential effect of this change is to remove from Clause 9 subsections (2) and (3) which invoke the statutory defences under subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 5. As the unamended clause stands, it is a defence to a charge of possessing pipes or utensils for use in connection with opium smoking, or the preparation of opium for smoking that the accused had taken possession of them either for the purpose of preventing another from committing or continuing to commit an offence, or for the purpose of delivering them into the custody of a person lawfully entitled to take custody of them. In the Amendment the offence of possessing an opium pipe or utensil is now defined in such a way that there is no possibility of an offence being committed in the circumstances envisaged by these defences. As I said in opening, my Lords, these two Amendments result from the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I hope he will feel that the changes proposed meet the points which concern him. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, speaks to the subject of this Amendment, as I am sure he will wish to do, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the explanation he has given to the House of the events which occurred on the third day of the Committee stage of this Bill in relation to my noble friend Lady Wootton

17
of Abinger. I should perhaps explain to the House that she herself is unfortunately unable to be with us for the Report stage to-day. She has a long-standing commitment to visit Portland Borstal, and I know that she set out at a quarter to six this morning. In view of her very great interest and knowledge of the subjects which we are due to discuss, it is a matter of very great regret to us all that she cannot be here this afternoon.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I briefly say that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, meets the point entirely. Perhaps I shall not be considered out of order at this moment if I add that, although I am not happy with the Bill as a whole at the moment, and shall have more to say about this on Third Reading, I am sure many noble Lords would like me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on the way in which he has handled the legal and administrative Amendments which have been put up to the Bill. It is quite something with a controversial Bill of this nature, to which a large number of Amendments were put down for Committee stage, that when we reach the Report stage every single Amendment, with the exception of one drafting new point, should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. This is a measure of the way in which he has met our points. If this is a sign of the tact, the sense and courtesy which we may expect from him, we are going to have a much happier time with the Immigration Bill than I ever expected.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("possession") to end of line 46 and insert—

"(i) any pipes or other utensils made or adapted for use in connection with the smoking of opium, being pipes or utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in that connection or which he intends to use or permit others to use in that connection; or

(ii) any utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in connection with the preparation for opium smoking."—(Lord Windlesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Attempts etc. to commit offences]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 23, leave out from ("any") to end of line 27 and insert ("other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. In Committee, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaking in support of an Amendment tabled by Lord Kilbracken, criticised the drafting of Clause 19 and suggested that it was unnecessary to have two subsections. Lord Conesford also felt that the clause was unnecessarily wordy; while Lord Kilbracken, I think, was not alone in finding the drafting somewhat confusing. Accordingly I undertook to look at the clause again, and I have now done so in consultation with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The upshot is this Amendment, which will reduce Clause 19 to a single paragraph instead of the two subsections as originally drafted. The clause as amended will now read:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence,"
Noble Lords who have followed this matter will note that the Amendment excludes the possibility, however remote it might be, that anyone might be charged with an attempt to commit an offence. In the debate in Committee, Lord Kilbracken, moving his Amendment to leave out "or the foregoing" From subsection (2) of Clause 19, submitted that he would not have thought it possible for a person to attempt to attempt to commit an offence, and Lord Dilhorne agreed. Lord Foot suggested that if these words were excluded the provision might in future be interpreted as allowing for a person to be prosecuted for attempting to attempt to commit an offence. It is very unlikely that anyone would seriously consider prosecuting for an offence in those terms, but the Government completely agree with the noble Lords who put these points in Committee that an offence which is clearly an absurdity ought not to be written into the law.
However, the Amendment does make it an offence to attempt to incite another

19
person to commit an offence under the Act. Attempting to incite another person to commit a crime is a common law offence already carrying unlimited penalties, and it is therefore desirable that as regards drug offences it should be made a statutory offence under the Bill so that the limited penalties laid down in the Bill will apply. An example of attempting to incite, given by Lord Foot in the course of the debate in Committee, would be if a person sent a letter to another inciting him to commit an offence but the letter did not reach the person to whom it was addressed, or else it reached him and he did not read it. I should therefore like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and other noble Lords who have drawn attention to the possible confusion that might have arisen under the clause as originally drafted. As a result, I believe we now have some simpler and clearer language in the Bill, and I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment, which I think arose from my Amendment, thanks to the support that I received from the noble and learned Viscount. I wish that I could accept it without reservation, and perhaps it is a little ungracious not to do so; but I must say that I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of that little word "other" at the beginning of this Amendment, because, as the noble Lord has just told us, the subsection now begins out of the blue, as it were, with the statement:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act …".
One cannot help asking: other than what? Now the noble Lord knows, and I know, that it means, "under any provision of this Act other than this section", but I suggest that that is not what, in the ordinary use of language, the clause says. I do not see why the word "other" has to be included, because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, it is really impossible and ridiculous to talk about attempting to attempt to commit an offence as being something that can be contemplated. In that case the word "other" is quite unnecessary and I think should be omitted. However, I personally have chased this hare far enough, and I am quite happy to take this Amendment as it stands.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. This particular clause is a lawyer's paradise. After the debate in Committee I took the opportunity to consult our own legal advisers, the draftsman, and the noble and learned Viscount the former Lord Chancellor on two occasions, and the wording that now appears on the Order Paper is the product of that process. I do not suppose that one can ever satisfy every possible doubt, but I think that the House may feel that this wording, which has now had a very careful and close scrutiny, is the best we have been able to come up with.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Offences relating to the doing of things outside the United Kingdom]:
3.20 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. In the debate in Committee on February 9 on the Question, That the clause stand part, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, expressed reservations about subsection (1) of the clause which provides that a person commits an offence in the United Kingdom if
"he does 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."
The noble Baroness questioned whether it was right for a person to be punished for assisting in an act which, although it would be an offence if committed in this country, might not be an offence in the country where it was to take place. Lord Dilhorne also drew attention to the considerable difficulty which had been experienced by the courts in defining what is meant by the words,
"an act preparatory to the commission of an offence."
Consequently I undertook to study these points.
As I mentioned in Committee, the provisions in Clause 20 are not new ones; they reproduce those contained in Section 13(d) of the Dangerous Drugs

