Lords Sitting of 5 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Lord Elton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AIR TRANSPORT: PROPOSED USERS' COUNCIL
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as the Minister without Portfolio stated on June 7 last (Hansard col. 187) that he considered it right to make the distinction between an industry which is entirely nationalised and a statutory corporation operating in competition with other undertakings in the same field, and as the nationalised steel industry, while coming into the latter category, has consumers' points of view referred to it by the British Iron and Steel Consumers' Council, they will support the setting up of a similar independent body by which consumers' points of view may be referred to the nationalised airlines.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I cannot accept that analogy, but the noble Baroness will, I trust be glad to hear that I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority has it in mind to set up an airline users' advisory body and will shortly be consulting the various interests that are concerned.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while being very glad that we are at last making this progress, may I ask the Minister whether he realises that the House was also unable to accept his analogy on June 7, when he explained to us that the nationalised airline, British Airways,
378
was not a nationalised industry? We found that quite incredible. But, moving on from that, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks we might soon have a little more news about this Airline Users' National Council and whether perhaps some of us in this House who have taken a great interest might have the chance of being consulted about the setting up of that body?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is now for the Civil Aviation Authority to go on with the preparation of their plans in consultation with the various bodies and, I am sure, with individuals as well, and I would respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that the right place for her to make her representations is to the Civil Aviation Authority.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it would have saved this House a lot of time if the Government had accepted the proposals made at the time the Bill went through, to have this power to receive complaints or representations from consumers direct to the C.A.B.? Would he say that what is envisaged is something similar to what was the case with the Air Transport Licensing Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Not exactly, my Lords. I think this would be much more a users' body than one covering all concerned with civil aviation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the position under the Air Transport Licensing Board he will see that they did have power and they were open to receive representations; and is he aware that this could be of some help to the licensing authority, in so far as they have some indication from the consumer as to whether or not the particular operators are providing a reasonable service? That could be a useful piece of marketing research. As my noble friend has asked, could the Minister give us an indication of the sort of way in which the C.A.B. propose to implement this undertaking?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that at the present time. It is for them to prepare the scheme. I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but the fact remains that, as he knows, the Air Transport Licensing Board did not attract many consumers'

379
representations. That is perhaps one of the reasons why it has been necessary to find the means of doing so.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not think I can entirely agree with my noble friend the Chief Whip on my own Front Bench? Is the Minister aware that I want something much more effective from the consumer's point of view than I think the other organisation referred to was able to be? Would the noble Lord agree that the Airline Users' National Council should have real teeth and should be able to deal both with consumers' suggestions and with complaints in so far as the nationalised air industry is concerned?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will help us and that something effective will be realised; but once again I must say that this is really a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and I do not think it would be right for me to express a personal opinion on it.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY
3.10 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state their proposals for the amendment of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921; and when the necessary measure will be introduced.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, the Government's proposals for the amendment of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 are set out in Chapter VI of the recent White Paper giving the Government's views on the Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry and the Interdepartmental Committee on the Law of Contempt as it affects Tribunals of Inquiry (Cmnd. 5313). The Government intend to introduce a Bill to give effect to these proposals when an opportunity occurs.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but I did not catch the concluding three words—the Government intends to introduce a Bill when?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, when an opportunity occurs.
LORD HALE: My Lords, the only question that remains is, when will the opportunity occur? Is the noble Viscount aware that very serious questions have arisen in the country in regard to which a properly constituted Tribunal of Inquiry might have been necessary? The undertakings were given as far back as 1959, at the time of the use of this archaic method for the Waters Tribunal, and of course the vital problem of the present Tribunal, apart from its inadequacy and its inefficiency in its hearing of evidence, is that one cannot use it at all with safety in any case in which there is the possibility of a prosecution.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the cases in which one may or may not use a Tribunal are, I think, a little different from the point which the noble Lord raised in his Question. As for the legislation to implement these recommendations, in fact a good deal of implementation can be done after a fashion without legislation by various sensible means used by Tribunals, and although probably legislation is needed for two or three of these points we could make a good deal of progress on procedure without actually having a Bill at all, although in the end a Bill will be necessary.

OVERSEAS AID TO FORMER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the matter of Overseas Aid to former Commonwealth countries for which on the grant of independence constitutional government was envisaged, they will henceforth consider confining grants to such countries as are complying with this anticipation.
THE MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): No, my Lords. The provision of aid at the time of independence cannot be made conditional on the continuation of particular constitutional arrangements.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since the granting of independence was understood to be on condition that government such as we favour in this country was followed, and since we are believers in Western-type constitutional government, may I ask the Minister whether or not some action of this character would make a substantial contribution towards the reinstatement of the type of government contemplated at the start, and which would be of such benefit to those countries?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is quite true that on a country gaining independence we do agree a certain constitution with it, but once a country is entirely independent, it is firmly up to that country and its citizens to decide on some other form of government if they so wish.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, would she not agree that aid must be a continuing and planned process and cannot be switched on and off according to the political complexion of the recipients?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we try very hard to have a continuing aid programme; but there are occasions, rare I am glad to say, when it is necessary to stop aid, such as the recent example in Uganda.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since the terms of trade are going against us and the pound is falling, with adverse effect on the cost of food, would not something of a reduction of some £240 million a year—I repeat, £240 million—which I understand we are to disburse this year, even if it is only a tiny portion, make a contribution to the balance of payments and, following that, some possible mitiga
382
tion in the cost of importing food and therefore its cost in this country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the aid which we give to Commonwealth and other countries overseas is designed to help them in their development; and in so far as it helps them, it also helps our own balance of payments because we are then able to import food for our own citizens at a reasonable price if we have a stable market.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the answers of the noble Baroness, do we not need to regard this matter in a rather historical perspective? During the period when European Governments passed from empire to national status was there not, far more persecution than there has been in Africa? Have not many of these Governments' views been in favour of private enterprise and financial exploitation, and is not the continuation of aid the way in which to encourage democratic constitutional development in Africa?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that both Europe and many other countries overseas have had a turbulent history, but whether by the giving of aid one encourages a particular system of government I do not know. Many Governments have gone to the system of government which suits them from their own historical point of view, but I think the giving of aid is a very important part in the development of the overseas world and in trying to reduce the gap between the developed and the developing countries.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I put one last question to the Minister; namely, does she feel sure that the £49 million which we have given to Uganda has helped either us or Uganda?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords. I think at the time the aid did help Uganda a great deal, particularly in the technical assistance field. I am only sorry that events did not make it possible for us to renew it.

BUILDING INDUSTRY AND HOUSING PROGRAMME
3.18 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps, if any, they are taking to ensure a sufficiency of skilled workers in the building industry to meet the need for a greatly increased programme of house building.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the upturn of building activity in 1972, including, a high proportion of traditional house-building, has led to a big increase in the demand for craftsmen. The principal responsibility for training craftsmen rests with the industry itself. However, the number of places available under the Government's Training Opportunities Scheme has been increased considerably to meet the demand. The Scheme now provides about one-quarter of the intake of all skilled men in the industry.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. But I wonder whether he can state the size of the building force as it is to-day and as it was in 1972, and compare it with what it was in 1966? Could he at the same time, having regard to future needs, give us the figures for the same years in regard to apprentices?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, as my original Answer implied, there was a considerable decline in building activity in the late 1960s, a decline for which the Government of the noble Lord's Party I think must bear considerable responsibility. I am glad to say there has been a considerable upturn in the number of apprentices, given that the main source of supply in the building industry has been its own apprenticeship scheme in the last year. The intake figure for the year 1972 was 27,388.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us what forecasts were made about the skilled requirements that would be likely when the upturn in trade took place? It was obvious that the upturn would take place. As has been stressed on many occasions, it is
384
during periods of unemployment that it is most useful to launch training programmes so that people will be ready for the jobs when the upturn in trade occurs. Did the Ministry for which the noble Earl is speaking make such forecasts? If so, what were they and what has been the result?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I can say "Yes" to the noble Baroness; the Department of Employment did make forecasts. I have not got the figures at my finger tips at the moment. If she wishes, I will let her know. I think the answer that I made to the noble Lord's supplementary question indicated that there was a very significant upturn in intake.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as the figures the noble Earl gave, of houses completed in 1972, compared with those of the Labour Government, might have confused us, can he assure me that the number of houses completed in 1972 was lower than in any of the years when the Labour Government were in office?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, did not hear in substance my reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. The figures I gave were connected with the increase in the number of apprentices in the building industry; they were not connected with an increase in the number of housing completions or starts.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the original Answer of the noble Earl dealt with the question of houses and not with the question of apprentices. May I again ask whether it is a fact that the number of houses of all types completed in 1972 was lower than the comparable number in any one of the years of the Labour Government?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is an old hand at trying to draw Ministers. In this case I refuse to be drawn. The original Question was to do with the number of skilled workers and not of houses.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that one of the grievances of builders is that having trained these apprentices they tend to

385
drift away to the public works contractors, where they can earn very much higher pay at semi-skilled work than they can earn in the building industry, and that the only remedy for this would appear to be to cut down some of the public works contracting going on in this country?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that the Government are aware of the unsatisfactory aspects of labour only sub-contracting, such as the avoidance of income tax and national insurance payments, and its effects on training, and we are considering action to suppress them.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I return to the substance of my original Question. Since the noble Earl gave no figures in regard to the first supplementary I put in regard to the size of the building force as a whole, will he confirm or correct that there has been a reduction of something like a quarter of a million, and will he confirm or correct that in the South-East of England practically the whole of the labour force is contained in what is referred to as the "lump"? Has not the time come for an overhaul of the building industry, which consists of some 80,000 firms? As I understand it, about 75,000 of them do little or nothing to provide apprentices or opportunities for them.
THE EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I remember, the noble Lord mentioned the year 1966 in his original supplementary. I confess that I cannot off the cuff go back that far. The figure I have for total construction places under Government schemes in January 1968 is 3,036. The figure that I mentioned and made much of, for January 1973, was 3,456; that is a significant increase.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that one of the reasons for the pressure of demand and inflation in the building industry is the fact that all the work under this excellent 75 per cent. grant has to be finished by next May, and would not an extension of that date to some extent relieve the pressure on the building industry?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind and have the suggestion relayed.
LORD DOUGLASS or CLEVELAND: My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say that the Government were taking action to suppress the labour only subcontractors. Will he enlarge on that and tell us what the Government are doing in that respect?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I can only enlarge on it to the degree of my original Answer. I said the Government are considering action along these lines; and in considering action, of course, the Government are aware that it would be both difficult and wrong to try to abolish self-employmenet in the construction industry, such self-employment contributing a great deal to the supply of our badly needed houses.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, with regard to that answer, can the noble Earl tell me what the Government are doing to suppress this practice inside the industry?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have tried to accommodate the noble Lord. The Government have action under consideration, but more than that at this point I cannot say.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Earl was more anxious to make political capital that he was to face up to the problem. Is it not a fact that there is a decline, there has been a decline, there is no indication of a recovery in regard to the number of people engaged in the building industry? Will the noble Earl please give us rather more indication than he has done that the Government are intending to do something about the "lump", since substantial areas of the country are in the hands of this "lump", with the result that the quality of work is suffering, and there is very great need to introduce new blood to the industry?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I understand that there will be a report on the 11th of this month in connection with the "lump" question. As regards the first part of the question, I cannot help it if the figures I have given make the point for this side of the House rather than for the noble Lord's side.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to the Report of yesterday from the Committee of Selection, the following Lords do form the Select Committee on the Bill, vizt.:

V. Bledisloe,

V. Hood (Chairman),

L. Cole,

L. Crawshaw,

L. Hinton of Bankside,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Wynne-Jones.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Lord A berdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT TO A COMMONS AMENDMENT AND FOR INSISTING ON CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED AND LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF THE LORDS AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED
[References are to Bill 79 as first printed by the Commons. The Commons Amendments and Reason are printed in italics]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 4, line 7, leave out from 'and' to second 'for' in line 8 and insert 'it is hereby declared that the power conferred by section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1952 to provide for the making and recovery of charges includes power to provide for the making and recovery of charges'.
LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT
Line 4, leave out 'includes' and insert 'does not include'.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 63, line 13, at end insert—
'22A. At the end of section 38(3) of that Act (which relates to charges for pharmaceutical services) there shall be inserted the words "; and it is hereby declared that regulations under this subsection may include provision in respect of charges for the supply of such substances and appliances as are mentioned in section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973"'.
Page 69, line 37, at end insert—
'(2) In section 1 (2)(c) of that Act (which provides that no charge is to be made under that section for the supply of an appliance for a young person), after the word "appliance", there shall be inserted the words, otherwise than in pursuance of section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."'
The Commons disagreed to the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7 and insisted on the above two Amendments, to which the Lords had disagreed, for the following Reason:—
Because the said Lords Amendment and the said disagreements by the Lords to Commons Amendments involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7. I think it would be perhaps of advantage at the beginning of this debate if I were to trace the history, the somewhat involved history, of this Clause 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill. It was on December 12 last year that I informed this House of the outcome of the Government's review of its policy on family planning, and at that time outlined plans for a considerable expansion in the service leading to an eventual expenditure of some £17 million per annum. Our proposals included the provision of free advice to all who requested it, but free supplies to certain categories only, the financially needy, the socially needy, women who have had a baby or

389
an abortion in the previous year; others would have had to pay the economic cost of their supplies. This was as far as the Government felt that they should go at that stage, and indeed I do not think that anyone would question that this was, at that time, a major step forward compared to the total expenditure on family planning when we took office of £1 million per annum.
However, a week later we were considering the Bill in Committee in this House and your Lordships passed an Amendment to Clause 4 which would have completely removed the Government's powers to make any charges at all for family planning advice, treatment or supplies. This Amendment had a profound effect on our thinking, and was one of the factors which led to us making a change in policy, which was announced in another place on March 26. We then proposed that the only charge for family planning supplies, whether provided through hospitals, clinics, or general practitioners (if they agreed to participate in the service), would be the normal prescription charge and would be subject to the usual exemptions. The Amendments to make this possible were accepted in another place at the Committee stage by twelve votes to eleven and sustained at the Report stage by 243 votes to 127.
This was the position when your Lordships' House last debated the Bill on June 25, when, by a vote of 107 to 58 you reaffirmed your wish to see totally free family planning supplies. During that debate, both my noble friend Lord Vernon, who moved the relevant Amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who had moved the original Amendment at Committee stage, expressed the view that the other place should be given a further opportunity to consider your Lordships' views. This has now been done and the other place has reaffirmed its decision that family planning supplies should normally be available on payment of the prescription charge, and the vote on that occasion was 247 to 220. Now, as is normal practice when it is a matter of Commons privilege, they give as their Reason that charges on public funds are involved, and trust that this Reason may be deemed sufficient by your Lordships. I very much hope that, in these circum
390
stances, your Lordships will accept their decision and agree to their Amendment.
I fully recognise the strength of the, feelings that are held in this House in favour of free family planning, and I would not wish to contest or argue with that; I should only like briefly to assure the House that we are in earnest in wanting to make a success of our family planning policy. Once family planning becomes a part of the National Health Service on April 1, 1974, we intend to institute a national policy with speed and energy. Present estimates indicate an eventual total cost of £30 million per annum compared to the £1 million per annum that was the total public expenditure in 1970 when we took office.
We intend to work through hospitals, through clinics, and, if they agree to participate, through general practitioners. We shall develop the domiciliary services, we shall train more staff, we shall sponsor more publicity. There will be no charge for advice or treatment, only the prescription charge for supplies, and, as the prescription will usually cover several months' supply, we do not believe that it will prove a deterrent. But should it do so in certain rare cases, we intend, by administrative arrangements, to enable health service professional workers to authorise free supplies—just as happens at present in respect of domiciliary cases. We are quite as determined as all your Lordships are to make a vigorous attack on the problem of abortion and unwanted pregnancy. We have ambitious plans, as I have tried to describe, and your Lordships have already made a powerful contribution to those plans. I hope now that you will accept the Commons Amendment.
But, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, and three others of your Lordships, have tabled another Amendment in lieu of our previous Amendment, the intention of which is that family planning supplies would continue to be available after April 1, 1974, in those Area Health Authorities, or those parts of them, where they are free at present. I would hope that your Lordships will agree to accept the Commons Amendment, and will probably wish to devote most of this debate to a discussion of the noble Baroness's Amendment. But I must say that there would be very grave difficulties in accepting it. I have tried

391
to explain that we intend to pursue a vigorous national policy of family planning. It would surely be very damaging to any national policy to have different arrangements in different parts of the country on a haphazard basis, depending entirely on local decisions made by previous local authorities. As things are at present, I would concede that it is reasonable in a very new service in the exercise of the rights of local government, but in a greatly expanded national service, which we are aiming at, as a part of the whole National Health Service, I suggest to your Lordships that it would be quite anomalous to have certain areas where the prescription charge was payable and certain areas where it was not.
The practical arrangements would indeed be formidable. Would it apply only to certain clinics in certain areas, and would they be confined to free supplies for those who lived in that particular area? As it stands, the Amendment does not apply to charges in the Part IV services—the general practitioner services. But assuming that the necessary consequential Amendments were made, what would be the position of general practitioners if they were to co-operate? How would they distinguish between a person eligible for free supplies and one who had to pay a prescription charge? Or, if the decision is to be left to the chemist, how would he distinguish? What about people who move house from one area to another? Suppose they come from an area where their supplies have been free to an area where they have to pay the prescription charge, or suppose they prefer to attend a clinic near their work rather than their home, and the two areas are treated differently? There are a host of difficulties. Moreover, many local authority areas will in fact alter their boundaries on April 1, 1974, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish us to preserve the original areas for family planning purposes only.
These are the very serious difficulties that I would envisage if we were to accept the Amendment. But I would point out that my right honourable friend, as he made clear in the other place, already has flexible powers under the Bill sufficient for him to take prescription charges off family planning supplies altogether at
392
some future date should it seem desirable, or to institute some form of controlled experiment in a particular locality or localities. Moreover, I personally believe that it would not be in the best interests of our relations with another place were we to send back yet another Amendment to them.
As I hope that this will be my last word on the Bill, may I say how very much I appreciate the constructive opposition which the noble Baroness and her colleagues have offered to it? I believe it has been much improved as a result of their efforts, but I cannot agree with this Amendment and I advise your Lordships not to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.40 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, That this House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7, at line 5, at end to insert:
"save that the Secretary of State shall ensure that no such charges are made in any Area Health Authority or part thereof where a local health authority was at the time of the passing of this Act already providing a family planning service free of charge for all advice, treatment and supplies."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords this Amendment appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Lord Platt and Lord Tanlaw. I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his careful historical account of our discussions. I only wish that the House had always been so full as it is to-day when we were debating all stages of the National Heath Service Reorganisation Bill.
My Lords, it would be inappropriate for Members of this House to comment on the Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment to their Amendment to Clause 4, at page 4, line 7 of this Bill, and for insisting on their own Amendments with which we disagreed when the House last discussed this matter on June 25, since questions of privilege are involved, even though the main debate has turned on the merits of the case. Before answering some of the arguments which the noble Lord,

393
Lord Aberdare, put against the detailed application of the Amendment which I have just moved, I feel bound to express the profound disappointment of the clear majority of noble Lords on all sides of this House, who have now on two separate occasions, as the noble Lord reminded us, recorded their firm conviction and belief that a universal, free and comprehensive family planning service should be provided as an integral part of the reorganised National Health Service which this Bill will create in April 1974.
It is perhaps significant that we do so on the exact date of the 25th anniversary of the inception of the National Health Service on July 5, 1948, for there could not, in my view, be a more fitting occasion to re-affirm our belief in one of its major objectives; namely, the development of a universal preventive, as well as a curative, Health Service. In moving this Amendment, the House will be glad to hear that it is not my intention to rehearse again all the medical, social and economic arguments that have been so fully and cogently deployed throughout our lengthy debate at different stages of the Bill on this important issue. The decisions of the House have undoubtedly reflected the great changes in public opinion that have taken place in the last four or five years, and most particularly, perhaps, since the appalling and tragically high, and apparently ever-rising, figures of abortions have become obvious to all. All our debates have been concerned to achieve, from all sides of the House, is the further development of a society in which, after the pioneering and mainly voluntary efforts of the last 50 years, every child should be a truly wanted child—at conception, at birth and in the crucial formative years. That is exactly what all our debates have been about—the well-being and happiness of future generations of children and their life chances of all kinds, rather than questions of expediency, or Party loyalties or even of possible clashes with another place.
I had the feeling on occasions that there were some who regarded the time we have spent on considering Clause 4 as a somewhat irritating and delaying cross-current which was irrelevant to the main organisational purposes of the Bill. But the House took the view—and, I think, rightly—that the far wider and deeper issues affecting individuals and
394
families, and indeed the nation as a whole, fully justified the time and attention we have given to these matters, especially in view of the demonstrable, and what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just called the "profound" effect that it has had on Government policy, emerging eventually, as he reminded us, in their decision announced during the Committee stage in another place to normalise the family planning service within the National Health Service; so much more satisfactory a policy than the one which was before us when we were debating Clause 4 in Committee stage on the basis of the Statement of December 12.
We all, on all sides, give the Secretary of State and his colleagues full credit for the advances that they have made, and for the movement that that Parliamentary process has achieved as this Bill has passed through its various stages in both Houses. All that lies between us now is whether supplies for this preventive service should be provided free in all cases or on the basis of prescription charges, subject to the existing somewhat anomalous exemption system; and, most particularly, after April, 1974, in those parts of the country where some 34 local health authorities are already providing completely free and comprehensive contraceptive advice, treatment and supplies. The House is very familiar with the figures, and with the size of population served, and I do not intend to repeat them again.
The main purpose of this Amendment is to focus attention on the reduction of service that must inevitably take place in these areas if we accept the Commons Amendment to our Amendment. Also, I wish to ask the Government to enlarge on and to clarify certain aspects of the intentions that lie behind the Statement to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, which was made, to my knowledge, for the very first time only last Monday by the Secretary of State in another place; namely, that the provisions of Clause 55(4) give only him power to make charges by regulation. As we now understand it, it is not a requirement to make charges. He also indicated that if experience showed that the present proposals were in need of review and modification, there was already power by regulation in the Bill

