Lords Sitting of 19 March 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop at Sheffield):
The Lord Chancellor on the Wool-sack.
The Lord Forteviot— Took the Oath.

BRITISH RAIL: HIGHLAND LINES
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrier on the Order Paper. My noble friend is indisposed, and apologises for not being present.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken by British Rail to replace the out-of-date rolling stock on all Scottish Highland lines, and re-introduce observation cars during the now extending tourist season.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is in-disposed I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will pass my wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
My Lords, I understand from the Rail-ways Board that the quality of the stock on Highland lines will progressively improve as older coaches are withdrawn from service, and newer ones are allocated. The Board consider that the provision of special observation cars is not a commercially justifiable proposition.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for that Answer. I regret very much the inability of British Rail to provide observation cars. Do the Government realise the great tourist attraction of the trains on the Highland lines, more particularly on the line to the Kyle of Lochalsh?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, while agreeing with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, it might be of benefit to the House if I point out that I understand from the Railways Board that special observation cars would cost at least £ 50,000 each ; and to convert an existing coach to give it an observation end and refreshment facilities would cost £25,000. Even to convert an existing coach to give it bigger side windows would cost up to £ 15,000. The commercial judgment of the Railways Board is that even with the five-month tourist season, they could not recover their costs through increased traffic at fares that people would be pre-pared to pay.
On the last point of the noble Lord's supplementary, it is open to the High-lands and Islands Development Board, which has responsibility for tourism in the Highlands, to contract with British Rail for the special services they want for local reasons, in order to promote tourism.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, are the Government aware that the proper place for the diesel engines running on the Inverness line is the scrap heap? That is not my own opinion, but that of a very experienced engine driver who drives these trains. I travel a lot on this line. Are the Government aware that one practically never travels on that line without a breakdown occurring some-where? A short time ago there was a breakdown, and before one working diesel engine could be found from Carlisle, four other engines had to be examined.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has my sympathy, but, as I am sure he is aware, so far as British Rail are concerned I act as a form of pigeon post. I will fly off and make sure they get the message, but I cannot give the noble Earl an answer now.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, if it is not possible to do this immediately, can the Minister say whether, in view of the wonderful scenery in the Highlands—the mountains and the lakes—the Government could keep this in mind as a long-term desirability?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think 1 can safely say it is a long-term desirability. However, I felt it only fair to