21
Act 1965, and have been a feature of the United Kingdom drugs legislation for over twenty years. They reflect the obligations assumed by the Government and other parties to international Treaties to co-operate in penalising activities with regard to dangerous drugs in one country having, or likely to have, an effect in another country. The relevant Treaty provision is now to be found in Article 36 of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. Subparagraph 2(a)(ii) of that Article provides as follows:
"International participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connection with offences referred to in this article shall be punishable offences as provided in paragraph 1."
My Lords, since the Committee stage we have carried out some research into the origins of the drafting of Article 36 of the United Nations Convention in 1961 which revealed that the words, "preparatory acts" go back to a Convention for the suppression of traffic in illicit drugs signed in 1936. These provisions were intended to help those countries which had no developed juristic system to deal with attempts and conspiracies to commit offences. However, with the modernisation of legal systems throughout the world, there is now, clearly, less need for this kind of help than formerly. In any event, having given further thought to this matter, we now take the view that the provision of subsection (1) of Clause 20 is not essential for the strict implementation of our obligations under the Single Convention. On reconsideration, therefore, of the potential value of this provision in relation to the very learned criticisms expressed in Committee, the Government have come to the conclusion that subsection (1) of Clause 20 is not essential, and need not be retained. That is the reason for this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend I feel, as one of those who supported her, that I should say how much we appreciate the fact that the noble Lord has accepted what was the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and has expressed it in the form of this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Powers to search and obtain evidence]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) conceals from a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) above any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in that subsection; or
( ) without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books or documents as are so mentioned where their production is demanded by a person in the exercise of his powers under that subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Noble Lords may remember that in Committee we had a long and interesting debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on the implications of Clause 23(4)(b). The noble Lord moved an Amendment, the effect of which would have been to remove the whole of subsection (4) of that clause and to insert a similar provision immediately after subsection (1). His object was to make clear that the offence of concealing or tailing to produce books, documents, stocks or drugs related solely to the circumstances contained in subsection (1). In the course of the debate, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, observed, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, agreed, that paragraph (a) of subsection (4), relating to the obstruction of a person in the exercise of his powers under the clause, was applicable to the circumstances of the whole of the clause and not merely to those of subsection (1). Both Lord Foot and Lord Dilhorne, however, as well as other noble Lords who spoke, strongly urged that the drafting of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), and its position in the body of the clause, should be looked at again to ensure that the offence of concealing or failing to produce related only to subsection (1).
My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet this point. Its effect is to remove the existing paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and to put in its place two new paragraphs (b) and (c), the first dealing specifically with concealing such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in subsection (1) and the second with failing to produce any such books or

23
documents. I have taken the precaution of discussing this Amendment in advance with Lord Foot and Lord Dilhorne and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having produced this Amendment which, I may say, entirely meets the point I had in mind. During the Second Reading debate, I said that I was glad—and I thought that everyone else would be—that this Bill was in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham; because although we might not expect to be able to make any major changes in it, the noble Lord would certainly listen to any Amendments which were put and would give them his careful consideration. I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord for the way in which his consideration of these various Amendments has been translated into the Amendments which appear in his name to-day. I think that the whole House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord for the way in which he has handled this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Prosecution and punishment of offences]:
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are all consequential upon Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to Clauses 19 and 20 that the House has just agreed. I therefore move them formally en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 1, leave out ("19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)") and insert ("19 ")
Page 20, line 7, leave out ("section 19(1) or (2) or section 20(I)") and insert ("that section ")
Page 20, leave out lines 11 to 22 and insert ("means the offence under this Act to which the attempt or, as the case may be, the incitement or attempted incitement mentioned in section 19 was directed.").(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 20, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point that has not been previously raised in your Lord-'
24
ships House. Subsection (4) of Clause 25 provides:
"In England and Wales a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence under this Act as examining justices shall not commit the person charged for trial without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions"
except where the accused has elected to be tried by jury; and subsection (5) is a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. These two subsections follow similar provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, which prohibit a person being proceeded against on indictment unless proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
To find the origin of this procedure we have to go back to 1923, to the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act of that year, when the problem of drug dependence and drug misuse in this country was totally different from what it is today. What was originally intended as an additional protection for an offender who did not merit more than summary punishment has now become a requirement which only too often operates against the interests of those charged with drug offences. Removal of these provisions could result in an accused person being committed for trial on indictment, with the higher penalties that that would entail, in a case which the Director of Public Prosecutions might have thought not to merit the higher penalties; but with the great increase in recent years in the number of prosecutions for drug offences and the consequent increase in the experience of the courts and police in handling them, the significance of this possibility is now considerably less than it was when the provision first appeared in 1923. It is considered unlikely that the removal of these provisions would appreciably affect the number of drug cases committed on indictment.
In a debate on the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Member for Wimbledon, Mr. Havers, moved an Amendment to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 25. The honourable and learned Member, with support from both sides of the House, pointed out that as the number of drug offences continues to grow it becomes increasingly unlikely that the Director of Public Prosecutions can investigate each one of them. Everyone interested in the administration of