395
to abolish charges for contraceptive supplies, if this Government or, presumably, any other Government became convinced that this was the right social priority, and if the evidence showed that the judgment of the Government was wrong.
I know that all those who have played an active part in these debates, and the supporters of a free family planning service, would wish me to express their appreciation of the explanation of the Secretary of State in another place of the flexibility of the provisions in this Bill. My only regret—and I feel bound to put this on the Record—is that it did not come sooner. It could have saved a good deal of time and, moreover, it would have given us an opportunity to examine properly how the Government intend to measure the comparative effectiveness in terms of public use, of their proposed prescription-based scheme as against the completely free ones, such as those at present being provided by the local authorities, which will disappear overnight on April 1, 1974. All I am now asking the House to do by this Amendment is to preserve and continue these existing services, especially when we already know that the number of people using them have dramatically increased.
The crux of the case for this Amendment is that the continuation of the present free services could provide an already existing, operational control base for research and development purposes which could be carefully monitored over time, either to prove or to disprove the opposing arguments about free or prescription-based services which have been put forward with such fervour and sincerity throughout all our debates on this clause. The case is based on two major principles which I hope will commend themselves to the House. First, Parliament should not deliberately, by conscious decision, reduce the availability or level of any health or social service in the processes of a purely administrative re-organisation, such as this Bill provides for. All that this Amendment does is to maintain services that already exist. Support for it does not involve the introduction of any extension or expansion or even, more significantly, any new expenditure whatsoever. Moreover, we simply do not and cannot at this stage
396
know how the additional responsibilities of giving advice, treatment, and prescribing supplies will affect our already heavily burdened general practitioners for whom this will be an additional duty and who I understand are at present in negotiation with the Government for special payments for the extended services they will need to undertake.
Secondly, and just as important, may I remind the House of the very telling argument of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, on the last occasion when we discussed these matters, that we should not deliberately erode or discourage the democratic local initiative which has brought these developments into existence. In this Bill, just as in the Water Bill which is currently before the House. we are removing long-standing traditional services from the control of democratic local government and transferring them to the control of unrepresentative, appointed bodies. At the very least we should not destroy their innovatory achievements in the process.
I would therefore sue Test to the House and the Government that through this Amendment we could preserve the existing free service without incurring any new expenditure and at the same time provide an excellent practical base from which future developments in this crucial field of health and social policy could be accurately compared and effectively assessed. The only argument the noble Lord really advanced against that was one of administrative difficulty. He used such words as "serious difficulty", "grave difficulty" and "profound difficulty", and even "formidable" was included in the range of adjectives. My Lords, I do not accept that the difficulties are so great that they cannot be overcome. I am fully aware that in the post-1974 situation local government boundaries as at present drawn will disappear, and I am also aware that certain health districts within the new Area Health Authority areas may overlap either the existing or the new local government boundaries.
All we asking is that where the free services exist in any Area or part thereof, those who are resident there will be entitled to free supplies. The noble Lord mentioned the chemists' difficulties and

397
the general practitioners' difficulties. Here I can only quote the London Borough of Camden in which I live and which was one of the first local authorities to pioneer these services. In that borough, there are no difficulties whatsoever; the local authority purchases the necessary supplies or requisites in bulk as would be the case in future with the Area Health Authorities. Free supplies are available at local authority clinics which would presumably become part of the Health Service after April 1974. In the case of the general practitioner services, there were already, in 1972, 2,800 supply orders issued by general practitioners to patients who then obtained their free supplies from the clinics. So great was the demand and the take-up of the free services that in the first 23 weeks of 1973 there were already 2,257 such supply orders issued by general practitioners. So I really do not believe that the administrative difficulties which the noble Lord has stressed could not be overcome if the Government were, at the very least, and even at this late hour, to give some kind of undertaking that these well-established free services will be allowed to continue, for the reasons I have just indicated as research areas. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the original Question was, That this House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7, since when an Amendment has been proposed to add at the end: but propose the following amendment in lieu: Line 5 of the Commons Amendment, at end insert the words on the Order Paper.
The Question therefore is That the Amendment to the original Motion be agreed to.
3.56 p.m.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I make a very brief intervention in support of the noble Baroness who has just moved the Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment? I do not for a moment wish to repeat the arguments that have been so ably deployed at various stages in your Lordships' House, but I should like to complement what the noble Baroness said about her experience in Camden, a London Borough, London of course being a part of Britain which has already
398
been reformed in terms of local government and which therefore is to some extent exceptional. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I thought was perfectly right in explaining that outside London there would be a difficulty if this Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment were carried—namely, that existing, pre-April 1, 1974, local authority areas would be exempt from a system which from April 1, 1974, forward would be based on new and different local authority areas.
The question I want to ask is: can the Government, when they reply to this debate, find it in their hearts to say that at least they will go almost the whole way with those of us who are dissatisfied with what the other place has said and try to see that the flexibility that is already in the Bill is used in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained? Can they not use those flexible powers forthwith and so get over these administrative difficulties which, quite frankly, I do not think are insuperable? Can they not take first of all the areas in London where there is no problem, where the existing local government boundaries will not be changed after April 1, 1974, and where the relationships to the new health authority areas can be seen already? And can they not go further and look outside Greater London at those places where the local authority is at the moment providing a free service, and see how the boundaries of the new local authorities that will be operationally in existence from April 1, 1974, may include the actual population—which I think now amounts to 20 per cent. of the whole population of this country—who are getting free supplies and who, unless something is done, will in future have to pay 20p per prescription, so that free supplies in those areas outside London, as inside London, will continue to be free of the prescription charge?
If the Government can be persuaded that this is something consistent with their view, I cannot believe that the Bill is not flexible enough to deal with special cases. If ever there was a special case, I should have thought it was those people who are at present enjoying a free service—thanks to the decisions taken, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, explained in a previous debate, in all cases after

399
long debate and in the light of full consultations with voluntary organisations and other people concerned. If ever there was a special case for the flexible powers to be used to see that the people in those areas continued to get that free service, I should have thought this was it. If the noble Lord who is to reply could give us an assurance of that kind, I should myself be much happier in not pressing the Amendment and in feeling that noble Lords have not worked in vain in registering the votes which they have registered in the past.
Whatever happens, my Lords, I hope that we shall not rest on an administrative difficulty if we think that the end in view is a serious one—and the Government have made it quite plain that they share the general feeling in all parts of the House that this is a serious issue. In that case, let us make up our minds. We are a most ingenious country and we are in fact in the middle of a successful (I am sure) undertaking to recast the whole local government, National Health and water systems of our country. To say that we cannot adapt in those places where the local authority already has a free service, so that the new Area Health Authorities may ensure that the free service continued, is defeatism of the most un-British kind, and I am sure the Government would not be guilty of that.
All I would say further is to repeat very briefly that if we do not secure this assurance, if in fact the Government are not able to use their powers and if the 20 per cent. who get this service free at the moment all have to pay 20p until some future date when the Government have changed their mind, when an error has been discovered and admitted, then we shall indeed, for the first time in our history, have gone back on successful experiments in local government and, in the national takeover of local prototypes, be proved to be retrograde instead of progressive. In maternity and child welfare, in school meals and school milk, wherever local government has pioneered and the State has eventually nationalised (as it were) the welfare service, we have moved forward, and this would be the first case where we had moved back.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would
400
explain one detail. Does he think that, outside London, the new authorities should not have the power, if they so desire, to discontinue the present free service and to make a charge? Because the Amendment says:
"… where a local health authority was at the time of the passing of this Act already providing a family planning service …"
Surely a new authority ought to have the right to make their own decisions.
4.3 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, the most important fact which emerged from the speech of the Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, on July 2, was that there would be Government power by regulation to abolish charges for contraceptive supplies if this turned out to be the right social priority and if evidence showed that the Government judgment was wrong. Now this has very much encouraged, if it did not absolutely satisfy, many of us who have for so many years campaigned for a really effective family planning service. It is true that the experience of the 35 local authorities who provide a free family planning service shows increasing health benefits and economies. The borough of Camden informs us that, for every £1 spent on family planning, £4 is saved among the other services that they deal with. Perhaps the Aberdeen experience, where free family planning has existed for over five years, if not absolutely conclusive is highly significant in the overall health and social benefits it has achieved. We think these are signposts to the social needs and the priorities of to-day, and we regret that the Government have held back and have not given the free service a try.
The argument about the cost of such a free service put forward by the Government does not bear scrutiny, let alone analysis. Of course, my Lords, £3 million is not chickenfeed, it is not peanuts. There are many organisations, such as Help the Aged, which would jump at such a contribution. The Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, says he will sharply increase the domiciliary services. This will cost much more, I believe, than the £3 million which it has been stated will be the cost of a free family planning service. This the Government have themselves said. There is little doubt

401
that some of those who insist on prescription charges feel that they have struck a blow against the permissive society. In fact, they have once more failed to help those women in greatest need of information, guidance and help; those shy and sensitive women, lacking in confidence and sophistication about form-filling—women who are loth to publicise their poverty in a place like the post office when they ask for a form. I believe there are three forms for which they have to ask. These are the women to whom Sir Keith Joseph refers, rather enigmatically, I believe, as "the casual and overwhelmed", and who are to be dealt with by "sustained persuasion".
My Lords, we feel that this could be more effectively and quickly achieved by free family planning. But, having said this, I cannot disguise the fact that the Government have come a long way. When we campaign for a free family planning service we are neither "casual" nor "overwhelmed"; we shall continue to submit the Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, to "sustained persuasion"; and we shall watch the effect of his prescription charges, until perhaps he comes to accept a free family planning service such as the 35 local authorities have provided.
4.8 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, having greatly enjoyed the speech made by the noble Baroness, I nevertheless have to remind her, in view of some of the things that she has said, that the Amendment we propose to-day starts with the words:
"That this House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 4, line 7, but propose the following Amendment in lieu.…"
In other words, we are not really reversing a decision of another place: we are proposing some kind of compromise which some of us think to be an extremely important one and which is not likely I think, to raise any financial problems.
I go along with other speakers in acknowledging the great advances made by this Government in bringing a family planning service into the National Health Service, and I give them full credit for what they have done. The arguments in favour of this particular Amendment have been so well put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and by the
402
noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that I shall not attempt to go over the ground again in any way. I should merely like to speak for a moment as a medical scientist who has been on a medical research council for two periods amounting to about seven years in all, and to say how much we all regret the lost opportunities for the controlled experiment. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I digress for a moment to one of these opportunities which was in fact not lost. When I was in North Africa during the war, almost the whole of the troops were down with dysentery. We had limited supplies of sulphaguandine, a newly discovered drug which was said to be effective in the treatment of bacillary dysentery. The fact that we had limited supplies gave us the amazing luck of being able to plan controlled experiments which would not have been ethical had we had enough to give this treatment to every person.
Medical science has been bedevilled in recent years by the many lost opportunities. When a new drug is put on the market which is said to be, if not a wonderful cure, an improvement on anything which has been done before, it is used with such enthusiasm by many doctors who do not keep their records properly. No control trial is done and even years afterwards nobody who has an objective mind really knows whether the new drug (which probably cost six times as much as the old one) is any better than what we had before.
Here is a wonderful opportunity of continuing free contraceptive advice and appliances without prescription in those areas where it already exists and comparing the results in a few years' time with those in areas in which the people are obliged to pay a prescription charge. One of the arguments of the Government is that a small prescription charge will not deter those who want family planning advice and materials. Our argument—and I am speaking of our argument in this House where, I take it, I am preaching to the converted since this House have shown their views in no uncertain way on two occasions—is that perhaps the prescription charge does deter and we think that is evidenced by the experiments already in progress in the London boroughs and elsewhere. When the comparison comes to be made,

403
we shall then know which argument is right and which is wrong, if we now introduce a prescription charge for everybody all over the country, we shall probably never know. For that reason alone, I think this Amendment is very worthy of your Lordships' attention.
4.14 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have spoken twice on this subject but I was surprised when the noble Lord said to-day that he could not visualise certain areas (there are, I believe, 33 or 35 of them) operating a free service in a country where there are many other areas which were charging. I found that difficult to understand. The service is already being operated successfully in these areas. These prototype areas are invaluable. We shall in a few years' time be able to examine the infantile mortality rate and the maternal mortality rate and gather all these and the other statistics that we want by comparing the areas where the service is operated freely with the others where it is not.
The other point is that this is not new; there are plenty of precedents for this. Those who have lived for some years and who have cut their political teeth on a local authority will recall very well that when the 1918 Maternity and Child Welfare Act was introduced it was not compulsory but permissive. Throughout the country we had what people like me called the "progressive areas" where they established maternity and child welfare clinics. In other words, for many years we had the two kinds of service: we had the boroughs who were prepared to spend their rates on these clinics and the others who were not. What happened was inevitable. If one borough was doing it then the adjacent one who had failed to do so was soon "prodded" into following suit by its mothers who said, "Look at what so and so are doing!" My Lords, we have lived through this. The social services of the past were often voluntary. In some cases we were supported by members of the Party of noble Lords opposite those local authority areas where men and women knew that it was the right thing to do, to get things going.
What we are asking for is simply that the 33 areas who are in the van of reform,
404
who have established this service, who are showing it can be done and who will be able soon to give us these important statistics, should continue the good work.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, my own convictions in this matter are the exact opposite of all those who have spoken so far. But I shall not weary the House with my personal convictions. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two aspects of this matter. This House, as one of the two Houses of Parliament, has been once or twice during the past few years in a rather precarious position. It is rather more secure now than it was a few years ago; but I think that it would be very unwise indeed for us deliberately to try to go against the other place in their decision. I think that a very likely outcome of that would be that we should no longer be given no powers of major legislation. Therefore, I think that it is purely worldly wisdom to abstain from this Amendment that we have been discussing.
There is one other point which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can clear it up. This prescription charge is constanly being referred to as a percentage. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give the House some idea of what the charge would actually be in terms of money—because considering what the young spend on transistors and discotheques and various other forms of amusement, I do not think it would hit them very hard.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the reason for the noble Lord's confusion is that several noble Lords have unfortunately referred to "20p" instead of to "20 pence"; and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, thought they were talking about "20 per cent." The prescription charge is 20 pence. A prescription would normally last for several months and therefore the charge would be fairly minimal.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that I do not think it is the young people that we are worried about. We are worried by the fact that where there are free contraceptives, experience has shown that the service is used by a not inconsiderable group of men and women who have been married for years and who already have three, four or more children. They have

405
never used contraceptives and have now come to the conclusion that they have as large a family as they want and, if the husband is a low wage earner, as large a family as they can afford. It is because they have three or four children that they have to think of the pennies—particularly owing to rising prices. The Government answer is that there are certain exceptions to the prescription charge and that this is one of the very groups for which there will be an exception, the low wage earner.
Of course, the difficulty arises when someone asks, "Shall I have to pay or not?" And you say, "Well, it depends on whether your net income is not more than 50 pence higher than the supplementary benefit level." The person says, "What is the supplementary benefit level?", and if one knows, one tells him. Then it depends, if I follow it rightly, on what is their net income. The net income is, if I am right, the gross income with a large number of deductions of expenditures which people of this type simply do not know about. They may know some of them, but they do not know the others. It all has to be put down on a form. You have to go to the Post Office where it is not the obligation of the Post Office officials to tell you what form you want. You must know that the form is PC.11. Experience has shown that, certainly in some areas, about 25 per cent. of the Post Offices have not copies of the form in stock, and in some Post Offices they have never heard of them at all. But it is this sort of person who is the concern of many of us, and not young people.
I must join with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in deploring the fact that now we shall not have a controlled group. I appreciate that the Government say that whether or not contraceptives are free of prescription charges will not deter people. Family planning people think that it will. If the existing local areas where it is already free could be left at least for the time being, then in due time we should know, instead of having to guess. I think it requires some justification for a Government to introduce a Bill, the sole declared purpose of which is to reorganise the National Health Service, and then use it to deprive some millions of people living in these areas of their existing rights.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to put the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, right on one thing about the forms that he mentioned. The fact is that the Domiciliary Service, which is provided at the moment in many areas, is free, and if the person who has the authority to visit a family finds that the family is really in need of help he can without any question of going into detailed financial arrangements, authorise them to go to a clinic and get free supplies. That is what is to continue. People on supplementary benefit and family income supplement automatically get free supplies. The other people whom the noble and learned Lord was talking about who have to get forms, get them for the normal prescription charges. This is to help those people who are just above the supplementary benefit level.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, may I comment on one aspect of the narrow proposition which is, in effect, before the House. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, spoke as if there was no problem in London, although there might be a problem outside London. But, surely, that is not the case. There will be parts of London where contraceptives will be provided free and parts where people will have to pay for them. If you look outside London, under the provisions for the reorganisation of local gvernment three or four authorities may be assimilated into one authority and there may well be one part of that new authority's area which at present is administered by a local authority which provides a free service. And so under the one local authority you will have one part of the area where the contraceptive service is free and in the rest of the area people will have to pay.
I am in broad sympathy with this movement for a free contraceptive service. But I believe that the proposition in this Amendment, in the last paragraph, is unfair to people; in that some will get a free service and some will not, and it will create a problem. I am not impressed by the argument that you need a controlled area for the purposes of research. To my mind this Amendment would be grossly unfair, in that some people, for historic reasons, will be able to get contraceptive appliances free, and others in the same authority area will get

407
them only on payment through a prescription.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I interject to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that this situation exists in London now. It is possible to get contraceptives free in some boroughs but not in others, and there will be no difference.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, I regard it as grossly unfair.
4.25 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I am one of those on this side of the House—I do not think that anyone from this side has spoken, apart from the Minister—who believes very strongly in the advantages of free contraception. I gave my reasons fully last week and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them this afternoon. Because that is my belief, I think that what this Amendment seeks to do is correct. I think it is a retrograde step to take away from local authorities benefits which the people in those local authority areas are enjoying now. I would prefer that such benefits were enjoyed by everybody, but another place has decided otherwise.
Having said that, my Lords, may I say that the other place has considered this topic on two separate occasions. It is true that the Amendment has not been considered on two occasions, but on only one occasion. But there seem to me to be disadvantages in tossing this particular ball backwards and forwards between the two Houses beyond a certain time. I feel that it could be counter-productive if we pursue this matter too far, and I hope that the noble Baroness, with whom I agree so wholeheartedly, will take that into account when deciding whether to press the Amendment. This Amendment is more restrictive than the last Amendment in what it tries to achieve, but the issues which the other place will have to reconsider if the matter goes back to them are basically the same.
The only other thing I wanted to mention is the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his important speech last Monday night. This has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I should like to support what she said and what was said by the noble Lord, Lord
408
Redcliffe-Maud. The actual words of the Secretary of State were:
"Indeed, there would be power by regulation to abolish charges for contraceptive supplies if this turned out to be the right social priority and if evidence showed that our judgment was wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 2/7/73; col. 178.]
If there are to be prescription charges everywhere, and if the local authorities who practise free contraception now are no longer to be able to do so, there will be no yardstick by which the Secretary of State can judge this matter. That point has been made before in this debate, but I do not think it can be made too often. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer it. He says that there are administrative difficulties, but we have also been told by people with great experience that these difficulties could be overcome.
I think that the gulf which separates the Government and those who think as I do is really very small. That is what is rather sad about the whole issue. We are all trying to achieve the same objective, or nearly all of us, which is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I believe that to be the Government's objective just as it is my objective, but in my view the way the Government are seeking to achieve it is not correct. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will consider, even if they cannot accept the whole of this Amendment, whether certain selected local authorities should not continue the free service on an experimental basis. It need not be a permanent basis, but for a matter of two or three years. We should then be able to judge whether the Secretary of State is correct when he says that prescription charges will not act as a deterrent, or whether we and the Family Planning Association are right in saying that it will.
4.30 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I intervene for just a moment to ask my noble friend when he replies to help us about a point which I have been waiting to hear argued this afternoon, but which so far has not been argued. If we look at the back of this paper on which the Amendment is printed, we see that the other place rejected the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment for one reason and one reason only:
"Because the said Lords Amendment and the said disagreements by the Lords to Commons Amendments involved charges on public funds.…"