739
answer the Question in terms of what is viable at the present time.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness add another message to her pigeon? Is she aware that any breakdown on the main line North to Inverness usually has the effect of delaying several trains, because singling of the line— carried out in the late 1960s— has left few passing places? Is she further aware that the Beeching Report had nothing to do with this? On the contrary, that Report recommended improving the services and the speeding up of traffic on such main lines.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am quite aware of this. We are aware of the need for improvements to assist development in North-East Scotland, which is increasing tremendously due to oil. The Rail-ways Board are actively considering the case for investment. The Government will give sympathetic consideration to any proposals that the Board may make.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, referring to the previous answer of the noble Baroness with reference to the viability of the railways, may I ask whether the Government will have another look at the situation with a view to encouraging the Railways Board to become more viable? Reference has been made to the breakdown of diesels. We know that the life of the diesel engine is comparatively short compared with that of an electric locomotive. We know that the cost of a diesel locomotive is infinitely greater than that of an electric locomotive. In view of the statement of the Government that they will not encourage the development of the Channel Tunnel on account of railway costs, is it not time the Government had another look at the whole transport situation with a view to ensuring that the railways become more viable? There are many beauty spots in our country, such as the Highlands, North Yorkshire and elsewhere. People should be able to go to these wonderful places and enjoy them, as they used to do before the Beeching/ Marples era.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport is looking at transport as a whole, including the railways. I would point
740
out to my noble friend Lord Popplewell that, when we are talking about provid-ing facilities at beauty spots and at the same time making the railways com-mercially viable, one of the troubles is that the two things are often contra-dictory. This is really the big problem. But I will make sure that what my noble friend has said is passed on to the right quarters.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that the Inverness/Kyle of Lochalsh line is not simply a beauty spot, but is often the sole means of communication across that part of Scotland? Bearing in mind that there are no refreshment facilities there at the present time, there has been a Report by the Ross County Council— which I am sure the noble Baroness has seen, and which British Rail must have seen—urging the replacement of the present rolling stock, which will take itself out of circulation if British Rail do not do so soon. Also, there is the question of the improvement of the amenities in the service.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think I have already answered the first point. I appreciate that the Kyle of Lochalsh is not only a beauty spot. I have already pointed out that the Government recognise the need for investment here. How-ever, I must come back to my point that I cannot reply on behalf of British Rail so far as day-to-day matters are concerned. But I am quite certain that, in the right quarters, note will have been taken of what has been said by various noble Lords here today. So far as the specific question of refreshment cars is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke up loud and clear I am certain, too, that what he said will have been noted, and I hope something will result from it.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us—I quite understand if she cannot—what has happened to the obervation cars we used to have in the Highlands not so very long ago? I can remember going from Oban to Glasgow in a train that had an observation car; speaking from memory, I do not think it could have been longer than two or three years ago.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there were four observation cars, which were withdrawn in 1967. They have now been bought up privately and are used for private enterprise. There are higher charges for them; they are run on partly voluntary labour, and one really cannot make a comparison between that and what could be undertaken by the Railways Board.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, if private enterprise can make money on them, why cannot the Railways Board?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, private enterprise is charging very much higher fares than the Railways Board would or could charge. If the Railways Board did that, we should immediately have a series of Questions asking about fares.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TREATY
2.42 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 change, if any, they seek in the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed the Council of Ministers on 3rd March that, if permanent British membership of the Community was confirmed in the Referendum, we intended to seek a solution to various problems relating to the steel industry. The major difficulty is the absence of control over private sector steel investment. The Prime Minister also referred to this question in Dublin on l0th-llth March. We do not know whether the changes which we require will mean amendment of the Treaty of Paris. It may be that a solution can be found within the scope of the Treaty.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, now that the Prime Minister has,
742
in his own words, found the European Community more flexible than he apparently thought it was a year ago, cannot this matter be dealt with by one of the administrative methods mentioned in his Statement yesterday? And will the noble Lord confirm that this is the only point of Treaty revision arising after the whole renegotiation exercise, and that its consideration has been postponed until after the Referendum?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there may be ways of dealing with this matter other than changing the Treaty ; we shall see. It is not quite correct to say that this is the only outstanding issue. Within the steel sector, also, there are questions relating to prices and mergers, as the noble Lord knows. These are probably less difficult than the question of private sector investment. I think we have all noted what the Prime Minister said about the resiliency of the EEC, and no doubt he will note what the noble Lord has said today.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in the 1967 Act we gave ourselves power to intervene if the private sector was going to duplicate development in the public sector, and that we gave ourselves power to anticipate that happening rather than simply to complain after it had been done? Is it the case that if we now have to wait for negotiations to take place on the question of the Treaty of Paris, the damage will have been done, perhaps by the creation of electric arcs in places where steel has never been produced before, and that we would be quite unable to stop duplicate development in the steel industry which would not do any good to either the public or private sector?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. I do not think that any irreparable damage will have been done before we have negotiated the position as we want to see it, as I am confident we shall succeed in doing. It is perfectly true that with the repeal of Section 15 of the 1967 Act this country was left with no powers to control private sector investment, and we shall seek to rectify that situation in one way or another.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does my noble friend's last statement

743
mean that similar private investment might be undertaken within the coal industry?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was asking whether this is the only case of Treaty revision? I realise there are other matters still left over. Does the noble Lord recognise the value of the help of the Coal and Steel Community in relation to some of the painful effects in this country of necessary modernisation, which usually means less men employed; for example, in the last two years about £ 33 million in grants and about £100 million in loans to help with retraining and housing in these industries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there are, of course, pros and cons in all these matters. I do not dissent from what the noble Lord has said. What I am saying is that there will be discussions with our partners in the EEC on ways of putting right the situation created by the abrogation of Section 15 of the 1967 Act, and I have said that I am confident that these discussions will succeed.