25
justice is concerned about the long delays between committal and trial; and Members in another place felt that an Amendment on these lines would help to minimise delays by cutting out some cumbersome procedure without adversely affecting in any way the position of the accused.
In reply, the Solicitor General undertook to look again at this clause. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now received the advice of the Law Officers on this point and there have also been consultations with the Government of Northern Ireland. As a result of this further consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that this provision is not necessary and accordingly I have tabled this Amendment in your Lordships' House to-day. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sorry to have to strike what might be a jarring note in this very harmonious atmosphere, but I must register a strong objection both to the timing and the content of this particular Amendment. With regard to the timing, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would readily admit that it has appeared at a very late stage in our deliberations. He himself reminded us that it was not raised in the Committee stage during the three days of Committee discussion in this House; nor was it discussed in any detail in another place, for it was not raised once during their "one and a half" Committee stages on this Bill although the clause had been put forward by two successive Governments.
As the noble Lord quite rightly said, it was discussed only very briefly and in the early hours of the morning on the Report stage in another place immediately preceding the Third Reading of the Bill and the honourable Member who moved the Amendment did so in an attempt to reduce the possible delays it might cause in cases being heard. I hope the House would agree that I should be the last person to wish for lengthy remands—and particularly remands in custody—but on that occasion the Solicitor General, replying to the discussion on the Amendment said:
"In view of the high penalties which the Bill provides for the major offences, it makes sense to preserve the requirement for the
26
Directors' consent to committal. It is on that basis that the truncated, emaciated version of the 1923 provision survives in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 9/12/70; col. 602.]
A little later, in the same speech, he went on to say:
"There is this residual need for some control on committal in the serious case which might not survive if this provision were to disappear altogether."
As I understand from the explanation we had from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when moving it, this particular Amendment would remove this control altogether. During our lengthy Committee stage several noble Lords—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I am sure that she would not wish to give a misleading impression. Her quotation was accurate; but the Solicitor General ended by undertaking to look again at this particular point.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I apologise for not mentioning that. I was only anxious not to detain the House by very lengthy quotations. The Solicitor General did agree to look at the matter; but, in my view, if the Government, having looked at the matter, were in favour of putting down an Amendment on the lines of that tabled to-day, they should have brought it before the House sooner; they should not have tabled it at a time when our conventions and customs preclude us from considering it in some detail. Moreover, the delays due to the postal strike resulted in many of us not seeing this Amendment until it was included in the Marshalled List which, I believe, was published last Friday but which I myself did not see until yesterday evening.
My Lords, turning to the content of the Amendment, we know from our earlier discussions that several noble Lords are concerned about the level of penalties provided for in this Bill. They are very high indeed, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, himself referred to this particular point when introducing the Bill on Second Reading. We are all conscious of the level of penalties. This, I am sure, was the reason why the Government and their predecessors originally included the continuation of this particular control in the Bill. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee on Drug Dependence of which my

27
noble friend Lady Wootton was Chairman, in paragraph 89 recommended:
"The existing provision under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 whereby proceedings on indictment are subject to the fiat of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be retained."
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Wootton is not here to tell us in greater detail why the Committee made that particular recommendation which I believe was unanimous and was accepted to the point that it was included in both the original and the successor Bill.
I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared to consider withdrawing this Amendment to-day and possibly re-submitting it at a later stage. This would give us more time to consider its implications and possible repercussions. I hope that he will agree to this now in the light of what I have said. Otherwise, I personally should not feel able to agree to this Amendment at this particular moment of time and I hope that my noble friends will support me in this view.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to give what support I can to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I have not yet made up my mind whether it is right or wrong to take this provision out of the Bill, but I think it would be a great mistake if the House were to allow this Amendment to go through, and this provision to be deleted from the law, in face of the opinion expressed by Lady Wootton's Committee that it ought to stand. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said just now that the requirement that the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obtained before a person could be committed for trial on an offence of this kind was originally introduced into the law as long ago as 1923. He said that the situation had changed considerably since then and that there were many more cases. But it has to be borne in mind that in the consolidating Act of 1965, only six years ago, it was not thought fit to delete this provision from the law. So as recently as that it was decided proper to keep it in. Does the noble Lord contend that there has been some change between the situation in 1965 and the present day as to the number of cases or the nature of the cases to justify cutting out now what was
28
deliberately kept in the law in the Act of 1965?
The other question I should like to ask is this. The noble Lord said that if it is necessary always to get the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions before you can commit somebody to trial, it will mean delay in people's being brought to trial. If that is to be argued, ought not the noble Lord to be prepared to tell the House what is the Home Office experience? Have difficulties been created. Have the Home Office looked into this matter and investigated in what number of cases delay has been involved as a result of requiring the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions? I would support what the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has said. In this situation we ought to be given the opportunity of looking at the matter more closely before we make a decision; and it would be appropriate, as the noble Baroness suggested, if the Amendment were put on one side now and discussed at a later stage when we have all had an opportunity of considering it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. What is the position of the examining magistrates? The police decide to bring a case—they may, or may not, have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions—and it comes before the examining magistrates. Before they can commit to trial they have to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In a case of this description, when the police decide to prosecute, if in doubt they normally consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. The examining magistrates hear the case in outline and then decide whether they should allow the case to go to trial or to adjourn it on the lines indicated by this paragraph. Surely that is a cumbersome and unnecessary type of procedure, and it would be much better to let the normal course of a magistrates' court operate than to have two half-way stages.
Furthermore, the individual concerned, if he comes before examining magistrates, will have to indicate there and then whether he desires to be tried by a jury. That may not come out until the preliminaries have taken place, and may lead to considerable confusion as to what the magistrates should do. It is far too cumbersome, and I hope the noble Lord will take it back with a view to having another