409
This is a constitutional point—and I am no constitutional lawyer—of financial privilege, and I have not heard it argued this afternoon. Surely if the Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is passed we shall involve charges on public funds. If the Bill as it now stands is passed, your Lordships accepting the Commons rejection of our Amendment, there will be authorities who will charge who did not charge before; but if the Amendment is passed, those authorities who did not charge before will continue not to charge. Does not that involve charges on public funds? Should we not be confining our arguments this afternoon, not so much to the merits or otherwise of free contraception, which have been argued back and forth on previous occasions, but to this financial privilege point?
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of what my noble friend Lord Vernon has said. I went to the other place on Monday night. I listened to the Secretary of State and I was delighted by what he said. I felt that if we had only known before what he then said we might never have had our last debate or moved the Amendment. I was particularly struck by what he said about increasing domiciliary visits, and the fact that there were Regulations which he could change and have free contraception for everyone. That is what we wanted when we moved the Amendment, and that is what he said. As I say, if we had only known that before, I do not believe we should have had such a long debate on the subject. I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Vernon said. I do not see how one could expect any report from Area Health Authorities on this question. There must, in my view, be some control. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that in all medical matters—and I know a little about horticulture and agriculture—there must be a control. I do not go as far as the Amendment which is before us. I should like to see the Secretary of State choose a town, or more than one town, to be used as an experiment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be quite brief. I am one who has voted consistently for the free contraception service, and I still wish
410
that the Government were prepared to accept it. I am glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Aberdare that the views of the Government are flexible, because it seems to me that they could easily agree to having one, two or three areas where the results of free contraceptives could be assessed in a proper manner. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will confirm that. I do not feel that I can vote on this matter, because I feel so strongly about free contraception, but I agree with those who have talked in terms of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act 1911 was put through by Mr. Asquith (my brother-in-law, it may surprise your Lordships to know), who was the Prime Minister of the day. I cannot help feeling that at this moment his ghost must be circling round this Chamber, because the Parliament Act was passed to curb the reactionary views of your Lordships' House. To-day the Parliament Act is being invoked because (as some of us think) there are reactionary views in another place. I am sorry about that, but I feel that on this occasion, if there is a vote, I shall have to abstain.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, there is one point which I think I am right in saying the Minister mentioned but which seems to have escaped your Lordships' notice; namely, that this Bill is to take effect as from April 1. Whether that is a wise date to choose I do not know. I have listened with interest to the many opinions on whether or not contraceptives should be free, and while sympathising deeply with many points that have been put forward I think there are other factors to be taken into account. I am in favour of free contraceptive advice, but I am not so sure at this stage about free contraceptives. It does not seem right to me that so much money should be given away at other people's expense. It is not that I grudge the money, but to-day there seems to be almost an obsession to give things away as of right. Some years ago the Evening Standard ran a column called Today in Court, and one evening it reported that a respectable looking man stood in the dock accused of stealing money from church boxes. "I cannot understand", the magistrate said, "how a seemingly well-to-do man like you can bother over such petty amounts". The man said: "Oh, but you

411
do not understand, sir; 2s. 6d. here and 5s. there soon mounts up". No, my Lords, it is not the money, but the principle involved, that matters. I shall not vote against the Government.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to say one more thing. It may be that there is a hope that contraceptives, whether freely or not freely given, will do something to reduce the birth rate in this small and beautiful land of ours, once described by Shakespeare as a
"precious jewel set in a silver sea",
in which case, bearing in mind the vast number of people who have been allowed to enter this country, for better or worse, I should like humbly to suggest to the Government that, before it is too late, instead of handing out ever-increasing benefits, often open to abuse, they should consider imposing a tax on all married or unmarried people with more than four children.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, there is one point I should like briefly to make arising out of what the Secretary of State said in another place, as reported in column 176 of Hansard on July 2. He said:
"Secondly, we shall encourage the Health Education Council and the new area health board authorities to give much increased publicity to the services which will be available under the National Health Service. Much of the increased take-up in the free zones stems from increased publicity."
He then went on to discuss the question whether the 20p is a deterrent or not. What puzzles me, having worked closely with the right honourable Member in the other place when I was Chairman of the Health Education Council, is the tremendous emphasis he always, in my view quite rightly, put on the need for evaluation and monitoring. And to make that statement, that much of the increased take-up stems from the increased publicity, is something that in these days of research just cannot be done.
I am very surprised, because in the past the Secretary of State has alway been careful to insist on monitoring and evaluation. All the evidence we have at the moment points to the fact that publicity on its own, and not backed by something
412
as substantial as the free contraceptives which have been given out in the 33 areas, really has very little effect. In fact, the evidence up to now—and this is why we need a much more scientific basis for it—appears to be lending support for the free services. Brent spent a minimal amount of money on publicity; nevertheless, in the first six months of the free service, the take-up increased by 68 per cent.
For that reason—and I certainly will not go over all the other points, which I support, made by so many of your Lordships who have spoken—I believe we ought to have a much firmer and more specific answer to what is meant by the question of control, and how far the regulations will allow the various areas to be used as experimental control areas. May I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that this has always been the case, not only, as at the moment, as regards free contraceptives, but in all sorts of other services. We ought not to go backwards and charge everybody; we ought to go forwards and see whether in fact the right thing is not to charge anybody.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I refer, very briefly, to a point made by my noble friend Lord Kinnaird? He was worried about the financial aspect of providing a free contraceptive service, but I think that by doing so we shall in fact be saving money, because to start with we shall not need so many civil servants looking after the forms and the numbers of exemptions. Also, in a previous debate on this subject we discussed the great saving that could result from the fact that there would not be so many abortions and children in care as a result of unwanted pregnancies. Many of us consider that we might probably gain more than the £3 million that it would cost, so it is said, to have a free service.
4.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to all that has passed to-day. It seems to me that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, is one of great importance. As I understand it, the present Bill lays down that there shall be charges for these prescriptions. If the Amendment now proposed went through, it

413
would mean that those charges would be varied, so that once again we should be going back and challenging the other place. My mathematics on this are somewhat as follows. I understand that the figure of charges to-day would be approximately £3 million. I have also heard that on this basis some 20 per cent. of the service would be free, if accepted. That is to say, there would be a charge of some £600,000. I do not see how we can get away from that; so let us be quite clear about what we are doing. If we are going to press this Amendment we are going back to challenge the other place once again—and I, for one, do not feel able to do it.
The only other point I should like to put to all those who have been so successful in what they have achieved already—and they have been extremely successful, though I am not going into the merits or demerits of what has been done—concerns the Statement by the Secretary of State, which shows what liberty of action he will have. Given that, together with the constitutional point on which I have already touched, following what the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has said, I think it would be wrong to press the Amendment and that either we should not press the Amendment or, if it is pressed, should vote against it.
4.47 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill and I am intervening partly because of the constitutional issues which will be raised and which I propose to deal with. First, however, I should like to say that I believe your Lordships have a great deal to be proud of in respect of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, and certainly a number of noble Baronesses and others, have enabled us to maintain the reputation of your Lordships' House in social matters of being a reformist and modem House—an image very different from what it has had in the past.
In our debate to-day we have, on the whole, concentrated pretty narrowly on an Amendment to which I shall refer briefly. I am also bound to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who took us from Shakespeare to the marriage service. He quoted the words
414
of John of Gaunt, which made me think of what would have happened if there had been a family planning service in his days—because John of Gaunt was one of my ancestors, though, I am afraid, on the wrong side of the blanket. Nonetheless, the debate has largely focused on a narrow field: whether or not it would be right to preserve what is already here; namely, existing free family planning services in a number of boroughs, about 19 of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, pointed out, with great vigour and to some extent in refutation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, are in the London area so that their boundaries will not be affected.
As I have said, I believe that your Lordships have achieved a great deal and I also think the Government Chief Whip has achieved a gread deal—he has a very full House to-day. Yesterday, a number of noble Lords were absent, as we thought, being instructed in family planning; and here they are applying their knowledge to-day. It is obvious that a number of his noble friends have been put under great pressure not to vote for an Amendment. I hope that noble Lords who, when it comes to the end, find that there is after all, no Division (and I shall perhaps have something to say as to how I would recommend my noble friends to act in this matter) will not feel that their journey has been wasted. I feel that, though this is not a subject of necessarily great public interest (indeed, it has been suggested to me that perhaps we ought not to waste time talking about this but, instead, should use it more profitably on debating the Industrial Relations Act or something like that), this is classically the area in which your Lordships have played a role; and a very successful one.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in what was, if I may say so, a very gracious opening speech, said that we have achieved a great deal in this Bill. It is unfortunate, as I think some of your Lordships have said, that we have had some rather late revelations about the powers that are actually in the Bill. It may be that we ought to have studied the Bill, but by and large we do look to the Government to help us in these matters; but it was not until earlier this week that the other place were told by the Secretary of State that there would be powers in the Bill, by regulation, to

415
abolish charges for contraceptive supplies if this turned out to be the right social priority and if evidence showed that our judgment was wrong. What we are proposing to do in this Amendment is to provide a means to establish whose judgment was right, by carrying out a controlled experiment of a kind which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, justified very effectively. It is inevitable that in carrying cut experiments—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, as a doctor, would agree that not all patients are treated with absolutely the same medicine, or indeed with the same justice—that in fact it is necessary to progress to carry out such experiments.
It is a great pity that those local authorities who have pioneered, very largely at the expense of the ratepayers, in a direction which clearly your Lordships—and indeed a majority in another place—would have wished to go, are to be prevented from so doing. If we were just voting freely again to-day on whether there should be a free contraception service I have no doubt that the majority of your Lordships would support this. We have in Sir Keith Joseph an able Minister who is wedded to a principle. I am not trying to make a purely Party point because all Ministers are liable to adopt a doctrinal approach similar to the one that we saw with the museum charges, and I regret that. But I am not going to advise my noble friends to take this Amendment to a Division.
I should like to give my reasons for saying that. I should also like to deal with the constitutional aspect raised by the noble Earls, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Perth. What we are doing, and what we would do if we were to send this Amendment back to the Commons, would be entirely correct constitutionally. I am talking about constitutional right, and I will seek to explain. The only difference between the number of Amendments that we send to another place, which are sometimes rejected where there is a question of financial privilege, and other Amendments is that the Commons actually give the reason of financial privilege. It is up to the Commons to decide whether or not they wish to assert that privilege. As Erskine May makes clear, it is usually sufficient for them to hint or make mention of financial
416
privilege for your Lordships to accept it. We are accepting it.
What we proposed in this Amendment was to invite the Commons to consider a variation on it. We have accepted regretfully that they have rejected the main Amendment. It would constitutionally—and I am speaking in constitutional terms rather than in terms of practice—be perfectly proper for us to do that. The question is whether we should do so; and that is another matter. Here I am bound to say that the reason that would influence me least of all in this matter is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, put forward; namely, that the Lords would be punished and not be allowed nice Bills in the future. I remember that on a number of occasions when we were in dispute with the Conservative Party, when they were in Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who did such a good job in Opposition, when confronted by a particularly difficult argument used to get up and urge his Party that the whole business was so unworthy that they should ignore it and not even vote against it. The one thing that stung him was if he thought there was a threat to do something to the Lords. At that moment there would be a growl of anger from the Tory Benches. I am not going to growl with anger, but I deeply regret the suggestions that have been put round that the House of Lords are not likely to recieve another major Bill in future.
I congratulate the Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his predecessor, together with the Government Chief Whip, upon the very much better time-tabling which is going to enable us to get up before the end of July. We have done a good job on this Bill. I hope that it will be made clear to Ministers (it does not matter whether they are Conservatives or Labour) who not unnaturally get slightly irritated when anybody opposes their ideas and throws their timetable out of gear, that this is not a reason that we can take into account in deciding whether we should support the Amendment. There is some force in the argument that we ought not to send this Bill back again to the Commons on grounds not of constitutional law, but of practice between the two Houses. Furthermore, it would be unlikely to succeed and therefore it is

417
undesirable to establish a precedent which, on the whole, I should regret. We have to show some restraint here; we have a great deal of freedom. The Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House do not cause deep anxiety to noble Lords on their side who do not always toe the Party line; and we treasure our freedom. Because we have this degree of freedom we have to show a certain amount of restraint.
It is a pity if an experiment is not carried out. But once again we have had another revelation from the Government: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for saying something that I believe has not been said before —that is, that the Government have power to have controlled experiments. This is not just a matter of Party politics, it is a matter on which many of us, like the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and others, feel very strongly; this is in the social interest. Further steps in this direction will reduce the number of unwanted births and the number of abortions. This is not just a matter of curative medicine but a matter of applying desirable social institutions. We have achieved most of what we wanted. I do not believe the proposals on the domiciliary side are a substitute, but we shall see. We shall look forward with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, says. I hope that he will be able to tell us that at least consideration will be given to arguments which have been put forward. I would advise my noble friend, if the House so agree (and we wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, says), to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. This would be the final stage in a Bill in which, by good co-operation of a kind that we manage to establish in your Lordships' House, we have achieved a great deal and have something of which to be proud.
4.58 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD W1NDLESHAM): My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill. But that is not for lack of opportunity, because the Bill has been before Parliament for eight months. It was introduced in this House on November 15, and the Second Reading was on December 4. Since then there have been four
418
changes to the original proposal in Clause 4 relating to family planning. I do not propose to go through all of them in detail, though I have equipped myself to do so. The final stage took place in the House of Commons on Monday of this week, on July 2, when the Commons insisted on their own Amendment of April 17. As has been said on a number of occasions this afternoon, the only reason given was:
"Because the said Lords Amendment and the said disagreements by the Lords to the Commons Amendments involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient."
This part of the Bill has been changed on no less than four occasions: twice by your Lordships, twice by another place.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Vernon, whose speech we listened to with such close attention, that it would be counter-productive to toss this particular ball back to the Commons again. On Monday of this week the Commons specifically claimed financial privilege; often they waive it but they did not do so on this occasion. Nor is there any possibility that financial privilege would be waived if the Amendment before your Lordships to-day was sent back.
In reply to the questions put by my noble friends Lord Waldegrave and Lord Perth, I would point out that the Amendment before the House this afternoon would involve a charge on public funds because it would involve a net increase in the amount of expenditure. In the areas referred to in the Amendment, the Secretary of State would be prevented from making off-setting charges. I am well aware—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is leaving the financial point, may I say that this is rather important in constitutional terms. Of course, a very high proportion of what we do here involves financial charges, and indeed the Commons would be perfectly free, if we did send an Amendment back, to accept it if it chose to do so. It is important that we should get this point right. If the Commons in fact rejected it, it would again plead financial privilege. For other reasons, I think it is right we should not do so, but I would

419
not wish the House to be misled, as I see it, on this point.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is nothing between us on that point. I agree entirely with the noble Lord. It would be open to us. I just think it would be a grave mistake to do so.
I was saying that I am well aware of the strong feelings in your Lordships' House on this issue. Those who feel deeply have pressed their case effectively and achieved a very great deal. I would pick out and underline three achievements over this considerable period of eight months since the Bill was first introduced in this House. First, the concern which your Lordships have shown for the expansion of family planning has had a considerable effect on Government thinking and on public policy. As a result of views expressed, not only by noble Lords but also by other responsible bodies, the Government are now talking in terms of a family planning service whose cost, when fully developed, would be roughly twice as much as the cost of the proposals originally announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on December 12 last year. There can seldom have been such a marked expansion of expenditure on a single item as there has been in this case since we came to office in 1970. As my noble friend Lord Aberdare mentioned in opening the debate, expenditure on family planning then, in 1970, was running at a level of approximately £1 million a year; now the estimated cost of the Government's present plans will amount to something of the order of £30 million per annum.
Secondly, at the same time there has been a noticeable change of attitude which your Lordships have helped to bring about. The debates in this House and in another place over the past months have generated widespread publicity about the rapid and determined expansion of family planning services under the National Health Service. This, together with the general concern and urgency that has been expressed, has helped to create a climate of opinion in which more people should be encouraged to come forward for help under the new services. The Government acknowledge, even if somewhat ruefully, your
420
Lordships' contribution to the wide publicity that this issue has received. The Department of Health and Social Security is already encouraging the widest possible publicity. The only difference between their efforts and those of your Lordships is that in this case the publicity has been free.
The third achievement is this. In his speech in another place on Monday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services gave an explicit assurance that the power to make charges is a flexible one. In her opening speech in moving the Amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, asked whether this statement could be elaborated upon. If further experience shows that the present proposals should be looked at again, there is a power in the Bill enabling the Secretary of State to do so. I am sure it is right that the expansion of the family planning services should be monitored very carefully, and consideration is being given as to what information will be needed in order to do this effectively. If there are signs that the services are not being used as much as they should be, either in general or by particular groups, further information will be sought to elicit the reasons for this. The Government also intend to consider whether experiments planned on a scientific basis would help in the monitoring process. My right honourable friend would also certainly want to give consideration to any external evidence that people were being deterred from using the family planning service because of the fact that prescription charges applied.
My Lords, I come now to the constitutional considerations, which have also been referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think we should make too much heavy weather of this. Your Lordships' previous Amendment has been rejected by another place specifically on the grounds of privilege. I was pleased to sense from the debate that your Lordships are now willing to accept this position and do not wish to continue to press the argument in favour of a universally free family planning service throughout England and Wales. If I have interpreted the sense of the House correctly, I am sure that that is a wise conclusion. But we are now asked in the noble

421
Baroness's Amendment to consider sending the matter back to the Commons once again. It would be the fifth change if your Lordships decided on that course of action. It would have the effect that in those areas, or parts of areas, where local health authorities already provide free supplies the National Health Service should continue to do so free of charge.
I do not suppose that the whole Parliamentary edifice would be threatened if the House of Commons was asked to reconsider this matter. But what would it achieve? A similar Amendment was considered in another place on Report and was rejected by a vote of 240 against; 138 for. In his statement on Monday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services referred to this similar Amendment of Dr. Stuttaford and said it would be open to equal or greater objection. He went on:
"It is surely wrong in a national service that a person's ability to obtain free supplies should depend on the past decisions of a local authority which has ceased to carry responsibility for the service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 2/7/73, col. 177.]
Leaving the pros and cons of the issue on one side, and accepting the strength of feeling expressed by those noble Lords who have spoken to-day and who have spoken on many previous occasions when this matter has been before your Lordships, if I am asked for my advice as to what we should do in the interests of the House I would reply, without hesitation, that we should be wise to call it a day.
My Lords, let me end on the narrow point which has been pressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and by others who have spoken in this debate. It can be expressed, I think, in the form of a question: Will the Secretary of State allow one or more areas to maintain a free family planning service for the purposes of research? My answer would be to say, first of all, that the Secretary of State has shown throughout this prolonged debate that he has an open mind, and this has been accepted by a number of speakers in our debate to-day. At present he is not convinced that a link has been established between a reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies and supplies of free contraceptives. The important thing to stress, in his view, is the widest possible availability of these
422
services—domiciliary as well as in clinics —to try to reach those who are particularly vulnerable. Flexibility is contained in the Bill. If the Secretary of State is later convinced that it would be the right social policy to lift prescription charges from these items, then he would be ready to do so; but at the moment he is not persuaded that it would be either practical or desirable to retain a completely free service under the N.H.S. in any of the existing local authority areas where free family planning exists at present, whether for purposes of research or anything else. The matter is, however, under close consideration and will remain so. My right honourable friend will study all the evidence, and will consider whether any sort of small, controlled research projects would help in keeping this matter under review.
I hope that what I have said on this aspect will be helpful to any noble Lords who may still be doubtful. We have heard the advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that that advice will be heeded. But I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the firmness of the Government's position in this matter. Equally, I hope that I have been able to convince noble Lords that we have no intention whatever of being dogmatic, nor will we refuse to look at the issue again if it proves necessary to do so in the future. It is now for the House to decide. We have heard all the arguments and it is with some confidence that I ask for your Lordships' support in opposing the Amendment.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I hope the House feels that the debate we have had this afternoon on this Amendment has been worth while. Certainly from among those whose faces I recognise in the Chamber I feel that I have a great deal of support, albeit it perhaps rather more silent to-day than it has been in former debates. Naturally I should like to answer some of the points that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just made in his winding-up speech, but I also sense that the House would like to come to some conclusion on this matter. I will therefore try to restrain myself, although I confess that I am not

423
persuaded that the Secretary of State has an entirely open mind on this issue.
On behalf of my noble friends in all parts of the House I must express our very great regret that the Government have not been able to move to the point of taking this immediate opportunity to maintain the existing free services as a controlled experiment. We take a little comfort from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the power exists in the Bill for research and experiment, and we deeply hope that the words he has used to-day will be followed by the Government. I hope that all concerned will continue to press the Government on the introduction of a general family planning service within the National Health Service, with a view to seeing that proper controls and monitoring are included in the scheme. But, for the reasons given by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope with the consent of the noble Lords, Lord Radcliffe-Maud, Lord Platt and Lord Tanlaw, who also put their names to this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the Question is, That the House do not insist on their Amendment to the Commons Amendment at page 4, line 7.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg beg to move that this House do not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendments in page 63, line 13, and page 69, line 37, which are consequential Amendments on the main Amendment.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