29
look at it to see whether he can meet this particular type of objection.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I appreciate that this Amendment is an important one and that it appears late in the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the Amendment appeared only in the Marshalled List. It was printed on February 25, so it has been available for some time.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The last thing I wanted to do was to mislead the House on this matter, and that is why I deliberately checked up this morning in the Printed Paper Office, where I was assured that it did not appear until it was transferred straight into the Marshalled List.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we shall have to clarify that point between us. My own memory is that it was introduced in the first of the three lists. I have during the course of this debate checked again, and the information that I have is that it was printed on February 25. But let us not pursue that point; I accept that the Amendment appears late in our proceedings, and it is for that reason that I gave a rather full explanation of it. In tabling this Amendment, the Government were well aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in paragraph 89 of her Report on Cannabis, recommended that this particular procedure—the need to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions—should be retained. At the same time, we have to recall that the police, in practice, are not likely to prosecute a case on indictment unless they are really sure that there is adequate evidence to warrant such an action. If they are in any doubt, whether or not there is a statutory provision requiring them to do so they frequently do consult the Director of Public Prosecutions.
For these reasons, it seems to us that the removal of this obligation from Clause 25 would be unlikely to make much difference in practice. What we have to consider are the bureaucratic arguments for going through this procedure and obtaining the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as against the delay that is likely to occur (it may not be the only factor, but it is a contributory factor) between the first
30
hearing in the magistrates' court and committal to the higher court.
But having said that, I see no reason why I should not accept the course that has been suggested by the noble Baroness, with support from noble Lords who have spoken. This debate has been a useful one for the Government. As was rightly pointed out, when it was considered in another place it was late at night and I think only three honourable Members spoke in addition to the Solicitor General. Therefore, without giving any undertaking at this stage, I will withdraw the Amendment so that we can consider the matter again, if appropriate, on Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, since my noble friend Lady Serota has no right to speak a second time, I should like on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House to thank the noble Lord for the step he has taken. I am certain that it is the right one, and it gives an opportunity for all noble Lords to consider the matter I can assure the noble Lord that when the Amendment is re-presented on Third Reading we shall deal with it expeditiously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLOSURE OF THE "DAILY SKETCH"
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission this may be a convenient time for me to reply to the Private Notice Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the impending closure of the Daily Sketch. I will do so in the words used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
"The Associated Newspapers Group have announced that they will merge the Daily Mail and the Daily Sketch by mid-May. Although I very much regret the disappearance of a National newspaper, it was not unexpected, particularly in view of the failure of the national newspaper industry to come to grips with its well-known problems. The Department of Employment are in touch with management about arrangements to give all possible assistance to those who need help in finding other jobs."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I say that we on this side of the House share with the Secretary of State deep regret that yet another national newspaper is disappearing. We also must regret the consequent unemployment, particularly in an industry where one can only say that it is already overstaffed. I wonder whether, particularly with regard to the importance of newspapers within the public media, the Government should not now have urgent talks with the employers and the trade unions to see whether rationalisation of the industry can be speeded up. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have assessed in any way the effect on loss of revenue from advertising, if the "leaks", to the effect that there is going to be a national commercial radio service are true, and what effect this will have on the other national newspapers which are already struggling?
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I also join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement? May I ask one short question? What had he in mind when he used the expression "well-known problems"?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. The "well-known problems" are the problems of overstaffing which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and which have been highlighted by at least one Royal Commission and two subsequent Reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I will certainly take note of the views of the noble Lord on the rationalisation proposals. He will not expect me to comment on what is, after all, only an uninspired "leak" about commercial radio.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I assume that there has been no assessment as to the consequences of such a set-up?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to commit myself on that.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord. First of all, can he indicate what will be the scale of the redundancy
32
payments to the redundant journalists, and how it compares with the redundancy payments which are common to work-people who have become redundant in general industry? Secondly, since the noble Lord refers to the desirability and intention of the Government to seek other employment alternatives for these redundant journalists, can he indicate in view of the state of the "unemployment market" at the present time, where these men are likely to be placed?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in reply to the first question, as the noble Lord is aware there are statutory entitlements to redundancy pay. I understand from Associated Newspapers that they are in discussion with representatives of their employees on the whole question of redundancy payments, and that they are hoping to find a way of paying more than the strict minimum. On the second question, as I said in the Statement, the Department of Employment will give all assistance to these men to find alternative employment, in so far as they are able to do so.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to a Press report in a reputable quality newspaper this morning, it was stated that the cost to Associated Newspapers, who are responsible for the absorption of the Daily Sketch, will amount to almost £4 million? That seems a vast sum of money in redundancy payments proportionately to the number of men who are to be made redundant.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot comment on that; this is a commercial matter for Associated Newspapers.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, Associated Newspapers gave as one of their reasons for their difficulties the loss of advertising revenue. This is not just a question of overmanning, important though that may be. Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that the question put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd is very much germane?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I agree that the loss of advertising revenue has been partly responsible for the collapse of this newspaper, but I cannot go any further than that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if advertising revenue is to be creamed off to yet another medium, there will be less for the national newspapers, with the result that those newspapers will be in greater jeopardy than they are at present?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is a rather speculative question and I should not like to speculate on it; but of course the same applies to commercial television.
LORD HAMNETT: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the death of any national newspaper at any point is a threat to social democracy? As the remaining ten national newspapers are practically dependent for their existence not on circulation but on advertising revenue, is it not time for the Government to take a look at the allocation of national advertising on the lines suggested by the second Royal Commission on the Press (this is particularly so with regard to the allocation of Government advertising), so that the remaining national newspapers may not be in such a perilous state as they are at the moment?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions. I will certainly see that they are drawn to my right honourable friend's attention.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the introduction of commercial radio is likely to give employment to quite a number of journalists?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are now getting rather far away from the original Statement.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
3.58 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 36 [Meaning of "corresponding law"]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 25, line 32, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("that") in line 34 and insert ("to the effect")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together since they concern the same point. The effect of these two Amendments will be to re-word subsection (2) of Clause 36, which deals with the meaning of the expression "corresponding law", so that it will read as follows:
"A statement in any such certificate as aforesaid to the effect that any facts constitute an offence against the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated."
Subsection (2), as it stands now, makes a certificate conclusive as to the effect of a "corresponding law" and as to whether particular facts constitute an offence against it. Subsequent to the Commitee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, drew my attention to this provision and pointed out that it ought to be possible for an accused person to bring expert evidence to the contrary. The Government accept that this change could be made without causing undue difficulty to the prosecution, and the Amendment is designed to permit this. The certificate will, however, continue to be conclusive as to whether or not an overseas law is a corresponding law in the sense described in subsection (1), and the Amendment will not change the position in that respect.
I might also add that the noble Lord drew my attention to one other matter on this clause. The sidenote to Clause 36 at the moment reads, "Meaning of 'corresponding law'", although, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out, there is a point of substance here as well as a point of interpretation. Therefore, although the sidenotes are not part of the Bill and consequently no Amendment is needed to alter them, when the Bill is reprinted this sidenote will be altered so that it will read, "Meaning of 'corresponding law' and evidence of certain matters by certificate". My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind reference to me. I am bound to say that I earnestly hope the prosecution will rely upon this subsection in only rather exceptional cases, because it is, in my submission, objectionable upon two separate grounds. First, it enables the Executive to state

35
what facts constitute an offence. That is not, properly speaking, an Executive function at all but a function of the Judiciary. Secondly, it enables the Executive to do this by means of a certificate. Of course, the objection to proving anything by means of a certificate is that a certificate cannot be put in the witness box so that the truth of what it says may be tested by cross-examination. So I would hope that only in cases where the prosecution are satisfied that the evidence which they seek to prove by means of a certificate is quite incontrovertible and is not going to be disputed by the defence, will they invoke this subsection and prove this part of their case by means of a certificate: and in all other instances, where there is likelihood of any dispute about the matters to be proved between the prosecution and the defence, which I hope will be the majority of cases, I hope that the prosecution will prove their case by the time-honoured method of calling witnesses who can be cross-examined.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I go further than my noble friend in this matter. I believe that this subsection is in fact incurably defective. It contains a very serious defect. What the two subsections together say, even as amended, is that it is for a foreign Government, when called upon to do so, to pronounce as to whether a certain set of facts add up to an offence against the law of that country. As my noble friend has said, it is of course always objectionable and anomalous that the Executive in any country should be called upon to pronounce what the meaning of the law of that country is. As he has said, that is a matter for the Judiciary. This defect is incurable.
I would illustrate my argument, if I may, by referring to the notorious Sweet case, the case in which a lady was prosecuted for being concerned in the management of premises when those premises were in fact used for the consumption of cannabis. What I should like the House to consider is this. Supposing that some other country—let us say France—had a law similar to this clause of the Bill. A prosecution in France, in considering prosecuting somebody there, could apply to the British Government to say whether a certain set of facts constituted an offence in English
36
law. Supposing the French Government back in 1968, or whenever the Sweet case came up, had applied to the British Government and said, "Will you please tell us whether the following facts constitute an offence in English law; that is to say, a person is concerned in the management of premises and those premises are in fact used for the consumption of drugs or cannabis?" The answer they would have been given, almost certainly, before the Sweet case reached the House of Lords, is "Yes. An offence is committed, and it does not matter at all in English law whether the person concerned knew that the premises were being used in the way concerned." In other words, this is an absolute offence and there is no question of mens rea. That is almost certainly the certificate which would have been given by the British Government in those circumstances to the French prosecution. And of course it would have been wrong, because the House of Lords eventually decided that this was not an absolute offence and one always has to prove knowledge or always has to prove mens rea. Therefore, what would have happened is this. The French prosecution would have been given a false statement, an inaccurate statement, as to what the state of British law was and what facts added up to an offence.
It goes further than that. Supposing a person was being prosecuted in France and this certificate was delivered to the French court. How could the person being prosecuted possibly challenge what was said in the certificate? How would it have been possible? When the court is told by the British Government that it is illegal if one is concerned in the management of premises which are used for the consumption of any drugs, and that is so whether one knew about it or not, how can the person challenge it? It is impossible to challenge. The only way in which he could challenge it would be to say, "Let this matter go back to a British court and let the British court decide whether the judgment of the Executive upon this matter is right or wrong." Of course, that is something which is quite impossible for the accused person to do. Therefore, although my noble friend has achieved a considerable advance in cutting out from this clause the words "conclusive evidence"—and it