REGULATION OF PRICES (TRANQUILLISING DRUGS) (NO. 3) ORDER 1973
5.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (TILE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) (No. 3) Order 1973 (Statutory Instruments 1973 No. 1093)
424
dated June 21, a copy of which was laid before this House on June 22, be approved.
This Order relates to drugs sold by the Roche Group, comprising Roche Products Limited, SAPAC Corporation Limited and F. Hoffman-La Roche and other associated companies, mainly as Librium and Valium. The purpose of the Order is to give effect to the Report of the Monopolies Commission which recommended substantial reductions in Roche's prices for these drugs. It may be helpful to the House if I summarise briefly the events which have led to the making of this Order.
During the 1960s there were difficulties between Roche and the Department of Health and Social Security about the prices of Librium and Valium. After discussions in the context of the voluntary price regulations scheme with the D.H.S.S. about the prices for these drugs had broken down it was decided that a reference should be made to the Monopolies Commission. This was done on September 14, 1971. The Commission's Report was received by the Secretary of State on February 27, 1973 and published on April 12 this year. The Commission found that Roche held a monopoly position with 99 Per cent. of the market for these drugs and that this gave them considerable influence over price levels. Their investigations led them to conclude that the United Kingdom prices were manifestly too high and that profits were excessive. The Commission therefore recommended substantial price reductions.
Accordingly, on April 12 the Secretary of State laid before Parliament the No. 1 Order which reduced the prices of Librium and Valium in accordance with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission. The Order affected only companies in the Roche Group and was found by the Special Orders Committee to be hybrid. Roche, as they were fully entitled to do, presented a Petition which was considered by the Committee at hearings, lasting five days, held between May 14 and June 8. The Committee's Report showed that members were divided in their views. While four members thought that a Select Committee with narrow terms of reference should make a further inquiry into the single issue of whether the Order prices made sufficient allowance for the allocation of research and

425
development costs, three members did not think that a Select Committee should be set up.
Your Lordships will recall that the Report of the Committee was debated by this House on June 22, and your Lordships finally decided, by a substantial majority after a very full debate, not to set up a Select Committee. The managing director of Roche Products Limited wrote a letter to The Times, published on June 22, suggesting that there was something unfair or improper about the decision. On this I would only say that the views of those of your Lordships who took part in that debate cut across Party lines. My noble friend the Leader of the House explained the background and the procedures, and I believe that the Government have acted with scrupulous fairness. The Lord Chairman of Committees, who had voted in the Special Orders Committee against the setting up of the Select Committee, himself moved the Motion. It was made perfectly clear that the Government left the decision whether or not to set up a Select Committee to a free vote in your Lordships' House, and my noble friends the Leader of the House and Lord Aberdare, and I myself, as Ministers from the Departments specially concerned, abstained from voting on the Motion. The Government Whips also abstained. I can only regret that against this background the managing director of Roche Products Limited has seen fit to suggest that the recommendation of the Special Orders Committee was frustrated by a Party political manœuvre or that it was in some way improper for some Members of this House to vote according to their own individual views of this matter.
This House is now able to consider the No. 3 Order. I should perhaps mention that the Order was approved in another place yesterday, and I should inform the House of three other developments which have taken place which will be of interest to your Lordships. First, the Roche Group have begun proceedings in the High Court against the Department of Trade and Industry in connection with this Order and the two earlier Orders. Among other things, they seek a declaration that the proceedings of the Monopolies Commission were contrary to natural justice and that the Orders are
426
therefore void. They are also claiming damages for losses suffered in consequence of the making of the Orders by the Secretary of State. These legal proceedings will have to take their course. Although the issue is sub judice, I am advised that this need not prevent your Lordships' consideration of the No. 3 Order. The House is, as I am advised, free to discuss legislation, including subordinate legislation, even though the issues with which it is concerned are the subject of court proceedings.
The second development is that in a letter of June 25 from their solicitors, the company gave notice to the Government that they proposed to raise their prices in breach of the Order unless the Government agreed to certain conditions in connection with the possible repayment of moneys to Roche representing the difference between the pre-Order prices and the prices fixed by the Order. My right honourable friend the Minister of Trade and Consumer Affairs placed a copy of this letter in the Library of another place on June 27, as he said in answer to a question by Mr. Wedgwood Benn. As a result of this letter, the Government have moved for an injunction to secure compliance with the Order. Proceedings began on July 3 and were adjourned until next week. Roche are abiding by the Order and have undertaken to do so pending next week's hearing. In the circumstances, your Lordships will understand why I would not wish to say more about the details of the issues which will be raised in the court proceedings.
The third matter is the question of the provision of information. The House will recall that there has been much discussion about certain figures which were not made available to the Monopolies Commission. The Commission referred to this question in paragaph 156 of their Report. They had asked for four things: first, the value of world-wide sales of ethical products; secondly, the value of world-wide research costs for ethical products; thirdly, the world-wide sales of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam respectively by value; and fourthly, the world-wide sales of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam respectively by weight in kilograms. Roche thought that the information would be of no use. The Monopolies Commission thought it might be useful

427
and quite naturally wished to reach their own decision on its usefulness, and their own conclusions about how far it was necessary for a proper understanding of their Report to publish the information. The Monopolies Commission are, of course, used to handling commercially sensitive information and do not publish it unnecessarily. But that is all in the past.
I am now able to confirm to your Lordships that in a letter dated June 29, Roche's solicitors presented to my Department the figures referred to in paragraph 156 of the Report from which I have quoted. Our preliminary consideration does not suggest that these four particular figures could call in question the conclusions the Monopolies Commission were able to reach without them. We have, however, passed the information on to the Department of Health and Social Security, to which Roche signified they had no objection. I am glad that the firm have now provided the information, and it is now being studied. It is a pity that the information was not made available without conditions in the past, either to the Department of Health and Social Security in the discussions under the voluntary price regulation scheme, or to the Monopolies Commission.
I now turn to the Order itself. Its purpose is to implement the Monopolies Commission's recommendations that Roche Products' selling price for the reference drugs should be reduced, and its effect is to reduce the prices of Librium and Valium to the highest levels which the Commission regarded as justified. The Order requires an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. It may be helpful if I go through the Order and describe its operation. It has been necessary to make a series of Orders to maintain the status quo while procedures in the Committee of your Lordships' House, which prevented the earlier Orders coming for approval, were completed.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Order define the products and the companies to which the Order applies. Relevant products are at present sold in the United Kingdom only by Roche Products Limited. The Order is extended by Article 2 to the whole Roche Group to prevent supply at higher prices by other companies in
428
the Group. Article 3 limits prices for the relevant medicines when sold by any of the Roche companies to the prices specified in column 3 of the schedule. The Order prices for Librium and Valium are those recommended by the Monopolies Commission as "fair prices" and
"more than adequate in the light of the facts revealed in the Report".
The prices for other reference drugs containing Librium or Valium were, as recommended by the Commission, calculated as corresponding proportions. Article 4 precludes the Roche Group of companies from imposing on the sale of reference drugs any conditions requiring the purchase of other pharmaceutical products; and Article 5 is necessary to ensure that, in a market where resale price maintenance is authorised, the wholesale and retail prices are reduced in parallel with the manufacturers' selling price to which the Order principally applies. It was obviously not necessary to repeat the provision in Article 5 of the No. 1 Order requiring agreements to maintain the resale prices of these drugs to be abandoned within seven days of the commencement of the Order. The only other changes between this and the original Order take account of the different dates of commencement.
The Order does not touch on the question of repayment by Roche for past overpricing, and the new prices are not designed to include provision for such recovery. This is a matter for negotiation with the Department of Health and Social Security. The Order, however, ensures that from the time of its coming into force, the prices of the reference drugs in the United Kingdom market are reduced to the level which the Monopolies Commission recommended.
There have been suggestions in the Press and in another place that in some way the Government are hounding, or operating a vendetta against the Roche Group. This certainly is not the case. The managing director of the United Kingdom Company, Dr. Marks, in his letter published in The Times of June 23, to which I have made reference, appealed for Whitehall to play fair. But, my Lords, is it the case that Roche has played fair? I would ask your Lordships to look at the history of negotiations between the Government and Roche. To some extent this is set out in Appendix

429
8 of the Monopolies Commission's Report. There is a long history of negotiations between the company and the Department of Health and Social Security. As long ago as 1966, the D.H.S.S. informed the company that in their view there was room for reduction in the prices of Librium and Valium. In 1967 a cash rebate of £200,000 was accepted by the D.H.S.S. in lieu of price reductions. In 1968, a further cash rebate of £500,000 was accepted. In 1970, a rebate of £900,000 was made by the company on the understanding that this would be the final settlement up to the end of 1969—I repeat, 1969. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the discussions between the company and the D.H.S.S., the matter was referred to the Monopolies Commission for a full and thorough investigation in September, 1971. Your Lordships know that during the course of the investigations by the Monopolies Commission, certain information was refused to the Commission by the company. The whole history of these negotiations I think shows clearly that any allegation of unfairness is one that can most effectively be made in the reverse direction. But the Government for their part have played entirely fairly throughout. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Security negotiated with the company with great patience, but, I am sorry to say, with little success for many years. Having received the Commission's Report which disclosed a serious abuse of its monopoly position and excessive profits, the Minister of Trade and Consumer Affairs made the Order, as he was entitled to do, under the Monopolies and Mergers Act of 1965.
The Order has gone through and is going through the due process of Parliamentary procedure. The Order is also being disputed by the company, as it has a perfect right to do, in the High Court, and the Government are, of course, ready to defend their action in the Court. Throughout, as I say, we have played fair, and I therefore reject the managing director's suggestions to the contrary. Indeed, as was stated in another place yesterday, we stand entirely ready to receive any new evidence that the company may adduce since the Monopolies Commission reported. I repeat that offer. We shall be glad to see the company in their turn play fair with us.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. He referred to various gestures made by Roche. Is it not a fact, if my memory is correct of the Monopolies Commission Report, that these two drugs, Librium and Valium, were accepted by the Government free on behalf of the armed forces? Could that be cleared up?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, yes, this is true. It is difficult for somebody who has to deal with large quantities of such drugs to refuse an offer like this. It has been the subject of comment in the Report, and indeed it is correct.
My Lords, if the House approves the No. 3 Order, it will not lapse, as did the previous Orders; but, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs indicated in another place yesterday, if Roche were to come forward with any new evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances since the Commission reported which might justify some future modification of the Order prices, then my right honourable and learned friend would naturally be glad to consider it. And clearly the prices that the Orders set may not be appropriate for all time.
The Government do not believe that the current court proceedings need in any way prevent Parliament from approving this Order. Roche have exercised their right to challenge the Order in the courts, but in the meantime the Government believe that it is right that the status quo should be maintained and for the prices set by the Order to continue in force. I therefore invite the House to approve the Affirmative Resolution before it.
Moved, That the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) (No. 3) Order 1973 be approved.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
5.34 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Earl presenting the Order, and I was particularly attracted to the points that he rather diligently raised which emphasised that the Government are now in possession of information which the Monopolies

431
Commission did not possess, but which did not prevent them from making recommendations. I wanted to emphasise the fact to the House that a statement has now been made in both Houses that there is the possibility of the Government changing their attitude in the light of the information that they now possess. I make no further comment on that at this particular moment.
I regret the fact that immediately following the discussion on contraceptives, and just prior to the noble Earl opposite rising to his feet, there was a general exodus. I should be the last person to suggest that there is no importance in the matter of contraceptives, but I would emphasise that during the course of this debate I am quite certain a number of facts will be highlighted concerning the subject of research in drugs, which is just as important as the provision of contraceptives, no matter how important that might be.
I believe that this Order being presented to-day is a further step in an unfortunate series of decisions that reflect very little credit on those responsible, and in my opinion expose this House to the criticism that it has failed to ensure that justice is seen to be done. The Order states,
"that the prices charged in the case of goods of the classes to which the report relates … are or have been such as to operate against the public interest."
That is the statement in the Order based upon the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission. Whether the cost of Valium or Librium is 31p per 100 or 80p per 100 or 40p per 100 is certainly of great importance to the purchaser. That I do not deny. But at the same time I would emphasise that the true and complete public interest is not confined to that aspect alone. There is something else just as important. The most important aspect of this problem is the one that was considered in detail by the Special Orders Committee, of which I was proud to be a member. We were concerned with the true relationship between the price charged and the justifiable expenditure upon research into ethical drugs. And yet, although it is acknowledged that that is of special public interest, there is not the slightest reference to that aspect of public interest
432
in this Order. It is not mentioned at all, the whole emphasis being that public interest is centred upon one thing only; that is, whether you pay 31p or 20p, or whatever it may be.
I would also indicate to the House that although there is no reference to the research, the dominant factor and the kernel of the problem, you do not need the Monopolies Commission to decide that the selling price of drugs—almost any drug—far exceeds its prime cost of materials. You do not need the expertise of the Monopolies Commission to prove that; we know that before they start. But we do want to know what is the composition of the price. I point out that the Commission themselves did not give obvious emphasis to this point. Indeed, paragraph 9 of the questionnaire which they sent to Roche—which I have here, a very formidable document indeed—consists of three lines. This is the three-line question:
"Please give a brief account of the research and development work carried out by the group and the company in general, and in particular such work connected with the reference products."
The fact that "brief" is stated gives a clear indication that the Commission themselves did not consider that the aspect of research looms very large. They spent far more time on the question of promotion costs; and yet the promotion costs could have only a marginal effect on the price of the drugs. Indeed, if you halved the promotion costs of Roche in connection with these drugs, it could only at the most have an effect of 4 per cent. on the price.
Furthermore—and I think it essential to recognise this—the Commission recommended that the reduction in the prices of these two drugs should be as a percentage of the selling prices in 1970: I believe in the case of Librium not more than 40 per cent., and in the case of Valium not more than 25 per cent. of the selling price in 1970. They went on to say they had no reason to think that the cost increases since 1970 as against 1973 should significantly affect the general picture. I should like the House to bear that in mind: they had no reason to think that any change in costs would significantly affect the picture—in spite of the fact that Roche, and many others, have indicated that research costs have gone up by far more

433
than 10 per cent. That statement indicates the complete fallacy behind the investigation conducted by the Monopolies Commission, the fallacy being that their whole concentration was upon the cost of the basic materials that went into the product itself. It was perfectly obvious that if there was an increase of 50 per cent. in the cost of the basic materials from 1970 to 1973 it would not materially affect the price. I think that that in itself gives a clear indication of the illogicality that lies behind the investigation of the Monopolies Commission.
The Commission complained—and I say that they complained with justification—that Roche were unwilling to supply all the facts. We have heard a great deal about that, and the noble Earl laid great emphasis upon it in his comments. I think that the full circumstances of that should he known; and I hold no brief for Roche. I knew nothing at all about the company until I was called upon to conduct this particular activity on the Special Orders Committee. I would say that one has to take into account that Roche offered that information in confidence. The Commission refused to accept it on the terms of confidentiality, and proceeded to make a judgment without that information.
I know, as we all do, that Swiss law regarding the law of disclosure is different from ours, and I agree that that in itself could not be sufficient to justify the action of Roche. However, I contend that the Commission could have accepted that information in confidence and proceeded to make a judgment upon fuller information, and they need not have published it. Then, if Roche contested the decision of the Monopolies Commission, they themselves would have been free to publish such information. Indeed, I would remind the noble Earl that the Prices and Incomes Board had cause to make inquiries that were just as sensitive, and indeed probably far more sensitive—and I quote one—in the price of detergents, when two monster companies were involved, and we had to give, and did give, a complete assurance of confidentiality. Indeed, in every single case when information was supplied by a company, an assurance was given that there would be no publication of such information if it was considered detrimental to
434
the interests of the company that supplied it. Therefore, I do not accept the argument of the Commission. They should have ensured that they got the full facts, and should not have come up later with a judgment based upon their "guestimates".
The appeal, as the noble Earl stated, was considered by the Special Orders Committee, and we met for five days, dealing with a mountain of evidence. We recommended one aspect that we considered deserved further consideration in the public interest, and that was the significance of research costs in the fixing of prices. The House rejected our recommendation, and I believe that it was the first time—certainly within living memory—that that was done. I speak for myself, but I believe that the circumstances of the debate were most unsatisfactory: the real point at issue was ignored. True, there were chunks read from the Monopolies Commission Report, but the attack was based solely on the belief that Roche prices were too high. True, they may be too high; I am not suggesting they are not. I say merely that this particular aspect of considering the involvement of research costs was not dealt with. The question of whether Roche could maintain their prices was not before the House on that occasion. Roche had indicated publicly that, pending the decision of such a Select Committee, the difference between the current and the possibly reduced prices could be held in reserve and returned if the decision went against them. I merely mention that to indicate that at that discussion, when the recommendation was rejected, there was no suggestion of any possible loss to the community. The sole issue was a demonstration of fairness, and at no cost to the community except the time of the Select Committee.
I must also—and I hate to do so—in the two or three moments left at my disposal, make a complaint concerning the arrangements regarding the debate. I must do so because a colleague member of that Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, made his protest and was admonished by my noble Leader, Lord Shackleton. Well, I reinforce that complaint, and indeed I do it even more strongly. The discussion of the Order was put down for a Friday. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, and I protested at

435
the time that it was on a non-controversial day, and also that it was on a day when we indicated we could not be present. I was at a conference, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, was abroad. That was mentioned to my noble Leader, but no indication at alt was given of the possibility of an Amendment being put down. It was put down on the Thursday evening prior to the Friday discussion; I was not informed, and neither was the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. He would have returned from abroad had he known, and I certainly would have returned from the conference. Therefore I consider that the criticism expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was justified.
As a result, a turnover of ten or eleven votes decided this issue and not, as the noble Earl's right honourable friend stated in another place yesterday, a big majority. It was not by a big majority; it was by the turnover of ten or eleven votes on a small total vote. Let us keep that in mind and hammer it home. In essence, that debate was on the basis of "The Commission knows best". My noble friend Lord Diamond quoted the Roche return on capital of 70 per cent., whereas he said that in his experience the return, on average, in industrial operations was 11, 12, or 13 per cent. If that criticism was the basis of consideration of drug pricing, I can only agree with his further statement that 12 accountants could not come to a unanimous decision on it, because one certainly could not apply that sort of reasoning and accountancy to the determination of these prices.
My final point in referring to that debate (I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place, so I will modify my comments) is in reference to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. He stated, referring to the Commission, that it was a "clumsy sort of blunderbuss, which hits out in an unexpected way". I agree with that, but I fail to follow his subsequent logic that such a blunderbuss weapon was needed to deal with a problem that demanded precision of inquiry. He endeavoured in that debate to steamroller my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who was left almost alone to defend our position. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, made comments
436
which, in my opinion, were both arrogant and inaccurate. The arrogance I can ignore, as we all do. The inaccuracy I challenge.
He compared the quality of experience of the Special Orders Committee with those of the Commission. Incidentally, the number of persons on the Commission who considered this proposition was seven; the same number as was on the Special Orders Committee. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and anyone else, that the quality of experience on the Special Orders Committee is certainly equal to that of the members of the Monopolies Commission. It includes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a lawyer of eminence, an ex-Attorney General, an ex-Home Secretary and capable of fair assessment; and the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, a Professor of Bacteriology for thirty years and an expert in medical research. There was not a single person among the seven who considered the matter from the standpoint of the Commission who was more expert in that field. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, expressing the same views as others, referred to the fact that none of us had industrial experience. I think I can claim that my own experience in industry and commerce is certainly equal to that of anyone on the Commission and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh; and I have had some little experience in industrial inquiry.
Comments were made about the time spent on our inquiry. We spent five full days. May I ask a question of the noble Earl opposite? Am I right in assuming that the amount of time that we spent—five full days—was more than the total amount spent by the seven on the Commission who were dealing with this problem over a long period of time? The final meeting, which was really the only full meeting where they met Roche, lasted for one day and one hour. It was more like an inquisition than an inquiry. I think that half-an-hour was devoted to the factor which was the whole guts of the problem: the question of expenditure on research. Therefore I repeat, in conclusion, that this whole matter is unsatisfactory.
The dispute is not about whether or not Roche should reduce its prices at this stage. The real problem before us is whether full consideration was given to

437
the question of financial research in ethical drugs, which is a matter of tremendous interest to the people of this country. We shall never have any new drugs prepared or presented by the Monopolies Commission, or even by the Government. I do not know that any drugs of this kind have ever been produced by any Government. This is the source from which they come and it is better to give encouragement in that regard, or, at least, to cause the Commission to give far more attention to this matter than ever they did; and we should not have a blind loyalty to them merely because they have expressed a view. We should lose no opportunity to demonstrate that our judgments are not influenced by careless prejudice but are based on careful consideration.
5.54 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, as a member of the Special Orders Committee responsible for considering the Roche Petition, but who was unable to be present in your Lordships' House when their decision was discussed, I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on their findings and their reversal by your Lordships. I believe that the Roche case will go down in history as a cause célèbre, whatever the final result may be, and perhaps, therefore, some record of the impressions of those who were personally involved at any stage may not be out of place. I feel that I am one of those because, as your Lordships know, I was one of the majority of four, and each of us may feel that ours was the casting vote.
I fully appreciate the privilege of being a member of that Committee, and never more than when it was called upon to consider the Roche Order. As your Lordships know, the hearings took place on five days, including the Tuesday and Wednesday following the Spring Bank Holiday Monday, which involved the cancelling of important engagements for some of us; but of course that had to be accepted. The hearings were of unusual interest to me, particularly the aspects concerned with research, as I had been engaged in medical research for nearly 40 years and, as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, for 25 years as Professor of Bacteriology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital. Latterly also, as chairman of
438
our building and research fund appeals, I have had occasion to visit pharmaceutical firms in this country and abroad to enlist their support, and have had the opportunity of going over their laboratories. In these capacities I should like to pay a tribute not only to the vast contribution which they themselves are making to research, but also to the support which they are giving to medical research in our universities, where help is so badly needed.
In medical advances, Roche have played an outstanding part, as was recognised in the leading article in the British Medical Journal, referred to in Roche's Petition which was circulated to your Lordships. To me, it is utterly deplorable that the present state of affairs has arisen and I do not feel that the fault is all on one side. The most difficult question of all that the Special Orders Committee had to decide within their terms of reference, as was made clear by their recommendation, was whether there was substantial cause for complaint over the Commission's finding that Roche's research costs were grossly excessive. It is a moot point whether it is possible for any committee or other body to lay down specific limits as to what should be regarded as permissible research costs. But accepting that it is possible, were the Commission in a position to do so; or, for that matter, was it justifiable to ask Roche to do so?
Was Roche given sufficient time to marshal all the facts regarding research costs? Should they have anticipated that this would be a major cause of criticism and come fully prepared, bearing in mind the vast amount of information that would be required and the days of expert analysis which would be involved for the Commission? The extent of the investigation, if the research activities of Roche were to be considered fully, was made clear by the summary, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has referred, of which I have a copy here, running to seven-and a-half pages, which was drawn up in answer to Question 9 of the Commission's questionnaire. Familiarity with, and amplification of, this were essential before one could even attempt to reach a verdict. How far, for example, should Roche engage in fundamental research

439
in such fields as immunology and molecular biology on which, according to the Summary, they are spending some 10 per cent. of their recurrent research budget, apart from substantial initial capital costs?
The importance of the contribution that some pharmaceutical firms are making in these fields cannot be over-stressed, in view of recent trends in Government allocations for research, as was brought out in the debate in your Lordships' House on Government research and development in February of last year. It is so much easier to make charges of excessive expenditure on research than to lay down what the limit should be if all the factors are to be taken into consideration. Were the criteria on which the Commission based their findings, referred to in paragraphs 19 to 28 of the Roche Petition, adequate? A thorny question is: how far should present consumers of ethical products be expected to subsidise research for the benefit of future consumers?
Time will not permit me to touch on the many other questions raised in relation to research costs. I, for one, felt that I simply could not lay my hand on my heart and say that Roche had no substantial ground for complaint on this score, particularly if there was to be no further investigation. Throughout the hearing, one had to be on one's guard against being influenced by pre-conceived ideas that there had been gross profiteering on the Health Service, or being swayed by the indications of the lack of co-operation by Roche or by the attitude of their counsel in his extreme strictures against the Commission and the D.T.I.—sometimes I felt that Roche were being their own worst enemy. Nor should one have allowed oneself to be influenced by the thought that the courts, rather than a Select Committee, should be the place where the matter should be considered further. The procedure that should be followed was laid down quite clearly, whatever one thought of it. I very much hoped that a Select Committee if appointed, whatever else it decided, would recommend that all the far-reaching issues raised by the Order against Roche should be considered by a Royal Commission.
My Lords, throughout the hearing it was clear that Roche were obsessed by
440
the feeling that they were being victimised by being selected for special treatment and that they were getting a raw deal, and even that the proceedings were being rigged. It was therefore of the utmost importance that when the Special Orders Committee's finding was debated in your Lordships' House it should be when there was a fully representative attendance and after adequate time had been given to consider the findings, so that there could be no possible cause for complaint as to how your Lordships dealt with the matter. It was a pity therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has said, that for this occasion when the House would be sitting in a semi-judicial capacity and with the eyes of the world on it a Friday was chosen— a day on which the House does not usually sit and then normally only for non-controversial issues, and there was bound to be a very depleted attendance. It was also a great pity that on this particular Friday two of the members responsible for the majority decision had intimated that they would not be able to be present, as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has said.
It was represented that this was the only possible day, owing to pressure of Government business, and that further delay was not possible. At the time this did not seem so important, as it seemed most unlikely that the House would take the unprecedented step of reversing a finding made by its own Special Orders Committee—one not involving a final decision, but rather only a request for a further limited investigation—though, of course, it was perfectly entitled to do so. It was an even greater pity—as again the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has intimated—that notice of the proposed Amendment was given only a few hours before the House sat. I wonder how many of your Lordships would have made a point of attending had they been given adequate notice of what might happen. As for myself, as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has said, I should have flown back from abroad, just as to-day I have had to give up my only tickets for Wimbledon. But that is a minor tragedy compared with your Lordships' decision.
Had the decision of the Special Orders Committee been accepted, it would have provided a breathing space, and the matter could have been threshed out by

441
the Select Committee with the aid of experts, as provided for by paragraph 3 of the recommendation. But your Lordships decided otherwise, and the verdict, it would now appear, must rest with the courts. In these circumstances it would seem that the approval of the whole Order to-day can only be a formality—unless your Lordships clearly indicate otherwise. But as things stand I cannot feel that justice has been done or has been seen to be done, and personally I would be prepared to demonstrate this in the Division Lobby, if other noble Lords took the same view.
6.8 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, I cannot claim that I have no connection either with Roche Products Limited or with its parent company Hoffmann La Roche and Company of Basle. I have been for many years a research adviser to Roche Products and indeed was privileged only a week ago to open their new research block in Welwyn Garden City. Moreover, almost exactly 39 years ago, at a time when British industry had nothing to offer me, Hoffmann La Roche and Company. Basle, gave me what was probably decisive help in my career by offering to provide me with the raw material and the testing facilities necessary for my work on vitamin B1. So I have an interest; but come to that, my Lords, in this complex discussion I suppose I have other interests. As Chairman of the Governors of the United Cambridge Hospitals I suppose I am a kind of employee of the Department of Health and Social Security; as a member of the National Research Development Corporation I am similarly somewhat beholden to the Department of Trade and Industry. So far as I am aware, I have no interest in the Monopolies Commission.
Having revealed this wide range of interests, I should like to say that I am not speaking to-day because of these but rather as a person whose scientific life has been deeply concerned with research in the biomedical field and who has had intimate contact with the research side of the pharmaceutical industry, both in this country and abroad, for close on forty years. It was my hope that this dispute between Roche and the Monopolies Commission over the prices to be charged for Librium and Valium would have been
442
referred to a Select Committee where the matter could have been examined in a slightly less emotional atmosphere and in the light of all the relevant facts. On June 22 your Lordships decided—as you were perfectly entitled to do—to reject this proposal made by the Special Orders Committee. Whether it was desirable or not to do that on a Friday I do not propose to discuss—I was not myself present and other noble Lords have dealt with this question pretty fully.
I claim no financial or commercial expertise, and I would not wish to argue about precise price levels. I consider, too, that in certain respects Roche adopted a somewhat intransigent attitude to the Commission and their findings, and I have told the Company so; but that is no excuse for the adoption of a similar attitude by the other side, which has led to what I consider to be a rather childish confrontation, especially as some of the issues involved are of very great public importance—and if II may say here and now to the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, I am not one of those who suggest that there is any vendetta involved in this at all.
We are all aware of the tremendous improvement in the health and longevity of our people during this century. Until, I suppose, about 1950, this was due mainly to improvements in public health, sanitation and nutrition; but since then the improvements have gone on at an even greater rate and have been brought about almost wholly by advances in therapy, and particularly by the control of communicable disease through drugs. As life expectancy has increased and the population has grown, a new urgency too has developed about the control of degenerative diseases—arthritis, cancer, cardiovascular and certain forms of mental disease. Control of these diseases will come only through better understanding of the basic biology and through new drugs, and these new drugs in turn will come from the inter-disciplinary research which is characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry and will be done in the pharmaceutical industry. It is no use thinking that you can rely on universities or Government research establishments. The main source of progress in this field lies, and in my view will continue to lie, with the pharmaceutical industry. Hence any matter which may

443
affect the pharmaceutical industry's ability and will to do research is of prime public importance.
My Lords, as medicine advances and patterns of morbidity change the conditions that call for treatment become more complex, demands for specificity are greater and there is a corresponding rise in the sophistication of research, and hence of its cost, especially at the advancing front—and this is an area where, incidentally, the Roche companies have always been active. Moreover, Governments, especially since the thalidomide disaster, have very properly laid much stress on safety in use before any new drug can be introduced. As a result, the translation of a new discovery into a marketable drug through research and development is now so costly in time and money, and so risky, that few but the very largest firms can even contemplate it. These are probably the main reasons for the falling off that has been observed in major innovations in the drug industry in the last ten years, and the trend may well continue.
I do not think that many people would question the need to pay for current research, and indeed to fund future research development, out of the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The level of profit necessary to do this adequately is difficult to define precisely since the expenditure necessary to achieve success in any one field is to a degree unpredictable, and the rate and scale of expenditure can and does vary considerably according to the type of project which is being undertaken. It is therefore very hard to see how one can assess the legitimate rate of expenditure as a percentage of sales of only one or two products. It seems to me that such assessment can be made only on the basis of the whole of a firm's sales in its pharmaceutical business and in the light of its areas of interest and the costs involved. Equally, one simply cannot compare any percentage arrived at for one firm with that for another without at the same time taking into account the kind of research which is done by each of these firms.
There has been talk of excessive research and, presumably to support this, reference to an alleged diminishing return with increasing size of research effort. How one can define what research is
444
excessive on a cost basis without knowing what it is, I cannot imagine; and diminishing returns in research, which is a subject about which I claim to know a little, are in my experience usually due to bad organisation and poor direction. My Lords, it is because the Report of the Monopolies Commission left me and many other scientists whom I know distinctly unsatisfied on many of these issues —indeed, some were barely mentioned and others did not receive the expert discussion that was expected—that I had hoped they could have been gone into more fully in a Select Committee, where I feel certain some agreement could have been reached between the parties concerned.
We have been told by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, that there have been many earlier discussions; but, of course, these do not come through if you read the Report of the Monopolies Commission and in fact we do not know what they were. Now, I understand, the matter is going to the High Court—not, I imagine, the best place in which to deal with problems of research—and we are asked to prolong the Order about the prices recommended for Librium and Valium. I cannot help wondering whether, even at this late date, both parties in this dispute could not be more flexible. Perhaps there are more than two parties: there is the D.T.I. and the Department of Health and Social Security, as well as Roche, and possibly even the Monopolies Commission. I wonder if these various sides could not adopt a more flexible stance and have the matter settled by some serious discussion in the light of all the relevant information, and with people with the necessary expertise in other than the financial field present.
If that were done, not only should I, for one, be ready to accept the findings but I would hope that amendment of the patent law according to the Banks Committee's recommendations might take place, and that thereafter, or with it, one might see the entry by Roche into some generally accepted arrangement, like the voluntary price regulation scheme, to prevent this kind of unfortunate dispute arising in the future. I am convinced that this would be to the advantage, not just of the pharmaceutical industry but of biomedical research,

445
and especially the health and welfare of our people. For, in the last analysis, it is the health and welfare of our people with which we are concerned, my Lords, and to cut back, or to force a cut-back, on research which promotes it in order to save comparatively small sums in the national budget would seem to me to be disastrous. So let us be sure of our ground in these matters; and at this moment I, for one, am not sure of the ground on which we are taking action.
When I came here to-day I was going to ask for an assurance from the Government, if I could get it, that they would consider going into this matter in an informal manner, by means of a Committee on which I would hope they would invite some members to serve other than officials within Government Departments. I think I have had something of that assurance, because I notice that in another place yesterday, when it was mentioned that some information of a financial type from Roche had now been given, it was said that this was being considered; and if I understood the noble Earl aright, he was saying to-day that the Government Departments concerned were ready to take part in discussion, and that they did not consider the figures in this Order as final. If I could have that assurance I should feel greatly relieved—much more relieved than I was when I came here this afternoon.
6.18 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have listened with interest particularly to the last two speakers, because I know of the distinguished contribution they have made in their particular spheres. Like them, I have to declare a little interest in the drug industry as I am a director of one drug firm. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, nobody is suggesting cutting back research. That suggestion has not been made at all.
LORD TODD: My Lords, might I intervene? I did not say that. I said that anything which might lead to this would be disastrous and that is why I was anxious that the whole matter should be looked into.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, if I have misinterpreted I withdraw the first expression, and certainly I accept
446
the second. That is completely different from what I understood when I heard the noble Lord speaking. But I have also heard the three noble Lords who have spoken and, with their experience, defended—I use the word "defended" advisedly—the Roche approach; but even these three speakers have had to admit that the firm itself is partly to blame. Those of us who were in the other place know that this story does not go back a few weeks; it goes back over ten years. If any noble Lord would like to look up the report of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee as far back as the 1960's, he will see that this Parliament, through its Public Accounts Committee, was asking this firm to give certain particulars of their research and their development. Nobody would denigrate the magnificent progress made in the drug industry in this last generation. The whole world has to be thankful for it; but unfortunately, because of the rapidity of research and the lack of complete clinical trials there are some things such as thalidomide that must sadden us. I would add that had the Roche firm made to the Japanese Government or the United States Government the kind of Draconian approach they made to the British Government, when they rushed into print with a full page advertisement which was misleading, they would not have had the kind of careful attention and courteous approach made by the British Government, whichever Party were in power. The Monopolies Commission have a duty to the public. There is one outstanding fact we all know. Basically, they were buying this drug—never mind its trade name; as the two noble Lords who have spoken will know, it could be called anything at about £9–26 a kilogramme. But by the influence and workings of the multinational companies—I do not imply that they meant to cheat—and by the process of the selling of these goods through the multi-national companies the end price was about £400 odd a kilogramme. When the firm selling those drugs has a 70–77 per cent. (and in some cases 90 per cent.) monopoly, how could a Government of any calibre ignore that fact. They needed to look into it.
As far as the voluntary price regulations mentioned by Lord Todd are concerned, he will know as well as I that

447
Roche were unwilling to "play the same kind of ball" as the other drug firms. When one says that Roche and others are doing a lot for the universities—so, too, do the other drug firms; so, too, does ours. We subsidise Ph.Ds. in immunology, we send students to universities, they get a degree and they work on the drugs in our laboratories or in those of some other firms. They work in the laboratory and they produce a thesis of the calibre and standard on which men like the noble Lords, Lord Stamp and Lord Todd, in their heyday would be prepared to give a Ph.D. No matter what firm they are working for, that degree is granted on the words of their professors, on the standard of work that they do. We must not just say that only Roche does this. Hospitals and laboratories and chemists like Boots and Roche and others do the same. There is no "fiddling". It is a justifiable award.
My first reaction was to be tempestuous about this. I regret that Roche made this approach and used an esoteric system of coming to this House. Every lawyer here knows as I do (and I am not a lawyer) that they could in the first instance have gone to the High Court if they so desired. But all this "cowboy stuff" in between; all this business of a multi-national company talking to a Government, is no substitution for giving the facts. I was delighted to read last week (or was it this week?) a hint in the Financial Times that, bit by bit, the information is coming forward. I think therefore we might get the kind of formula mentioned by the three noble Lords who have spoken; we might get some inside approach on this without a mass of publicity.
Let me qualify something. When a noble Lord said they gave free drugs to the Army and to the hospitals, let me say that if they had not done so, any firm, under Section 46 of the Patents Act could have gone to Italy and could have obtained the basic material at from £9 to £20 a kilogramme and pushed forward the idea with the Government's permission, if they so felt—for they could not have done it otherwise—and they could have got into the market. Let us have no sentiment about this. It paid
448
the Roche industry to give these drugs to the Army and to sections of the hospitals.
In conclusion I would say that the Monopolies Commission did not act outside their remit. They carried out their proper function. This sad cause célèbre need not have reached the heights or attained the heat that it has if the matter had been taken a little more coolly by the Swiss firm. I hope there is no Division to-night, but if there is, not having the academic experience of the celebrated noble Lords who have just spoken—and we all know what grand work they have done—shall go into the Lobby supporting the Government nevertheless hoping that a formula might be found to cool down the atmosphere at this present moment; because a good drugs industry is needed for the future of mankind.
6.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before my noble friend replies may I make a personal observation? I was very much surprised to-day to have it drawn to my attention that the managing director of one of these companies complained that I had voted in the Division last Friday and chose to cast doubt upon the sincerity of my noble friend when he declared the Government's neutrality in this matter. I feel I owe it to the House and to him to say what I think about that suggestion.
This was an absolutely free Vote of the House. I received no kind of pressure from my noble friends to vote in any particular direction. I should have liked very much to have participated in that debate. I did not do so precisely because the Government had declared their neutrality. I listened to the debate from beginning to end. I think I scarcely missed a single speech. Rightly or wrongly, a Member of the Government is as much a Member of this House as anybody else and. as a Member of this House, is entitled to vote and is bound to vote according to his conscience on a free Vote. I ascertained from my noble friends that I was free. Having heard the entire debate I voted according to my conscience. I do not want to go into the reasons why I cast my vote in a particular direction because it would not be appropriate to what I have to say this afternoon. I may have been right

449
or wrong. The reasons were broadly those contained in the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher.
I must say this to this House, and through this House to the gentleman who wrote that letter, that it does indicate to me a certain arrogance of approach to Parliament when he ventures to cast doubt upon the sincerity of a Government by attacking the right of the Lord Chancellor to cast his vote on a free Vote in Parliament.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, at this late hour, and in view of the speeches that we have heard, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, because he is such an expert in this field, I think I should be as brief as possible. I have no interest whatever to declare except a general interest in the pharmaceutical industry and the enormous work it has done for medical progress in my lifetime —and I have spoken in public and written on that subject. I listened to all the speeches when the Report of the Special Orders Committee was being discussed in this House. I voted against the Government, not because I thought that Roche had come out of the issue with flying colours but because in my mind I was still not satisfied that the issues of expensive research had been properly considered. These pharmaceutical companies spend millions on research, as we all know—millions which universities simply cannot afford to spend —and we are almost entirely dependent on the pharmaceutical companies for this kind of research.
As the noble Lord, Lord Todd, said, they also run extraordinary risks. I would point out to your Lordships that the risk in producing drugs of the tranquilliser type are especially great, because at present at any rate these drugs are not specific—although they may be in future—in the sense that for instance streptomycin produced by a drug firm was specific against the tubercule bacillus; therefore it was very unlikely that some other drug firm would immediately produce a better streptomycin. It is extremely likely that within the next year or two—I do not know how long—Valium and Librium will be almost entirely outdated, having been superseded by some new drug which some other drug company has spent millions on produc-
450
ing. And the drug produced by that other drug company may last for only a short time, because a third company may have been working for the last five years on producing yet another drug. We certainly have not seen the ideal drug for the purposes for which Valium and Librium are used at present. I therefore felt that it was a great pity that your Lordships voted against the majority decision of the Special Orders Committee, and I voted on the other side.
Lastly, a thought occurs to me which your Lordships may consider irrelevant. It is that it seems unfortunate that the dispute is over a firm which, after all, is doing very good work, as we all acknowledge, a firm which is producing a product of great value, in fact many products of great value, when there are so many other ugly and unacceptable forms of capitalism which should call for much greater criticism.
6.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, having taken part in the debate on Friday, June 22, I feel that there are one or two points raised in the course of this debate which are worth drawing to the attention of your Lordships. The first is the absence of a Hansard Report. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, pointed to the emptiness of the House, but I feel certain that had there been a Hansard Report a great many Members of your Lordships' House would have been aware of what went on on Friday, June 22. But without it they were not able to grasp what had happened. I think, also, that this debate would not have gone quite so wide as it has, and covered ground which in fact was covered to a considerable extent on that Friday, had there been a Hansard Report. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, who complained about the debate being on a Friday. I do not mind confessing to your Lordships that to be here on that Friday caused me very great personal inconvenience. Although I am no longer engaged in the pharmaceutical industry, I felt that I ought to be able to place such experience as I gained when I was connected with it at the disposal of your Lordships, and that is why I venture to speak again to-day.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, pointed to noble Lords on this