37
is a marked advance—in my submission, in practice, the evidence of the certificate will be conclusive because it will not be possible in practice for the accused person to challenge what is said in the certificate. Therefore, my Lords, I think that this is an incurably bad provision and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to look at it again before we reach the next stage of the proceedings.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foot has made out a very good case. There appear to be major snags which might emerge for justice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will seriously look at this matter again. I rise briefly to ask a minor question. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can enlighten Southern laymen, of whom there must be a few in this House, as to the exact meaning of "sufficient evidence" in Scottish law. It reads as if it is exactly what we are trying to get rid of, which is conclusive evidence; but presumably it does not mean that. Could the noble Lord enlighten us?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the foreign law provisions of the dangerous drugs legislation were first introduced in the 1923 Act to which I referred, and in the terms reproduced in Clause 36 of he Bill. It is interesting to note that if any prosecution has been brought under these provisions in recent years the Home Office has no record of it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the moaning of the words "sufficient evidence" in relation to Scottish law. I am advised that the use of this expression does not bring about a different situation in Scotland from that in England and Wales: it merely reflects the fact that the normal rule in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, is that evidence must be corroborated. That is to say, the evidence of one witness is not normally enough. Where there is to be a departure from this rule it is necessary to make it clear that the uncorroborated evidence is regarded as sufficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that he hoped that in practice the prosecution will use certificates only to prove matters which are irrefutable and in all other cases will produce witnesses who can be cross-examined in a way that a certificate cannot be cross-examined.
38
Where an offence under a "corresponding law" might be relevant, it is likely that the prosecution will seek to obtain a certificate from the overseas Government concerned; and, having obtained it, it is likely that it will be presented in evidence to support their case, whether or not the proposition contained in the certificate is irrefutable.
I should point out to noble Lords that this Amendment is intended as a concession to meet the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In its new form Clause 36(2) will allow the accused person to call an expert witness to contest the evidence containted in the certificate, and to that extent it cannot really be said that he will be al a disadvantage. Indeed, if anything, the disadvantage might lie with the prosecution inasmuch as the defence could call an expert witness without giving notice that it intended to do so. To avoid this situation, in such a case it seems probable that the prosecution would be likely to arm itself with its own expert witnesses as well, to support the certificate, in any case where it considered that tie material in the certificate might be contested. One would not therefore expect a prudent prosecution to rely on a certificate alone, unless the material is clearly irrefutable.
The word that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, particularly dislikes in the clause as originally drafted was "conclusive "—that the certificate should be regarded as conclusive—and this Amendment meets that point. It would probably be the wish of the House to pass this Amendment which goes some way towards meeting the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; and if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in the light of the wider considerations that he has put forward as to the necessity for a provision of this sort at all, wants to pursue those arguments he will have an opportunity to do so on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("evidence") and insert ("the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient").—(Lord Windlesham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 26, line 7, at end insert—
(" "corresponding law" has the meaning assigned by section 36(1) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again has been tabled at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who suggested that in the interests of clarity a reference should be included in Clause 37, which is the Interpretation clause of the Bill, to the term "corresponding law" which is defined in Clause 36; namely, the clause that we have just been discussing. It seems a sensible suggestion, and accordingly the Government are happy to accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Controlled Drugs]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, line 8, column 2, leave out ("(dihydrocodeinone)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. The drugs in Schedule 2 are listed by the names approved by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission. So far we have got on very well without having to pronounce some of these names, but I fear that the moment has now come. Where no such approved name exists, the drug appears under the non-proprietary name laid down by the World Health Organisation, and is further identified by its chemical definition shown in brackets beside it. Since the Bill began its process through Parliament, hydrocodone has become a name approved by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and it is therefore no longer necessary to identify this drug by the chemical definition "dihydrocodeinone". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 32, line 11, column 1, after ("Mephentermine") insert ("Methaqualone").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which does not flow directly from anything discussed in Committee, although the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, and other noble Lords who were present when we discussed a Modification Order under the existing legislation will
40
recognise this particular Amendment and the reasons for it. What the Amendment does, in brief, is to add another drug—"Methaqualone"—to the list of scheduled drugs under Class C.
Under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order 1970, which came into effect on January 1 this year, changes were made to the list of drugs controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964. All of these changes, except for the addition of Methaqualone to the list, were anticipated when Schedule 2 of the Bill was drafted, so that it covers the 1964 Act drugs as redefined in the 1970 Modification Order. The reason why Methaqualone was not included in the Schedule was that when the Bill was drafted the Home Secretary had not reached a decision on whether or not to bring it under control. Now that the decision has been taken, it seems right to bring the Bill into line. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Prosecution and punishment of offences]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 40, column 2, line 11, at end insert ("(other than licence issued under regulations relating to addicts)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment which did not occur to me until after the Committee stage. These words should be added in parenthesis under the heading "General Nature of Offence" in respect of Clause 18(2) in exactly the same way as the words "other than regulations relating to addicts" are added in the same position in respect of Clause 18(1), because a doctor who contravenes the terms of a licence issued under Clause 10(2)(i) does not commit an offence, any more than he contravenes regulations relating to addicts made under Clause 10(2)(h), but instead is dealt with by the giving of a direction under Clause 13. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has explained, this is a drafting Amendment to bring the words on page 40 that are descriptive of Clause 18(2) into line with those descriptive of Clause 18(1). It seems to us that the Amendment makes