451
side of the House—or was he referring to the Minister? I say it like that particularly after what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said. I spoke in favour of Lord Shackleton's Amendment on that Friday and four noble Lords sitting on the same Bench voted the other way. If ever there was, from one Bench, an indication of a non-Party bias, that was it.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I offer a correction? I certainly did not endeavour to suggest that there was Party bias at all.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I must have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, but I thought I would mention that matter. Another point which was made in the debate on that Friday and which is apposite to-day concerns something said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, who spoke of the necessity to reform patent law. One point brought out in the debate on Friday was that Section 41 of the Patents and Designs Act has been recommended for repeal by the Banks Committee, and that within a couple of years. Further, with the approach of closer contacts with the E.E.C. and the patent law of the Continent, there will be a revision of patent law in this respect; and to have gone to all the trouble and expense of reopening the whole of this complex matter, so well described by the noble Lords, Lord Todd and Lord Platt, in a Select Committee of this House would have been so much water over the weir.
The debate has gone rather wide and I feel that perhaps it was unavoidable, in view of the discomfort to which some noble Lords have been put. Now we have to face the question whether or not to approve this Order. I have referred to the debate on Friday, June 22, but there has also been a reference to the absence of any notice of Lord Shackleton's Amendment. Those who were present at the debate will, I think. agree with Lord Shackleton's explanation of how and why it came about that he, with all his many years' experience as a Leader of your Lordships' House and a Leader of the Opposition, should put his thoughts on the matter. He felt that something must be done, and did it. He put down an Amendment which, as I see it—to
452
use a chemical term—distilled the essence of the matter which we were having to consider on Friday, June 22. I feel that your Lordships' House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and to the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, for having done that in order to simplify our task on that day.
My Lords, I do not propose to go into the rights and wrongs which have been gone over again and again about this tussle which is going on. But we must accept that these are wonder drugs. They were discovered and are being manufactured by a company of incomparable reputation and skill. I need not say more in tribute to them than what has already been said by the noble Lords, Lord Platt and Lord Todd. When debating figures and percentages, one must always remember that the end product is the relief of human suffering.
I would also mention a point that was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and which I should like to amplify. In the pharmaceutical business, when you are researching, your "winners" have to pay for the "losers". That is something the cost of which it is impossible to estimate. A point which requires development—it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp—is that you may develop a first-class drug and put it on the market, only to find that the next day it is superseded by another drug; and the cost of that operation cannot be estimated. It is not only a right but also a necessity that pharmaceutical companies should have ample resources for research. That has been recognised by authorities; by Lord Sainsbury's Committee and by the Banks Committee. The fact is that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has arrived at a perfectly fair arrangement whereby, as chief customer of the trade, he safeguards the profitability of the trade and at the same time ensures that the Department of Health is not overcharged. To this end, he must have some figures from the manufacturers and these have been provided. It is good news for us that this has happened. In this case, although the company has provided these figures rather late, it will give the authorities time to think the matter out all over again.
In my view the Minister has acted with commendable fairness, firmness and

453
restraint over a period of years. Speaking for myself, I hope that at the end of the day some middle course as to prices will be found, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Todd. After all, the reductions demanded in the Monopoly Commission's Report are absolutely swingeing. They are not based on known figures as regards to turnover and research, as we now know, although that of course is Roche's own fault. As for the new dénouement, I feel one could reinforce what has been said not only by my noble friend Lord Limerick, but by other noble Lords, by quoting what the Minister said in the other place last night.
"… if Roche was to come forward with any new evidence of another important change in the relevant circumstances since the commission reported, which might justify some modification of the order prices, my right honourable and learned friend would naturally be glad to consider it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons: 4/7/73, col. 648.]
Those words, I feel, are very welcome. At the same time, why should this company, because it is multi-national, no matter how small a percentage of their world sales are made in this country, stand at an advantage as compared with British companies? They must all be on the same footing. Neither the British companies nor Hoffmann La Roche need be ashamed of the amounts that they spend upon research. But it is not necessary that the figures of any of them should be publicised. To do that would be to give information to competitors. I should like to know whether there is going to be adequate secrecy in respect of figures which various companies give to the authorities.
The third point I want to make is as to the decision which now lies before the House. In my view, the only wise course open to Parliament at this juncture is to approve this Order. This may well lead to a compromise, but only in this way can we get on with the job of ensuring that these wonder drugs are widely available, and at the same time encourage research, including Roche's research programme, which I think I am right in saying in some respects concerns my native Scotland.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers and I do not intend to make a speech, but I think I ought to let your Lordships
454
know that before the war I was Chairman of Roche Products and I saw something of the magnificent research they carried out. The whole B.1 business, as the noble Lord Todd said, is owed entirely to Hoffmann La Roche and the vast expenditure they made on it. The whole vitamin complex really belongs to them. Since the war they have proceeded with what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, described as "these wonder drugs", and have had tremendous success, particularly with Librium and Valium, which are extensively used and have to a large extent taken the place of barbiturates, which are so dangerous and bad for health. I cannot help feeling that this House made a mistake in the vote they gave on that fatal Friday, and I think it is a sad thing that it should have come to this pass at the present time between Roche and Her Majesty's Government. I therefore think it is a pity that this Order should be rushed through in the way it is now being rushed through. I should rather have had a Select Committee consider the matter. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that some middle course may yet be found. I would only say that if it were to come to a Division (which I suppose it had better not), I should feel bound to go into the Lobby against the rushing through of this Order, because I think this Order may make it more difficult to reach the kind of solution that is desirable in the public interest.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to bring to the notice of the House one point which has hardly been mentioned this afternoon, and that is that we are dealing here with a monopoly. This is the origin of the whole thing. It is a monopoly which has its products protected by patents, which prevent competition. Its products are sold under trade names, which I have no doubt also are protected and which will be of value when the patents expire. In these circumstances, a company is able to charge for its monopoly product whatever price it pleases, and the policy of intelligent companies, naturally, is to charge the price, which will give them the greatest profit. But that is not necessarily a fair price to the public. It has nothing to do with the question of research, because under these conditions the

455
amount which is devoted to research is entirely arbitrary. It depends upon the decision of the company itself. It can devote the whole of its excess profits to research, if it pleases, or it can devote a portion of them to that purpose and invest the rest in something else. There is nothing to determine what amount of those profits it is necessary to devote to research. This is not a case of a competitive business, in which the amount devoted to research is limited automatically by the competition of the market, and you cannot charge more than is reasonable. It is, as I say, entirely arbitrary. The Monopolies Commission have gone into it, as a body equipped for that purpose, and come to a conclusion which is embodied in the Order before us. I think that the Order should be passed.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I have never known a subject give rise to so much unpleasantness. What is an issue that is normally debated in a civilised way has given rise to a series of accusations and imputations that I have never seen equalled in these circumstances. Since I thought there might be some criticism—though no notice was given to me that there would be criticism of me—I thought I had better be here in order to explain once again (and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for what he said) why I put the Amendment down and why we came to the conclusion we did. I do not know whether to ignore the letter from Mr. Marks that appeared in The Times, but I have never seen a letter of such an offensive nature criticising Members of your Lordships' House. I do not know of a similar example in the past. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, as noble Lords will know, has on occasion exchanged hard words with me, but I deeply resent the implication that there was any sort of plot—there is a reference to a Party political manoeuvre—that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, somehow or other, was secretly, by connivance or, indeed, encouragement of the Government, put in to vote to make sure that the squalid Party manoeuvre invented by the Labour Party succeeded. I have never heard such utter bilge and offensive untruth in all my life. It is an unfortunate thing.
456
I know the two noble Lords who spoke from the Cross-Benches are not party to this, and they have spoken reasonably, but it is unfortunate that Roche have contrived to behave with such outstanding bad manners in the whole matter. When we came to discuss this subject and I put down an Amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Diamond, we made no criticism of Roche. We were concerned simply with the recommendation of the Special Orders Committee as to whether it was right to send this particular Order to a Select Committee. It is perfectly true that my noble friend Lord Peddie—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, was with him at the time—mentioned to me on the Thursday (that is to say, the day after the Order was published) what a pity it was that the discussion could not take place on that Friday when they could both be there. There was not much notice on that occasion. And they were annoyed that it was postponed to another Friday.
I listened to this complaint seriously—I am sorry that my noble friend has not mentioned it during the debate—and in fact went to the Government and suggested that the discussion be postponed until a later date when all the people could be there. The Government Chief Whip, who has a lot of problems at this time of the year, said he did not see how he could postpone it. I do not know whether he could or could not, but Government Chief Whips of all Parties are apt to find it impossible ever to alter Business. Because my noble friend had made a number of criticisms, and in particular had suggested that it had all been fixed up so that my noble friend Lord Fletcher could speak, I thought I had better go into the matter.
At that point I was scarcely aware of the issue and I thought I must, like other noble Lords, study the papers. I did so, and on either Tuesday or Wednesday informed the Chairman of Committees that I thought almost certainly there was going to be opposition to the recommendation and that I personally, for reasons which I gave in the debate, would oppose the Special Order going to a Select Committee and would recommend to the House—not in a Party sense but as somebody who has a deep regard for the way in which the House

457
conducts its Business, and I do not think many noble Lords would say that I am not concerned for the proprieties of your Lordships' House—that I thought it was inappropriate that this Order should in fact go to a Select Committee.
At that point, I was advised that if the House simply rejected the Order the whole weary business would start again and that technically the best way to deal with it was to put in an Amendment to remove that part of the Special Order Committee's Report which would have sent the Order to a Select Committee. This was a purely technical matter. It was already obvious by Tuesday or Wednesday—and if noble Lords were concerned enough they could have found this out, because it is not my responsibility on such a matter to go round informing people, and in any case I did not put in the Amendment until Thursday. I informed the House authorities, I informed the Government and I also informed the Chairman of Committees. Really, we cannot go round telling people what they ought to do and when they ought to be here.
I regret that my noble friend in some measure supported what I find the slightly offensive remarks (but I make no criticism of him because he is not here) of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Incidentally, I think it is a pity that my noble friend made the remarks he did about the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. I do not know whether he gave him notice; he said he moderated his remarks because the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was not here, but I did not find them all that moderate. Nevertheless, the House accepted that we could constitutionally and properly take the decision.
The Special Orders Committee reached their decision by a very small vote—four to three. I discussed this point with members of the Committee, and clearly some of them were in difficulty in coming to a decision. I would not say that they were wrong in coming to their decision. They came to it properly, within their Standing Orders—and, incidentally, Standing Order No. 216 is a little ambiguous. Nevertheless, they claimed that there had not been sufficient inquiry and that a further inquiry was necessary. This House is not bound by that Standing Order—I am sorry to have to give
458
these constitutional arguments again—nor is it true that this House always accepts the recommendations of its Select Committees. It would be an intolerable constitutional principle if we were always to accept them. I must repeat it again, because I think that it ought to be on the Record, that we cannot, as a constitutional principle, accept that we are bound by these recommendations of our Select Committees.
For good and practical reasons, particularly on Private Bills, which I should be very sorry to see disappear, we normally do accept them and I think we are right to do so; but I have known several occasions where attempts have been made —for example, on the Brighton Marina Bill and others—to reject the findings and conclusions of a Committee. The same issue arose on another occasion. The only difference was that on this occasion the objections were successful. There have been other occasions, admittedly where evidence had not been heard, where Reports of Select Committees have been rejected; and the suggestion that somehow there was interference in what is a process of justice, an appeal and so on, and that it is a constitutional impropriety is absolute nonsense which is not supported. In this House we are our own judges of our own procedure. Parliament decides what its procedure should be, and not outsiders.
We came to this conclusion, admittedly by a rather larger majority than that of the Special Orders Committee—by about two to one. And let me say that the Government Front Bench notably took no part and abstained from voting. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—I suspect that if any pressure had been brought on him it was for him to abstain too—felt sufficiently strongly about his rights as a Member of this House to vote for an Amendment which had been moved by me and about which there had been no collaboration between us, except that the noble and learned Lord told one or two people that he was going to vote for my Amendment.
I hope very much that the discussion can now go on to a more decent plane. There have been enough accusations, not just against this House but against Ministers, too, of a pretty unpleasant kind, which I resent, no matter who the Minister

459
may be. I hope that the offer made by the noble Lord that again they are willing to have serious discussions—discussions which apparently it has not been possible to have before—will be accepted. At no time have I made a criticism of Roche before the Monopolies Commission, any more than my noble friend Lord Diamond did. We were careful to take the view that the subject which the Special Orders Committee thought could effectively be considered by a Select Committee was inappropriate. We now hear that it is likely to take two years in the High Court. I can only say, "The best of luck to them". But I think we have saved this House from involving itself. Had we been involved it could have been very embarrassing and might at the end, in our view anyway, not have yielded a satisfactory conclusion. There was no attack on research at any point. There has been a lack of clarity in the thinking on this subject, and I am glad to say that when we came to look at it a week ago clarity asserted itself and we decided that this was not a matter of a kind of appeal, a judicial process, which should go to the Select Committee. Therefore if there is a Division—and I hope there will not be —I will certainly support the Government.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I find this a somewhat difficult debate to wind up, not because I have the slightest doubt about the propriety of the Government's action in asking the House to accept this Order, but simply because it is a difficult subject. It can never be a simple matter to determine prices as between a supplier of 99 per cent. of certain products and a purchaser, in the form of the National Health Service, of some 90 per cent. of those products; hence the need for a negotiated solution; hence the mechanism of the voluntary price regulation system.
On several occasions the Government have expressed regret that Roche were not prepared to enter into meaningful negotiations to that end, hence the Monopolies Commission and the Government have repeatedly acknowledged the vital interest of adequate research. That should not be a point at issue. Equally, they have acknowledged the exceptional
460
value of these drugs. That again is not in any way a point at issue. If there was doubt about the difficulty of the subject it would be dispelled by hearing noble Lords, as we have done this afternoon, of immense experience and eminence express worries and doubts about the subjects. But the fact is that the voluntary solution could not be found, and this was net for lack of trying on behalf of the Government Department concerned. The circumstances are known to the House. Thus it was necessary to look at some other form of adjudication. If ever there was a case for using a monopolies procedure, surely it must be when one producer controls 99 per cent. of the market. On the issue before us—and I shall be as brief as I can, though naturally I wish to refer to comments raised in the debate—when we left the subject the House decided not to refer the matter to a Select Committee. For this reason, I hope that no noble Lord will seek to divide the House, because whatever effect that might have, it is quite clear it would not have the effect of getting a Select Committee of this House to take another look at this subject.
If I may now turn to specific points made in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, regretted that the only reference in the Order was to public interest and not specifically to research or other matters. But this is governed by the wording of the Monopolies and Mergers Act, and this wording is, of necessity, imported into the Order to explain—
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, the noble Earl has misunderstood my point. I recognise the reference to public interest, but in describing the public interest in the Order it makes reference to price as being the sole factor in public interest. I tried to point out that there were other aspects of public interest.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, it is well understood that there are other matters. The wording of the Order, I suggest, stems from the wording of the Act.
Next I will refer to the way in which these procedures have been conducted. The Motion debated on June 22 was not a Government Motion but a Motion of the Chairman of Committees. It had

461
been on the Order Paper since June 12 —that is, for 10 days. The Amendment was a matter for the Opposition, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has explained clearly his reason for bringing forward his Amendment. The issue then became a matter for the House which dealt with it in a manner which we all know.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, then raised a question of confidentiality of information supplied to the Monopolies Commission. Here it is not the case that the Commission always undertake in advance not to publish sensitive information, but they do not publish it unnecessarily. Nevertheless, they must be free to publish if it is necessary for an understanding of the Report; the Report has to be accepted from its reasoning in the body of it. In this case Roche refused to supply information unless their conditions were met. The noble Lord had some worry that the Order was concerned only with the price to the consumer. The prices suggested by the Commission make provision for research and development. This is a matter of degree not of kind; there is no argument that there should be such provision. In this case the figures fell out in the way made clear in the Report. The noble Lord was concerned about the quality of the Monopolies Commission, comparing it with the Special Orders Committee as if they were two football teams. Nobody is questioning the great experience of the Members of this House who took part in the proceedings of the Special Orders Committee.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I was not suggesting that the noble Lord opposite was doing so. I was making reference to a comment made from this side of the House at the time of the last debate on the subject of the composition of the Special Orders Committee.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, of course I accept that correction. But it would be right, as the subject has been raised, for me to make two points. The first is that the Monopolies Commission is the body appointed by Parliament to examine matters of this type, monopoly issues. Secondly, I should like to refer to the composition of the Commission who were looking at this particular issue:
462
Sir Ashton Roskill, Q.C., the chairman; Sir Roger Falk, a management consultant; Professor Hart, Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford; Mr. Richardson, a Fellow of St. Johns College, a specialist in economics; Mr. Williams, former Deputy Chairman of I.C.I., a specialist in research matters; and Professor Barna, Professor of Economics at Sussex University. It would be right to put on Record that this was a very experienced group, one which could be expected to come to a reasonable conclusion on such an issue. In addition, they had the full support of an expert staff on the Commission, and the investigation went on by correspondence and inquiry for 17 months. It was by no means a rush job. The public interest hearings, to which the noble Lord referred, were the final stage. He rightly pointed out that they took one day and one hour. But the Commission were ready to sit as long as Roche wanted on that issue.
The noble Lords, Lord Stamp and Lord Todd, raised fundamental matters of great importance, matters which I hope they will agree with me are such that we should wish to look at and study. I do not think they can be said to bear directly on the question of the acceptance of this Order this evening. I will refer to one or two of them, but I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not follow them very far in these extremely interesting and specialised matters.
The first point to which I refer, which was alluded to by both noble Lords, is the "R and D" expenditure. Of course the Monopolies Commission and the Government fully recognise the need for high levels of research and development spending in the pharmaceutical industry. Naturally, the conclusion is also accepted that this must be reflected to the right extent in current prices. The Monopolies Commission established in their inquiries that Roche priced these products at what the market would bear; and in the absence of competitive restraint this meant, in their opinion, that the prices were excessive. They did not accept, and the Government do not accept, that there is no limit to prices that can be charged so long as part of the proceeds are spent on research. I well understand the difficulties of these issues and that they are matters of degree and judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, also raised the

463
question of discussions before the reference to the Monopolies Commission which were with the D.H.S.S. under the B.P.R.S. Roche broke off relations in 1971 specifically on the ground that the D.H.S.S. would not undertake to procure the repeal of Section 41 of the Patents Act.
I would next deal with a point which has raised much concern around the House. It refers to what I said in my opening remarks about the Government's willingness to discuss with Roche any new evidence. I would repeat what I said because my words were chosen with care. I said that if Roche were to come forward with any new evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances since the Commission reported which might justify some future modification of the Order prices, then my right honourable and learned friend would naturally be glad to consider it; and I added that clearly the prices the Order sets may not be appropriate for all time. I would wish to stick to those words which I used in the opening. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, raised the point that the Roche company does extemely good work. With this of course we agree; it enjoys a very high reputation, and for this we pay tribute to it.
I think the House would not wish me to weary it by continuing to take individual points. There is only one I think I should refer to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I entirely agree on the question of patents that it is an aspect of the matter which should be very carefully considered in the light of the Banks Committee Report. But this does not alter the main issue at stake in this case. We always come back to the Report of the Monopolies Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, was absolutely right to remind us at the end that we were dealing with a monopoly, and therefore it is the procedure of the Monopolies Commission that was used. That machinery has led to the laying of this Order. I do not think it is right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, that we are rushing it through. This Order was laid before the House I refer to the No. 1 Order which was substantially in the same terms, the only difference being in minute detail —on April 12. It has been before the
464
House for that length of time. My Lords, in these circumstances I feel confident in commending the Order for acceptance by your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
7.12 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Guardianship Act,

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act,

Dentists (Amendment) Act,

National Health Service Reorganisation Act,

London Transport Act,

King's Lynn Corporation Act,

British Transport Docks, Act,

Hull Tidal Surge Barrier Act.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT BILL
7.13 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the second annual review of pensions and benefits since this annual review was instituted by this Government. We have spent a good deal of time lately on matters concerning National Insurance and I doubt whether your Lordships would wish me to go into too much detail on this Bill, but I should like to run through just some of its main provisions. Clause 1, with Schedule I, provides for increases in National Insurance pensions and benefits. The main increase is £1 a week for a single person and £1·60 for a married couple in standard rate of retirement and invalidity pensions, widows' pensions and widowed mother's allowance. Thus, weekly rates will go up by nearly 15 per cent. from £6·75 to £7·75 for a single person, and from £10·90 to £12·50 for a married couple. This compares with a rise in the Retail Price Index since the last up-rating in October 1972, up till May last (the last figures we have), of 5·5 per cent. Since June 1970,