41
for consistency in the descriptive words, and therefore I should like to bring our proceedings to a close on a happy note by saying that this Amendment appears to the Government to represent a small improvement and is to be welcomed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, as one of those who has opposed this Bill, I should like to say a few words. I think that the Bill has been improved in its various stages through this House. The proposal that food shops should be registered with the local authority has been dropped. I believe that that would have cost more than the value of the benefits that would have been obtained. I am also glad to see that we now have realistic penalties which will facilitate the enforcement of the law. But I am particularly pleased that the proposals which would have withdrawn the safeguards of the workers have been dropped. The original Bill provided for a withdrawal of the safeguards of the 1950 Act. Under the 1950 Act a worker may be employed only on two Sundays in one month. At the Committee and Report stages these provisions of the Bill were taken out, and consequently if this Bill becomes law the worker will enjoy the same protection as he already has under the 1950 Act.
The Bill will also clarify the law, but it will do that at considerable risk. I believe that it may well be the beginning of the end of Sundays as we have known them in this country. We believe that that risk could have been avoided by the Amendment which was proposed at the Committee stage and was carried by this House, the Amendment that the whole
42
range of foods should be sold on Sundays up to, but not later than, 12 o'clock. That Amendment would have been acceptable to the vast majority of shopkeepers, to workers and to consumers, and we regret that the Amendment was negatived at the Report stage. We believe that it is absolutely illogical that food shops should be required to close at lunch-time on one weekday each week but should be allowed every liberty to open all day on Sundays. We congratulate the noble Lord on having got the Bill through this House, and we hope that it will be amended in the other place.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his final remarks. Your Lordships will not wish me to argue the, Bill all over again; I am happy to leave it to the other place, to see how is gets on there. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates, and, rather unusually, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who was the principal opponent, for having improved the Bill in its passage through the House. I am very grateful. I wish we could always say that Bills have been improved by their opponents and that the movers agree that they have improved them. I am very grateful.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords. I beg to move that the Report be now received. I thought it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if, before we came specifically to the Amendments, I were to say one or two words concerning points which were raised in the Committee stage and about which I can give possibly a clearer definition than I did then. I am bound to say that when thinking about this Bill I thought about almost every conceivable thing that might be caught by it, but never in my life did I expect that my noble friend, Lord Hawke, would come up with the suggestion that treasure hunters might get caught by it, nor, as he used as a parallel, that parrot stuffers were caught by a Bill relating specifically to the tensing of mattresses in factories.