465
we shall have increased long-term benefits by 55 per cent. and short-term benefits by 47 per cent., compared with a total rise in the Retail Price Index to date of 27·2 per cent.
Naturally, we still wish to do more for pensioners but we have more than kept our word to maintain the purchasing power of the pension. We have a record, of which I have spoken in our debates on the Social Security Bill, of which we are proud in helping the disabled, and in this Bill we are making one selective improvement which will benefit invalidity pensioners. Whereas, as I have said, the general percentage increase in cash terms for long-term benefits is just under 15 per cent., invalidity allowance will go up by about 40 per cent., so that some 60,000 persons whose age at the onset of incapacity was below 35 will get an increase of 45p in invalidity allowance apart from the increase of £1 in invalidity pension. Similarly, another 70,000 people whose age at the onset of incapacity was between 35 and 45 will get an overall increase of £1·30, and about 200,000 others will get £1·15 a week more. In addition, many of these invalidity pensioners will get extra increases for their wives and children.
We are also increasing attendance allowance. The Bill provides for the present higher day and night rate of £5·40 to be increased to £6·20. Similarly, the lower day or night rate will go up from £3·60 to £4·15. Payment of the lower rate was planned to be extended to children from December this year but this is, happily, being brought forward to October 1. If it proves possible we will bring forward other dates when the lower rate will be extended to the elderly. Short-term benefits for the sick and unemployed are being increased by 60p for a single person and £1 for a married couple, bringing the rates from £6·75 to £7·35 for a single person, and from £10·90 to £11·90 for a married couple. Maternity allowance will be increased correspondingly.
Clause 3, with Schedule 3, provides for increases in the Industrial Injuries scheme to correspond with increases under the National Insurance scheme. Industrial Injury benefit goes up by 60p from £9·50 to £10·10; the long-term dis-
466
ablement benefit for 100 per cent. assessment goes up from £11·20 to £12·80, and widows' pension from £7·30 to £8·30. Changes in contributions are provided for in Clause 2 with Schedule 2. The increased costs of pensions and benefits will be met mainly by increasing graduated contributions paid on earnings of over £9 a week and by increasing the flat-rate contributions paid by employers. Thus, we continue our deliberate policy of shielding the low-paid while placing a higher percentage of total contributions on to employers in preparation for changes contained in the Social Security Bill.
The weekly earnings limit up to which graduated contributions are payable will be raised from £48 to £54 from the beginning of October. The rate of graduated contributions for both employers and employees will be increased by ¼ per cent. —the rate will become 5 per cent. instead of 4·75 per cent.—on earnings between £9 and £54. Persons who have contracted out of the graduated pension scheme will continue to pay at a lower rate on earnings between £9 and £18, but this rate will also be increased by ¼ per cent., from ½ per cent. to ¾ per cent. Adult employees will pay 4p less a week in flat-rate contributions, but the employers' share will go up by 14p a week for men and 12p for women.
Self-employed and non-employed persons pay only flat-rate contributions and these will be increased. Self-employed men and women will pay an extra 25p and 21p respectively; non-employed men will pay an extra 19p, and non-employed women an extra 15p. The earnings level at which self-employed persons' contributions normally become payable will be raised from £5 to £6 a week. At present, self-employed and non-employed persons with an income of £468 a year or less can obtain exemption from the liability to pay contributions. This limit will be raised to £520 a year. Clause 6 and Schedule 4 deal with supplementary benefits. On this occasion the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, is being amended and new scale rates which will become operative from the week beginning October 1 are set out in the Bill instead of appearing, as is usual, in regulations. Supplementary benefit scale rates are increased by amounts corresponding to those in National Insurance benefits—£l·60 for a

467
married couple receiving benefit on a long-term basis, £1 for short-term married couple beneficiaries with £1 or 60p for single householder beneficiaries depending upon whether the benefit is long or short-term.
In the supplementary benefits scheme a change is being made which will be of particular benefit to the elderly and to the long-term disabled. In effect, from next October heating allowances will be paid in full in addition to the new long-term supplementary benefit scale rates. The change will be to the advantage of those persons whose heating allowance is at present offset, wholly or partly, against their long-term addition. It is estimated that about 400,000 people will benefit from this change, the majority of them getting an extra 30p a week on top of the increase of £1 in both National Insurance and supplementary benefit long-term rates.
The Bill incorporates the long-term addition into the long-term scale rates. This ensures improvements in supplementary benefits parallel to those in National Insurance pensions and benefits and will help to make supplementary benefits easier for people to understand. A supplementary pensioner living alone will, from October, be entitled to £8· a week plus rent and rates or £8·40 a week plus rent and rates if he or she is over 80. A supplementary pensioner couple will be entitled to £12·85 a week plus rent and rates or £13·10 plus rent and rates if one (or both) of them is over 80.
I should like to refer briefly to Clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 ensures that civil servants who undertake not to claim certain benefits in consideration of receiving full pay when sick or on maternity leave can become entitled at the normal time to invalidity benefit. It also provides for public funds to be reimbursed by the insurance funds to the extent that the funds would otherwise have had to pay out benefits. Clause 5 sets out formally the traditional interpretation of incapacity for work for the insurance Acts. Following a High Court case it is considered necessary to define this clearly. Clause 5 also modifies and extends to marriages, where one of the parties has more than one spouse but which may be technically monogamous,
468
the existing regulation-making power under Section 12(1) of the National Insurance Act 1971 which deals with the treatment of polygamous marriages for National Insurance and family allowance purposes.
Clause 8 secures that while the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland, the power of a Northern Ireland legislature to amend it as it applies to Northern Ireland will remain unimpaired.
The Bill will increase pensions and benefits for about 11½ million people. The increased cost involved will be £570 million in a full year, of which £370 million will be for retirement pensions. We have deliberately placed the emphasis on the needs of the long-term beneficiaries: the elderly, the widows and the invalids—surely among the most vulnerable members of our society.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Aberdare.)
7.24 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. After the major Bills and the events of the afternoon it seems rather in the nature of an anticlimax. I have done some homework and have carefully studied the supplementary benefits handbook. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that it was going to be simplified, because it seems to me that anybody who can simplify these very complicated regulations certainly deserves some kind of honour.
Of course we applaud the increase in the level of benefits. I think if my sum is correct the actual contributions go a substantial way towards this; but the people who will be affected by this Bill are the kind of people who will always be below the average level of income. I noted in the figures shown to-day that the last figure given for family expenditure income is £35 a week, so that any one of these levels is, I am afraid, still well below the national average; but each increase is to be applauded.
I had intended to go rather deeply into the question of supplementary benefits and the long-term addition, but your Lordships will be relieved to know that

469
I do not intend to do this. I will merely say that I have been approached by that wonderful body, Help The Aged, who are very concerned about one aspect of the situation, namely, the heating allowance. I will return to that at the Committee stage. In the meantime, I wish the Bill a fair passage through your Lordships' House.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I put my name down to speak merely because I wanted to ask a question for clarification on the point raised by the noble Baroness about allowances in exceptional circumstances; additional allowances not only for heating but in many cases also for things like laundry, diet and so on for elderly or handicapped people.
I find the Bill extremely difficult to read, but that, I know, is partly because I did not do enough homework with all the other Acts to which it refers. However, I am given to understand—and the noble Lord will know that there was a letter in The Times about this—that if a person or an old couple get these allowances for exceptional circumstances in addition to their long-term supplementary benefit, then a deduction is made from them and they do not get the full allowance to which they would appear to be entitled. I know this is really a Committee point, but I wondered whether the noble Lord would tell me whether I am right about this, otherwise there will be no point in raising it during the Committee stage.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for their modified welcome to the Bill. I shall certainly be ready to go into the matter of heating allowances and allowances for exceptional circumstances, such as laundry and diet, when we come to the Committee stage. It is true that hitherto all these exceptional allowances have been treated in one and the same way, but part of the supplementary benefit has been to meet some of these needs and also part of the long-term addition has been to meet some of these needs. So when an exceptional allowance was claimed the custom has been—and it still is for other than heating allowances—to offset some part of them if they are also covered by the long-term addition. However, we thought that in the case of heating this
470
was such a priority matter that it was no longer right for there to be any offset against the long-term addition, and therefore in future any extra heating grant will not be in any way offset. Of course we can go into this in greater detail during the Committee stage if either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord wish to do so. Finally, may I congratulate the noble Lord on having now spoken three times to-day and express the hope that he will speak for a fourth time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 [Supplementary provisions as to the register and fees]:
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 4, line 13, after ("number of") insert ("or the amount of money received from")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in response to a suggestion made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that the amount of money received as well as the number of admissions should be taken into consideration when deciding on the annual subscription. At the Committee stage I promised to look into this matter and in those circumstances I have tabled this Amendment. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend is not here at the moment but we think this Amendment meets the point that was raised and that it is an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
(" "deer-park" means any enclosure where are kept deer of a species indigenous to or feral in the United Kingdom")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in response to a suggestion in Committee of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. May I say at once that he has asked me to offer his apologies to your Lordships for not being able to be present in consequence of previous arrangements which he could not possibly avoid. In the circumstances, I am moving this Amendment, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, has already intimated to me that he is agreeable to the Amendment. Consequently, I shall be dealing with the Amendment which stands in his name later on.
My Lords, the point of subsection (3) was to catch the zoo which tried to hide behind car park or stately home charges. The object of this Amendment is to exclude genuine deer-parks from this provision. My wording is perhaps a little more precise than that which the noble Duke wanted. As your Lordships are aware from the Bill itself, domestic animals are already excluded from the definition as not being exotic or indigenous. The word "feral" means a domestic animal which has run wild and is now to be thought of as wild. I think this fairly well covers the point I am making, and I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, we really did not much mind whether it was the noble Lord's Amendment that was put into the Bill or that of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, but after it has been explained so lucidly and so accurately by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, we are entirely happy with his version of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is only an Amendment which is necessary for the purpose of the Bill itself. The words "or deer park" have to be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, at end insert ("or deer park")—[Lord Janner.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FRENCH NUCLEAR TEST IN THE PACIFIC
7.32 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of our close ties with the nations in the South Eastern Pacific region, they will now join with those nations in a united protest to the French Government and in making representations to the United Nations, about the continuation of the nuclear tests in the Pacific, with the aim of securing the end of all such tests. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. If I were writing a television script about this issue I think I might give it the title of Unwilling Target, but in these circumstances I am afraid it is not fiction, but fact. In introducing this Question I should like to deal with three issues: first of all, the background to the French nuclear tests; secondly, the health hazards and the moral issue, and finally I should like to say something about the attitude—if that is the word—of the British Government in this matter. May I make clear that throughout what I am going to say I shall use the word "Australia" as a kind of shorthand for all the nations of the South-East Pacific area, to avoid reading out what is rather a lengthy list.
My Lords, the French justify these tests on two grounds, and they have been quite frank about this. First, they say that they need a nuclear arm for their defence, and secondly, that they need a nuclear arm to ensure for them a place at the top table. These are familiar arguments; in fact they are rather hoary arguments. They put us in this country at rather a disadvantage, since we invented them. But the one thing that this makes clear is that these tests are not being conducted in the interests of humanity, they are not being conducted in order to extend the frontiers of human knowledge, they are not being conducted in order to improve the health or wealth, or anything else, of mankind; they are being pursued for sheer military purposes.
The background is that the French began nuclear tests in the Sahara, but abandoned the site after 1963 when a

473
highly radioactive cloud crossed the Mediterranean and caused a dramatic fall-out in Portugal and other parts of Europe, Subsequent tests showed that radiation had affected thyroids in sheep and human beings in those areas. So, very hastily, the French shut their shop and took the whole dirty business 12,000 miles away from their homeland to the South-East Pacific region, despite protests from that area. In fact, until recently, the French maintained an attitude of lofty and arrogant silence to all protests, and it is only recently, when a stronger Australian Government came into power, that they began to answer. The morality of inflicting these deadly experiments on people who live thousands of miles from the French metropolitan area, of invading and polluting the atmosphere of other nations and infringing their sovereignty, does not seem to have occurred to the French Government. One of their Deputies, the representative of French Polynesia, said this: "They slam the door on your nose; France treats us like guinea pigs, dropping nuclear bombs for the greater glory of France".
The French did break their silence recently and argued, in response to the rising volume of protests, that the tests were safe and that the rise in the level of radioactivity in the region would be at an acceptable level, to which, quite naturally—and I do not blame them—the Australians replied, "Well, why do you not hold them in France? Why did you leave the Sahara if these tests are safe? Why come into our area?" Are they safe? Can it be said that any nuclear tests are safe? The truth is that scientists, like some politicians, differ and seem unable to make up their own minds about any particular issue. But certain facts are clear.
My Lords, after the last series of French tests, New Zealand dairies registered an increase of 300 per cent. in the radioactivity of milk and foodstuffs. In 1970 freak radioactive rainfalls showered Western Samoa and iodine 131 in the milk rose to three times the acceptable limit. Certain foods and animals maintained radioactivity for a long time; for example, coconut crabs on Bikini Atoll are still not fit to eat 15 years after the last United States H-bomb test in that area. So the French tests may well
474
have unpredictable results. The Australian scientists have estimated that as a result of the past French tests there will be at least 26 cases of thyroid cancer and 14 cases of leukaemia and other cancers during the next generation. Compared to floods in Bangladesh and other natural disasters, that does not sound an enormous total, except that we are referring only to Australia, and for the whole of the South-East Pacific region we might have to multiply that figure by 30. But the fact is, as President Kennedy said, has anybody the right to kill one citizen or cause one baby to be born malformed in the interests of such tests? Have they the right to risk that killing, assuming the other scientists are right who say there is some risk, remembering that in future victims are not Frenchmen and they will not die from natural causes?
I have been astonished at the tenderness with which we in this country have received the news of these French tests, and the pussy-footing about the right name to put to it. To me it seems that it is at best an arrogant policy that is laden with risks, and at worst a cynical policy of calculated bloody murder. The last nail in the coffin of those who claim that there is no danger and that the tests are safe was driven home by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, where it said quite plainly that there is insufficient knowledge on this subject, that there is no wholly safe dose of radiation and that the only safe policy is to assume that even a slight increase could be harmful—that from a distinguished international body. And that means really no tests. So on scientific, moral, human and political grounds the French nuclear tests ought to be stopped.
Why then has the British Government been so coy in this matter? When approached by the Australian Government and asked to join in a protest, they received that approach with all the enthusiasm of a nun who has been asked to join in an armed raid on the Bank of England. It was received politely, but all our Government promised to do was gently to remind the French of the Australian view and of certain United Nations resolutions. It seems that Australia has now assumed the role that Czechoslovakia had in 1938, a far away

475
country of which we know little and care less. We have even gone so far as to give support to the idea that there is no danger. But I want to emphasise the point very strongly that scientists differ and the weight of evidence suggests that there is no safe dose, that there is a grave risk, and therefore such tests should not be held, whether in Australia or in China—and I was delighted to read the other day that Mr. Whitlam, the Prime Minster of Australia, had registered the strongest protests about the Chinese tests. If we condemn the Chinese tests, at least we can say one thing: that they did it in their own homeland and did not dirty somebody else's doorstep.
I was in Australia recently, and I cannot find the words to explain to your Lordships the feeling on this matter, the extent of the concern. There is tremendous concern on this matter. What, ask the Australians, with some justification, has happened to all the marvellous talk that took place in this country last October and November over the passport issue, when everybody was talking about our kith and kin and complaining of the fact that Australians might have to stand in queues when they came to this country? That issue was trivial, they say; but here is an issue which threatens the health of every Australian and everybody in the South-East Pacific region, and all they can get from the British Government is a rather quiet assent and a promise that they will register the views with the French Government.
My Lords, it is not too late to make a stand. It is not enough to shelter behind generalities and it is not enough to quote from treaties or United Nations Resolutions of the past. This is a question which affects the British people. It affects us in our attitudes in international relations. If we do not make a positive protest now, the public will only conclude that it is because of political expediency, and thousands of young people already becoming cynical about politics and politicians will be driven further down that despairing road of disillusion.
I want to stress the fact that I am not anti-French in this matter, any more than I am anti-China. I just object to these tests, which I believe are an insult to humanity. France is our friend, and precisely because she is our friend we
476
should have the courage of true friendship and tell the French that what they are doing is dirty, what they are doing is wrong and that they should cancel the tests immediately. You do not condone arson or murder because the perpetrator happens to be a neighbour or partner. You speak up frankly. In this issue I believe it is time the British Government put itself very strongly on the side of morality and said very strongly internationally, "We condemn these tests, we condemn all such tests, and we beg the French to cancel them immediately."
7.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I ought probably to make a declaration of interest on this question before speaking. The nearest people for whom the British Government and we in this Parliament are responsible, the nearest people to the forthcoming French tests, are the Pitcairn Islanders, and I think a rather high proportion of them are my cousins, since one of the men put off there at the time of the mutiny on the "Bounty" was a close relative of my ancestors. It may be that I feel more strongly about the matter than I should if I did not have cousins in the Pitcairn Islands. I will try to be moderate in my words all the same.
This is a nuclear weapon test in the atmosphere. It is like all the others, in that it is perfectly certain that there will be radioactive fall-out. It will come from two sources, as it always does with a hydrogen bomb test: first, from the fission trigger, which gives rise to all the familiar litany of horrible elements, strontium 90, caesium 137, iodine 131, all producing cancer in different parts of the body, especially in infants; and it will come also from the fusion explosion itself by the irradiation of surrounding matter, either the coral or even only the seawater, the irradiation by neutrons from the fusion explosion. There is no escaping that. The background radiation in that part of the world and throughout the Southern hemisphere will increase, and that increase will kill people and make people ill. It will cause people who would not otherwise have had cancer to get cancer, and it will cause genetic defects in babies to be born, indefinitely in the future, who would not otherwise have had such genetic defects.

477
It is true that scientists differ, but what they differ about is how many people will be affected by a given level; they do not differ that people will be affected. And it is, of course, the bitter, tragic and horrible aspect of this matter that nobody knows who the people are; it is just an increase of x per cent. of the number of people with cancer and people with hereditary deformity. You cannot say that this one was caused by the test and this one would have happened anyway. It means, therefore, that any family which suffers one of these horrors will not know whether that was due to the test or to something else. So much is true of the French tests, of the Chinese tests which continue, and of the American, Russian and British tests that have taken place in the past.
I want to draw your Lordships' particular attention to one matter which I think has been neglected—it was mentioned in the House of Commons—in the public debate in the Press around the world, and that is the question of the closure of the high seas round the Atoll of Mururoa. I have seen it said, and I should like to ask the Government whether it is right, that the French intend to close off a circle of the high seas extending 120 miles out from the test site: that is, a circle of diameter of 240 miles. This is a bit of the high seas closed to all navigation, closed to all legitimate use.
We know how extremely cross the British Government were when Iceland closed a bit of the high seas for fishery purposes the other day. We know how extremely cross the British Government of the day were in the Corfu Channel case 25 years ago, and in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries dispute of some decades back. In all these cases the matter was referred to the International Court, which said exactly what you would expect; namely, that it was illegal to close the high seas; and all right-minded nations applauded that judgment and did what they could to protest against the international law-breakers who had closed the high seas. The case is exactly the same to-day. Australia and New Zealand have referred the French tests to the International Court. They have got their interim judgment, which has declared in round terms that this is an action which must be desisted from, in exactly the
478
same terms as they declared Iceland must desist from extension of the fishery control zone into what we, rightly in law, hold to be the high seas.
I know that we, the Labour Government of 1964–70, protested against some Chinese tests and some French tests but not against all of them, and I am not claiming that in urging the Government to do what I think they should do in this case I am only urging them to be as good as we were; I am urging them to be a little better and why not? Why do not the Government go so far as specifically and publicly to protest to France against its flouting of the International Court judgment? The argument was advanced by the Attorney General in the House of Commons that it was nothing to do with us, and that if we were to protest every time anybody flouted an International Court judgment which did not affect our own interests, then we should never cease from protesting, and this would be a waste of time and a lot of fluff.
I do not think that we can accept that. It is something to do with us, if only because of Pitcairn Island. Those islanders are a direct, legal responsibility of this Parliament. They are as much our responsibility as every British subject in the street outside this building. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend has said about the traditional, historical and sentimental links with the great countries of Australia and New Zealand, and I deeply regret that their protests should go unsupported by any matching protest of ours.
Having said that, may I for a moment put the subject in its broader proportions. French disarmament policy and Chinese disarmament policy, which are the same, are not illogical. These two highly civilised countries say, "We are interested in real disarmament. Any time the world shows itself capable of commencing a valid negotiation on genuine multilateral disarmament by all countries, we shall be there. But in the meantime we are not going to waste our time, our money and our diplomatic manpower on fiddling around with little conferences to achieve this or that marginal improvement, or marginal check, on the rate of growth of danger in the arms race". This is why they have not signed the Test Ban Treaty.

479
It is worth recalling, in passing, that the French Left alliance, which so nearly came to power in the recent French elections, is committed, when it comes to power, to signing instantly the Test Ban, to turning up instantly at the Geneva World Disarmament Talks, and so on. I commend that, and I think that it is right to risk wasting time, money, and diplomatic manpower to take every possibility to get some disarmament which would make all these horrible tests unnecessary. But I also have to admit that there is a certain arrogant, if you like ruthless, consistency in the French and Chinese statements that when it looks like working on disarmament they will be there, but in the meantime they will continue with their tests.
We must condemn them, but in condemning them we must not be led to think that their basic position is a contemptible one, or one without reality. There has been no discussion in the last ten years anywhere in the world by any group of Governments about disarmament. That is still the case. The SALT talks between America and Russia are not about disarmament; they are about checking the increase of arms. The Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions have not begun, and secondly, when they do, it does not appear that they are going to talk about disarmament. The word "reductions" does not mean demobilisation or disbandment, it means withdrawal. So far as we can see. there is no talk about disarmament. There is no proposal from this country that there should be discussion about disarmament. The people who asked for real talks on disarmament were the French, with their characteristic, arrogant logic. We must blame them for the tests, but not for their overall position.
I hope that the Government will be able belatedly to tell us this evening—and I do not flatter myself that this hope will be realised—that they are prepared to go further than the Attorney General said in the House of Commons that they would. I am not claiming that they have any legal duty to blame France because of the International Court decision or for any other reason; it is just as a matter of common, political, human sympathy that I should like our silence to be
480
broken, and I hope that the Government will agree to do so.
7.55 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Willis that I was not here during his opening speech. I was on the premises and it was due to some breakdown in communication, for which I was probably more responsible than the Officials of the two Houses of Parliament, for whose work I have great respect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, knows, I have raised this question on a number of occasions, and I have given the warning that the protest against the French nuclear tests in the Pacific would become serious on an international scale. I remember that when I first suggested that, there was actual scoffing on the Government Benches, but it has now been proved true. We have had not only the appeal to the International Court at the Hague, with its recommendation that there should be some suspension of action; we have had not only the action of the Australian and New Zealand Governments in sending their boats into the area near to the possible explosion as a protest; we have had this quite extraordinary movement among the workers of the world in their trade union organisations in deciding to strike against France for engaging in this nuclear test. It is sometimes suggested that strike action by workers should not take place on political issues. I would suggest to this House that when it is an issue of the test of a weapon which can destroy life on the earth, one can do nothing other than commend trade unions which, because of their realisation of the significance of what is happening, say that they will not touch French goods while this danger remains.
I always try to see things in a broader way than through mere partisanship, and I want to recognise at once that the French Government has something on its side when it claims that it has the right to carry out these tests. It can retort that the Government of America, the Government of the Soviet Union, and the Government of this country hiding behind the Government of America, have already carried out these tests which enable them to have nuclear might. The French Government can say, "It is all

481
very well for America, the Soviet Union, and Her Majesty's Government in this country, to say to France, 'You shall not carry out these tests' after they themselves have carried out similar tests and reached their conclusions." I believe that the French Government has some arguments on its side when it puts that forward. Before I conclude, I shall try to suggest how we should meet that argument.
Secondly, I want to say this. I think it quite possible that my noble friend Lord Willis will have dealt with this point in his opening speech, and if so I am sorry that I missed it. It is sometimes suggested that those of us who criticise France for its nuclear tests in the Pacific are ignoring the fact that China is carrying out its nuclear tests on its own territory. I want to say to the House that I, and others associated in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, have protested against the Chinese tests as strongly as we have protested against the French tests, and that we are showing no partiality in that respect.
I want to refer, again in a constructive way, to the fact that China is now carrying out these tests. We have to face the basic fact that the United States of America, the Soviet Union and our country—in what I regard as a rather pathetic imitation—have these nuclear powers which are so great to-day that they can wipe out life on the face of the earth. We often forget this fact, but it is the background to all human existence at this moment. The stockpiles in America and in the Soviet Union are a comparatively small contribution towards this worldwide instrument of human suicide.
Then France comes in and says, "As a matter of our sovereignty and human equality, we must have this weapon as well". Then China comes in and says, "We are now a Power; we have our conflict with the Soviet Union and we must have this power of destruction as well". Furthermore, beyond those definite actions in producing the nuclear weapon, are any number of nations with the power to create nuclear energy which, over a weekend, could be changed from peaceful civil purposes to war purposes. For example, there is Israel, Egypt, India —and I have seen its capacity to produce
482
nuclear energy in that marvellous plant near Bombay—and Japan. Here is this terrific power in the background of our lives the whole time, which could destroy the whole of human life. This seems to me to be a most important element when we are considering further tests to develop nuclear weapons.
I turn to the second ground for opposition. In Australia, in New Zealand, among all the newly independent Governments of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, in South-East Asia and everywhere, the fear is expressed that radioactive elements may be dangerous to the lives of their peoples. On this issue, scientists are divided and I have no knowledge whatsoever to enable me to give an answer as to which group of scientists is correct when they say that there really is a danger or that there is no danger at all.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to suggest to him as he goes on his way that there is no group of scientists who say there is no danger to human beings from radioactivity? All scientists agree that there is. The difference is in how much.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. The trouble with me is that I am always so moderate when I am expressing opinions, and I give more to the other side than I should do. I accept at once the view that scientists are divided, not as to whether there is no danger but as to the degree of danger. What I am saying to the House is that that degree of doubt among scientists should make all of us pause about whether we should give any support, or should definitely and vigorously oppose, any more tests which may bring about this possible danger.
The last point that I make—and, though it is not often recognised, I always try to be constructive in my last point—is that France felt that it was shut out when America, the Soviet Union and this country, in the background, had made their tests and were objecting to France's claim of sovereignty in pursuing such tests. As I said, China, becoming a great Power in the world, with its conflict with the Soviet Union and perhaps with a little fear of a new détente between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., and feeling as a matter of national pride and sovereignty that it must have its

483
nuclear weapon like other Governments —particularly the Soviet Union and America—have theirs, felt that it must develop its nuclear weapon.
I want to put this suggestion to the noble Baroness. I am quite sure that she is just as much moved by the dangers to the human race as any of us here, but I ask her in this broad situation to remember this fact. Both the French Government and the Chinese Government have said that they would be willing to give up the preparation of nuclear weapons and the pursuance of their tests if there were an international agreement to end nuclear weapons altogether. They have said that in the most definite terms, and I am asking the noble Baroness this question. Cannot we begin to-day to get out of the old limitations of diplomacies and gradualism, disarmament, progressive over years and years? And is there not one Government in the world to-day, particularly a Government which has some authority such as our Government have —which can go to the Security Council or to the General Assembly of the United Nations and say, "We wish to initiate, through the disarmament conference or other means, an international conference which will seek not the limitation of nuclear weapons here and there but, because of their danger to the continued existence of all mankind, will propose that nuclear weapons should be ended altogether, that stocks should be destroyed, that future experiments of nuclear weapons for war should be ruled out"? If any Government made that appeal in the world to-day, I believe it would have universal response. I believe that peoples all over the earth would acclaim such a Government and would see in the policy of such a Government a hope which has been darkened for so many years and which might become a light for the future of mankind.
8.11 p.m.
LORD PORRITT: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships long at this time of night but I feel I must declare an interest having, as you all know, lived in New Zealand for so long. I think we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing this subject, and it is a sad thought that it has come at such a time of day when the House has not more people to take
484
part in the debate. I am interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about his family, because probably not very many Members of this noble House have visited or actually landed on Pitcairn—but I must talk to him about his family in due course.
I feel I must say a few words to-night, as on this day last year I set out on my last official cruise of the South Pacific at a time when the same sort of troubles were existing in the South Pacific as exist at this moment, to let your Lordships know the very real and genuine concern of New Zealand about these matters. When I say New Zealand, I naturally include the bigger island a little way away. There is no doubt that radioactive fall-out levels rose very considerably last year after the tests in Mururoa, and that radioactive elements were discovered in milk and shellfish. They were stated not to be dangerous, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, have said, what is a danger level of radioactive fall-out? This is a positive happening in this part of the world. The reaction this year has been much more definite and much more flamboyant, if one likes to put it that way. The frigate that has gone into the area is a nuclear protected frigate and so is in no particular danger; but there are other small boats, and last year I met the crew of one of those boats and they were worried, to say the least. I wish I knew what happened, but one can never tell how long the after-effects will take to occur. However flamboyant you may feel the local efforts have been in protest, two things have happened which are perfectly in order. One has already been mentioned—namely, the application of Australia and New Zealand to the International Court where they got a favourable verdict. Nevertheless, completely unilateral action was taken by France and the result of the court case has made no effect whatsoever.
The other effect which I should like to mention, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway spoke of, is the quite unexpected and quite voluntary reaction of some of the workers of this country to the tests that are taking place 12,000 miles away. One cannot help feeling that there is apathy in this our home country towards these tests, that they are

485
a bit too far away for us to pay much attention to. This is the great sadness, and this is what is felt by the people in the South Pacific. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned, highly tactfully, the fact that if you were in a glasshouse you did not throw stones. This is very true, but I have a firm belief that this Government could at least throw a sufficient number of pebbles and make a very nice noise without damaging the glasshouse—a noise that would be heard in the South Pacific, and, I can assure this House, would do a great deal to bring new warmth to the relationships between this, which they still call the "Mother Country", and the peoples of the South Pacific.
8.17 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in this very important debate because he was Governor-General of New Zealand at the time when my wife and I were there two years ago. He had a very distinguished stewardship of service, and I certainly echo his views that this very important topic has come at a time when we have a very thin House. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has done a valuable service in introducing this debate, and we have had some very notable speeches. My Lords, I think any nuclear tests are reprehensible; their results may well be felt in years to come, not so much by our generation but by future generations. My principal reason for intervening in this debate is certainly not on any Party issue because I think it is common ground among the principal Parties that the sooner we can end these tests the better, and I would hope that the very important meeting of Foreign Ministers in that lovely city of Helsinki will engender just this kind of subject.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, could I remind the noble Lord that nothing within a thousand miles of that subject is on that agenda—unfortunately.
LORD AUCKLAND: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his intervention. Certainly it is a subject which Foreign Ministers throughout the world should be devoting very much time to. I think what we really want to know—and if my noble friend could enlighten us it would help the House—
486
is how much inspection there is in these tests. We know that New Zealand sent a frigate with a Cabinet Minister on board; and if I may say so the way the New Zealand Government have handled this matter is highly creditable. They have done it in a responsible manner without any kind of "eye for an eye" attitude, which is certainly something which the French themselves should recognise.
Obviously, we cannot know for certain the inherent medical dangers that these tests may bring. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, previous tests of this kind have increased the incidence of lukaemia and other types of cancerous illness. In the other place my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has put the legal position of this country in, I think, succinct terms, although no doubt there will be many people on all sides who will have concern as to whether we are going far enough in this direction. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that there was evidence that the incidence of danger from radiation in these tests would be a good deal less than in the case of other tests. I think I have paraphrased his words correctly. I do not know what evidence there is for this, and perhaps my noble friend can enlighten the House on this particular matter.
What is important, I think, is the effect on life in the area around Mururoa. I took the opportunity to look up Mururoa on the map a short time ago, and I had some difficulty finding it. It seems to be situated in a relatively uninhabited area; but I think we would be grateful for assurances from my noble friend that there is, as far as possible, the minimum danger, that the French have gone into this problem very carefully—and presumably there has been consultation on this among scientists and others—and that this area has been chosen primarily because it is an area where the least possible damage could be done. Of course, my Lords, if one were to explode one of these devices over the mainland of China, heaven knows what kind of holocaust would take place.
I want to say one word on a subject which is perhaps a little more controversial, the boycott on French goods.

487
One can understand the feelings among some people towards the French for initiating these tests, but I have always believed, whether it be against Rhodesia or against any other country, that a boycott on goods does not really have the desired effect on nations which initiate this kind of thing; and I hope that we in this country do not indulge in too much of it. I understand that New Zealand certainly are not doing this, and that is to their credit. Having said that, my Lords, it is right that we in this House should show concern at the implications of these tests, whether they emanate from France, from China or from elsewhere; and even if in Helsinki, at the vital Foreign Office talks at the present time, this subject is not on the agenda, I think the sooner the Foreign Ministers and the senior Ministers of the world get together, the better. It may be an idealistic hope, but let us hope that this happens in the lifetime of some of us and that these nuclear tests will no longer be desirable, and certainly not necessary.
8.25 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having raised this subject in your Lordships' House, and for the care and concern which, if I may say so, has been shown by all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Question before us this evening is in two parts. It asks us, first of all, whether we will join the nations in the South Pacific in a united protest to France on nuclear tests in the atmosphere; and, secondly, whether we will make representations to the United Nations. My Lords, as the House knows, Her Majesty's Government are strongly opposed to nuclear testing in the atmosphere. The previous Conservative Administration took a leading part in negotiations which eventually led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which of course prohibits nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. The present British Government—just as much, if I may say so, as noble Lords opposite when they were in Government—believe that all nations should accept the prohibitions on atmospheric testing that are accepted by those who have signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
488
The first part of the noble Lord's Question asks Her Majesty's Government to join in a united protest to the French, and therefore we have to consider this evening whether we can usefully do more than we have already done to bring home our views to the French. At the time of the 1963 Treaty, Her Majesty's Government, as well as the United States Government, urged the French Government to take part and to sign that Treaty; and we still wish that the French Government will do so, which would therefore mean that they would cease testing in the atmosphere. The French Government are very well aware of this because they know, first, of our public action in repeated statements in this House and in another place; and, secondly, because of our actions in the United Nations, to which I should like to come back in a moment. The French Government are also aware of our views because we have repeatedly made them known in personal contacts throughout the period of their last testing, and since. They are also aware of what we think because of the action we took on behalf of the South Pacific nations.
When the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, called on my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, on April 24, he drew attention to the communiqué issued by certain Commonwealth countries after the meeting of the South Pacific Forum; and I was so glad, in particular, to hear my noble friend Lord Porritt and my noble friend Lord Auckland from that part of the world. The relevant passage in the South Pacific Forum's communiqué reads as follows:
"The Forum also resolved to raise with the British Government the possibility of associating in an appropriate manner British dependent territories in the South Pacific with the Forum's efforts to bring about a cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing by France in the region. The Forum expressed its concern for the welfare of all their neighbours. The Forum noted the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to London and requested him to discuss the matter with the British Government."
That meeting between the two leaders of their countries took place, as the House knows, and Mr. Whitlam said that he hoped that the British Government would pass on the terms of this part of the communiqué, which I have read to noble Lords, to the French Government. This

489
was done in Paris. Therefore, because the French Government know very well the views of Her Majesty's Government, we do not believe that anything would be gained by any further approach to the French.
The second part of the noble Lord's Question asks the Government to join in—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Baroness permit me to interrupt her? What she is telling us is extremely interesting. When the British Government forwarded the communiqué from the South Pacific Forum to the French Government, did they express any views of their own, or were they simply acting as a letterbox for the onward transmission of the Australian and New Zealand views?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would not say that we ever act as a letterbox to the French Government. Her Majesty's Government, as I have already tried to show, have by certain public action and by certain private action made their views very well known, and, therefore, in passing over the communiqué from the South Pacific Forum, it could hardly be said that it was the first time that the British Government had expressed their views.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness. This is a very important point. As I understood from her speech, she said that we had forwarded to the French Government the resolutions adopted by the Forum in the Pacific. She did not then say that we did more than that and whether, in forwarding it, we had indicated to the French Government that it also expressed our point of view. That is the real issue.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELRELVIE: My Lords, the French Government were well aware of our point of view from a very much earlier point in time, right through that previous testing period, apart from this proposed test. This was not a new point. We did not register—if this is in the noble Lord's mind—a formal protest at that time. We did not do that because our views have been known over a very long period of years.
490
I should like now to turn to the second part of the noble Lord's Question which asked the Government to join in representations at the United Nations. This also we did a long time ago. At last Autumn's General Assembly of the United Nations, the British delegation supported a resolution which was tabled on the initiative, among others, of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November. It expressed
"concern that the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere has continued in some parts of the world, including the Pacific area, in disregard of the spirit of the Partial Test Ban Treaty."
The resolution urged that all States that have not done so should adhere without further delay to the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere and meanwhile to refrain from testing in the environments covered by that Treaty. Again, last year at the World Health Organisation, the United Kingdom delegation supported a Motion which deplored the continuation of nuclear testing which released radiation into the atmosphere—and I should like to support here those noble Lords who have referred to China and to say that this also applies to China; and in particular what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
I should like to turn briefly, not being a scientist myself, to some of the well-known factors on the scientific side. As noble Lords will know, the time of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 marked the end of a period of widespread and intensive testing in the atmosphere by the United States, the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, Britain, during which no fewer than 351 tests yielding a total of 200 megatonnes were carried out. If testing continued at that rate, scientists foresaw a real risk of background radiation in the atmosphere rising to levels that could he dangerous to man. After the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Union, the United States and ourselves agreed that tests should be underground; which is allowed. as noble Lords know, by this Treaty. Only France and China have continued testing in the atmosphere, but on a much lower scale. They have conducted altogether some 43 tests of about 30 megatonnes over 9 years. Therefore the facts are that the fall-out from French and Chinese tests carried out

491
during the period since the Partial Test Ban Treaty has been signed, are a small fraction of that which occurred before it was signed.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked whether one could say something on this particular scientific matter. I am advised that the total accumulated active debris is now declining slightly because decay and removal processes are more rapid than annual additions from current testing. I understand that the annual radiation doses from all fall-out are small compared with the natural background radiation to which we are all exposed and have been through all time. The variations in natural background between differing areas far exceed the addition from tests. For example, I am informed that there is a wide difference between those who live in limestone areas and those who live in granite areas. I come from the granite city of Aberdeen and I assume that I am far more radioactive, therefore, than most of my noble friends on the Front Bench hare.
Nevertheless, so far as the long-term genetic effects are concerned, I share the concern which has been expressed from all sides of the House. But as the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Kennet, have said, the statistics which are involved and sometimes widely quoted are based on assumptions which are the subject of continued scientific controversy; but I would say that scientists not only differ about how many people in future will suffer from these tests in the nuclear atmosphere; I understand there is controversy about whether at the very low levels in question there will be or will not be any genetic effects. This I do not feel able or equipped to comment on.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is of such intense importance that perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. I have listened with great interest to her on this difficult subject, difficult to us all. Earlier on in this section she said that before the test ban scientists were worried that the background radiation levels might rise to a level which would be dangerous to mankind. Is it not the case that all radiation is, and always has been, not only dangerous but lethal to mankind, to a very small num-
492
ber of mankind, long before anybody invented nuclear weapons? When we talk of levels which might be dangerous, are we not distorting the truth, which is that it is lethal? When she says that there are scientists who dispute that people will die and become ill as a result of each single test, could she refer the House to them? I have never seen that in any of the literature.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to the effects of radiation as a whole. The figures that I gave point to the differences between natural radiation and radiation caused by nuclear tests in the Pacific. The argument is whether the low doses in question in the atmospheric tests are going to have genetic effects in comparison with the natural effects to which we are all ourselves always subject.
So far as the French nuclear tests are concerned one should, to be fair, quote the Australian Academy of Sciences. They concluded, for example in April of this year, that
"… the average levels of radiation due to French explosions are unlikely to make a statistically detectable increase in the cancer or genetic effect in Australia."
LORD KENNET: My Lords, now the noble Baroness is getting it right. It may not be a statistically detectable increase; but we are certain that babies will die— just a few.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, this is why we are concerned—the scientists disagree because they do not really know to what extent radiation really affects people either naturally or from nuclear tests in the atmosphere. This is why we signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, and this is why we in this country have urged the French—and now urge China—to accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Why I am quoting the Australian Academy of Sciences is to try to get the matter into some kind of perspective. I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that the most distinguished scientists themselves disagree on the level and the effects of natural or nuclear fall-out.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of Pitcairn Island and to say how interested I was to hear that the

493
noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had a cousin in Pitcairn. I have had the pleasure of visiting Pitcairn on the way to New Zealand where my mother and father were horn. I have cousins there and also in Australia. Therefore, I realise the very isolated position of the Pitcairns. This is very important in our context—because we have special responsibilities for Pitcairn as a British colony with about 90 inhabitants now. It lies about 600 miles from the test area with the beautiful name —I think I can pronounce it rightly—Mururoa. It lies 150 miles outside the danger zone around it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether it was true that the French had cut off about 120 miles of the high seas round the test area. They did announce in a Notice to Mariners in January, 1973, that they would do this; they have not yet done it. I understand that in these circumstances it would be established practice. Of course, this particular area is within 4,000 miles of Australia, and one has to remember, as I understand, that the debris which goes into the upper atmosphere would travel from West to East round the earth, and that the particular test area is not in the expected downwind line of the debris, which would be over the sea. The nearest land, as I have said, would be 4,000 miles away.
Past experience has given us no reason to doubt that French safety precautions taken in connection with their tests are such that there is little possibility of any danger to the Pitcairn Islanders, which is what we are concerned with to-day. However, my Lords, we wish to reassure ourselves and the inhabitants, and therefore we have this year, as in past years when French tests have taken place, made arrangements to conduct radiological monitoring in the area and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale" is on station at sea and two R.A.F. technicians established on Pitcairn Island itself. I am glad to say in the context of this debate that during previous test series similar monitoring has never recorded levels of radioactivity which were any danger to health or to any environmental aspect of Pitcairn Island.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, referred to the International Court of Justice and the interim measure Orders.
494
Her Majesty's Government, with all countries, have a duty to observe the Orders of the International Court of Justice in so far as such Orders apply to them. These Orders are addressed to the French Government and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and not to the British Government. Therefore the question of whether they are observed is a matter for the Court and for those three Governments.
I do not wish to keep the House too long, but I should like to return to an interesting point made by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Brockway, on the whole question of disarmament. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is true that the United Kingdom has had her atmospheric tests; we have got over that particular period. The noble Lord asked whether we should not propose a conference to consider the abolition of nuclear weapons. The Government feel that because of the disparity of armaments of all sorts between States, nuclear disarmament would be only rightly discussed as part of the programme of disarmament as a whole. I think it interesting to recall that at the time after the last war international concern did not single out nuclear testing from the general problem of control of nuclear weapons. If the Baruch Plan of 1946 had been adopted, there would automatically have been an end of nuclear tests, because the development of nuclear energy as a whole would have come under international control, and nuclear weapons would have been abolished in the process. As noble Lords will know, at that time the Plan was rejected by the Soviet Union.
We are not to-day considering the right of the French Government to possess or to manufacture nuclear arms which they deem necessary for their defence. Whether they wish to acquire their knowledge in another way which does involve atmospheric tests must be their decision; it is possible to do so. The Partial Test Ban Treaty does not prohibit testing underground, and we must hope that France, together with China, will look to their defences in the future in such a manner that they no longer will need to cause so many people such deep-held concern. So far as this debate is concerned, I suggest that the actions proposed in the Question raised by the noble Lord,

495
Lord Willis, have already been taken, and I am sure that the views expressed here will be most carefully noted by France and, I hope, by China too.