43
My noble friend used this parallel because he wondered whether this Bill affected people who were going hunting for treasure. If their boat is anchored and they go down to the bottom of the sea and come up with a piece of gold, which is a mineral, will they be caught by the Bill? I told him that I thought it was extremely unlikely. I should like to confirm to him that in fact this is not only unlikely but would not happen. He wished to have written into the Bill some kind of definition to say that treasure hunters would not be caught by the Bill. I do not believe this is necessary, because the Bill applies to
"underwater exploitation and underwater exploration of mineral resources".
The expression "mineral resources" in this context means non-living substances of all kinds naturally occurring in the sea bed and subsoil. Therefore, man-made articles such as items of treasure would not fall within the definition. I think my noble friend can rest assured that if he wishes to go searching for Davy Jones's locker, whatever he finds will not be affected by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, also asked whether the Bill applied to suction dredgers. I confirmed at the time that I thought that this would be so, and indeed it is so; but I should like to explain this a little. It is not proposed to disturb existing arrangements relating to ships. If we take first the installations that are themselves registered vessels but are engaged in mineral workings offshore, we find that under the Bill they will be subject to merchant shipping legislation in the ordinary way. But if it is found that safety requirements need to be prescribed in regard to the mineral operations which are being undertaken—as distinct from the purely shipping considerations—then under this Bill suitable regulations could be made. The preparation of the regulations would be in consultation with interested parties, including, of course, the shipping industry.
The second point in regard to this matter relates to ships which are not engaged in mineral activities but which may be affected by the presence of mineral working installations on the Continental Shelf and in territorial waters. As your Lordships may know, before a
44
mineral working installation can operate on a site in territorial waters it must, under the Coast Protection Act 1949, have the consent in writing of the Secretary of State; and before it can operate on a site on the Continental Shelf it must have his consent under that Act as extended by the Continental Shelf Act 1964. These powers are exercised so as to ensure that no obstruction or danger to navigation is caused or is likely to result. It is recognised—indeed, it is specifically required by the International Continental Shelf Convention—that installations must not be so placed as to interfere with free passage of shipping. Therefore, before an installation can be placed on a site the interests of other craft that may be moving in the area are taken fully into account.
As your Lordships will recognise, there is another side to this particular coin, and it is that having duly obtained consent to place itself on a site, an installation should be marked in accordance with the conditions attached to the consent. But it is only reasonable that it should have some further measure of protection. Therefore, the Bill will permit regulations to be made governing the safety of installations and the men working on them, in relation to the risks created by the presence of shipping in their vicinity. It is proposed that regulations would forbid the approach of any ship which did not have business at an installation; this would be no more than reasonable and as much in the interests of the ship as the installation. Then as regards ships that might approach an installation on legitimate business, it is proposed that regulations would prescribe the way a vessel should behave, including the observance of any instruction by the installation master. In this the master would be acting in much the same way as a harbourmaster who controls the movement of vessels in the vicinity of a harbour, dock or pier. But I should emphasise, as I did on the Committee stage, that in all this there will be no interference with the normal passage of ships or the responsibilities of their masters; that the framing of regulations will be dictated solely by the very limited requirement to protect static installations, and that there will be full consultations with all the interested

45
parties, including the shipping industry. My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Masters of offshore installations]:
4.30 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("subsection (1)(a) above") and insert ("paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above ")
The noble Earl said: The first Amendment which appears under the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is designed to meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, made on the Committee stage. He was concerned then that there was no provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to a person who would take the position of master should the master leave the rig. The noble Lord drew a parallel by saying, "What happens if the master gets swept away off the rig? Who will then take his place?". Under the Bill there are provisions for a person to take his place. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was concerned that regulations should be made about this person's qualifications.
We have taken the point which the noble Lord then made and have prescribed that the Secretary of State may make regulations upon the person who should take over the position of master should the master, for whatever purpose, leave the rig. Here I think it important to draw the distinction that this does not mean that he will be a deputy, having deputy's functions while the master is there: in other words, there will not be a hierarchy on the rig whereby there is a master with certain qualifications and responsibilities and a deputy master with other responsibilities. The person who will take over the position of master will, or may, have regulations made about him, so that when he does take over that position he will be suitably qualified to do so. I hope that this meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, had in mind. That is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to say how much ate appreciate the efforts which have be en made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to meet the point raised at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom. I also take the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his explanation or further "clarification" on the Motion that the House should receive the Report. I am bound to say that I was reminded of another explanation I was given about a Bill, in which it was said that one clause about a 40 ft. well should be deemed to refer equally to a 40 ft. wall. But I have absolutely no doubt that to those who are informed about and interested in these matters the explanation which the noble Earl gave will be most useful. In so far as the Amendment goes to meet the point that was made by my noble friend, again I thank the noble Earl.
I ought to say that both my noble friends Lord Winterbottom and Lord Brown, who took a keen interest in the Bill at an early stage, are both abroad and are not able to be here this afternoon. If they have any further points, I have no doubt that we can raise them with the noble Earl before the Third Reading. In the meantime, I content myself with thanking the noble Earl for meeting the points that were made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert: "and the regulations may make different provision for masters of different types of installations or masters whose responsibilities differ in other respects, and different provision for masters appointed under the said paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the other Amendment is really a clarification of the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations for differing sets of circumstances. It was suggested at the Committee stage that the qualifications needed for a master who is in charge of an installation while it is moving are different from those required for a master of an installation while it is actually drilling. This particular Amendment underlines this point. It also makes perfectly clear that the Secretary of State may make different regulations for different types of installation, whether they

47
be, for instance, a drilling ship or a floating platform. I am quite certain that this is in no way a controversial Amendment. It is only a clarification of the points which I think concerned the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as indeed they have done ourselves. The whole purpose of the Amendment is that the Secretary of State will be in a position to make such regulations as he thinks fit, in consultation with those concerned, to meet the differing types of circumstance and the different types of ship or rig or installation as may from time to time occur.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his intervention on these Amendments. I am sorry that the prospect of offshore mineral working has so frightened his two noble friends that they have taken off to go abroad. I hope that when they come to read what has been said they will feel that the points they raised have been met. I trust that they will be satisfied in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.