HARRIER: MARITIME VERSION
Earl FERRERS: 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 intend to place an order for the maritime version of the Harrier for use by the Royal Navy.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government will take a decision on this project as soon as possible now that the main work of the Defence Review has been completed.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Will he confirm that the Navy are anxious to have this aircraft; and does he realise that valuable export orders, which include one amounting to £ 150 million from one country alone, are entirely dependent on the Government showing sufficient confidence in this air-craft to purchase it ourselves?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am aware that there is very widespread interest in this particular version of the Harrier. The noble Earl may have information which is not available to me. I know of interest in the aircraft, but so far no firm negotiations have started ; and in any case it is not policy, as the noble Earl will know, to give details of purchases of British defence equipment at this sort of stage.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when my noble friend says that some of the information is not available to him about the Harrier, is it not true that negotiations have reached such a stage that some foreign countries, nameless this afternoon in these circumstances, have already negotiated a supply of Harriers and arrangements will be made shortly to export them? Are we to be in the position that foreign countries are going to obtain some of the most modern aircraft for military purposes, and we, because of a decision by the Government to reduce Defence expenditure, are to be left with-out them? Is that the situation in which we shall now find ourselves?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I did not say that we would be left without the naval Harrier. What I said was that now that the main work on the Defence Review has been completed, and it has been a very heavy burden of work, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will turn his attention to this situation.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can be more specific as to when his right honourable friend will turn his attention to this matter?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it will be soon.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government have received no firm orders from abroad, will the noble Lord realise that no firm orders will result unless the British Government themselves show confidence in this aircraft?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Earl. It is a "chicken and egg" situation, but my right honourable friend is fully aware of that.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the Harrier is a uniquely British concept, invention and productionised aeroplane? Unless we have enough courage to back up that concept and invention with orders, it is not likely to attract many export orders.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the position.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, is it not correct that the order from the Government of Iran for a through-deck cruiser is to some extent dependent upon the Royal Navy itself ordering the maritime version of the Harrier?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seems to be better informed than I am. In fact, the through-deck cruiser— as the noble Lord knows even better than I do, because he was more recently at the Ministry of Defence than I— is basically an anti-submarine vessel carrying Sea Kings for which it is designed. The maritime Harrier would be a most welcome addition to its capabilities, but its absence would not invalidate the work of the through-deck cruiser.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend can explain how, within the context of declarations made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of Defence about reduced expenditure on defence, it will be possible to provide the expenditure for the Harriers, which are very expensive indeed, and which, in my opinion, are very desirable, particularly if foreign countries are likely to get them in future? How will this be arranged? How do we inject expenditure into the Harriers when reduced expenditure on defence has already been decided by the Government?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that overseas orders for the maritime Harrier have already been jeopardised— indeed, some say lost — because of the Government's procrastination in this matter? Will he use his influence to ensure that his right honourable friend now proceeds with this consideration as a matter of great urgency?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not accept that accusation. I am as aware of the situation as other noble
746
Lords who are interested in the subject, but no decision has yet been reached. The matter will now receive urgent consideration by my right honourable friend.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that my question is of such a character that it does not deserve an answer? May I repeat the question?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend asked me how we were to inject the Harrier into an area of reduced expenditure. The situation is that funds are already earmarked for this purpose in the forward plan, but since the problem that faces us is one of inflation— and there are various other factors which may influence defence expenditure in the future—my right honourable friend is not immediately committing himself on the subject.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the tremendous interest in this most remarkable aircraft, may I ask the Minister whether he could give us a time for when it is likely that a decision will be reached? Will it be in one, two or three months? Does the noble Lord realise the urgency of this matter? May I ask him to amend his statement that there is interest in this aircraft, to saying that there is intense interest in a most admirable aircraft which is a credit to the aircraft industry of this country?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give a time scale, but since the White Paper on Defence—which I am certain will be debated soon—has appeared today, I am sure I will be able to give the noble Lord a more concrete date at the time of such a debate.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that this attempt to debate important priorities in this matter of defence expenditure can go much too far?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I prefer a more extended debate than is permitted at Question Time.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Defence White Paper is available. Has it been printed yet and, if so, is it available to Members of this House?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a somewhat complex point. I have obtained a Xerox copy, but I understand there will be copies available in the House for noble Lords who have a specialised interest in the matter. Every step is being taken to meet the requirements of noble Lords.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I say that copies of the White Paper will be avail-able later today. At the same time, may I suggest that we have been a long time on what is an extremely important and, indeed, fascinating Question. I think we should now move on to the next business.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask a further question?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have requested that the House should go on to the next business, and I believe the House agrees.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I was about to ask the question when the noble Baroness stood up. I should like to put one serious question. Will the noble Lord be kind enough to convey to his right honourable friend the urgent point that without this naval order the whole future of the Harrier programme will go to America?

LIMITATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law about the limitation of actions and other proceedings. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

INDIAN OCEAN: NEUTRALITY
2.58 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE rose to draw attention to the need to preserve the neutrality of the Indian Ocean ; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, discovering that there were only six copies of the White Paper on Defence at this end of the Palace of Westminster, I used my privilege as a former Member of the other House to collect a copy in order to have a hasty glance at it before speaking today. My hope was that in the White Paper I might find the answer to some of the questions which concern me. I am sorry to say I did not get much enlightenment from it, so I shall be obliged to depend on my noble friend who will reply to the debate to lessen the anxiety that some of us feel about current developments in the Indian Ocean. I ought to know what is happening there, but I am completely bewildered by conflicting statements from the highest sources.
I was in Mauritius two years ago and I have been in India recently. I have consulted the distinguished High Commissioners in this country and other experts. Nevertheless, developments in the Indian Ocean are still of the murkiest nature, and I believe this to be of concern not only to the littoral countries but to the entire world. I accept that we are no longer a great Power there. Nevertheless, I am doubtful about the statement in the White Paper that we have completely with-drawn. I will return to that later. I believe we could perform a service by stating the facts clearly and fully. No harm would come from that. It is non-sense to think that the Russians do not know what is happening on Diego Garcia or that the West does not know what is happening on Socotra. The only people who seem to be ill-informed about what is happening in this immensely important and now dangerous part of the world are the British public.
I should like also to declare why I am particularly worried about developments there at the present time. Time and again we have made the mistake of currying friendship with our American allies to the point of sycophancy. In doing so, we have damaged both American and our own interests. It is not irrelevant that

749
I should recall how in 1951 the present Prime Minister, Mr. John Freeman, and Mr. Aneurin Bevan felt so strongly about American pressures in relation to the war in Korea that they resigned. They were Ministers concerned with trade and labour, and they knew the position about manpower and material supplies. They advised Mr. Attlee's Government, as it then was, of the absolute maximum that we could contribute, but our American allies were not satisfied. They forced a figure which bore no relationship to reality. It was a false figure. Indeed, later on the next Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, said it was a false figure, because it could not be achieved. So we did no service to our American allies but we did a great deal of disservice to the Labour Party, the Government of the time, and I believe kept us in Opposition for 10 years. I do not expect noble Lords opposite to weep tears over that, but it was a disaster not only for the then Labour Government and the Labour movement but for the country as a whole. I need not recall the more recent heartbreaking events in Vietnam and Cambodia. I might add that America does not consider that friendship for our country should go to the extent of taking up a position, "Britain, right or wrong ". Indeed, Suez was a dramatic illustration to the contrary.
What is happening in the Indian Ocean? When the Prime Minister of Mauritius makes a serious official statement, and makes it in the presence of the Prime Minister of India, as he did about a year ago, one cannot dismiss it simply as gossip or as somebody talking about issues on which he is ill-informed. And on a visit to New Delhi last April the High Commissioner of Mauritius said:
"Britain will violate a 1967 undertaking to Mauritius if it allows the United States to develop a naval or military base on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia."
I should like to know the truth of the situation. Have we said to our American friends, in effect: "We cannot afford to have nuclear warheads in the middle of the Indian Ocean but we are perfectly willing to allow you to go ahead and develop nuclear weapons in this part of the world "? If that really is the situation, let us say it openly; but if it is
750
not, let us know precisely what is happening. It is no good simply making the riposte: "If the Americans are developing nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean, so also are the Russians." I have no doubt that that is true, and as I have been talking about Diego Garcia, I have no doubt that I shall be asked what the Russians are doing in Socotra.
If one visualises the Indian Ocean with the Indian sub-Continent above and the whole of the African Continent—and Australia is also concerned—one finds there is a common passionate interest that the Indian Ocean should be kept free of nuclear weapons. A distinguished American statesman said not long ago that they could have a striking power from Diego Garcia which could cover the whole areas surrounding, including the oilfields, of the Middle East. This is alarming, for us as well as for the littoral countries. I should therefore like a clear answer, one way or the other, about the precise position in this critical island.
I would also be grateful to my noble friend if he would give me a clear answer to another question. The Mauritians insist—I checked this with their distinguished High Commissioner before coming to this debate—that when they received £4 million from Britain in order that we should lease this island, we did not lease the seabed. We have the island and it was understood that it would be used for fuelling and other normal sea-going purposes, but they insist that they retained the right of the seabed, and now, like the rest of the world, they are concerned to prospect for oil and other minerals.
An American company was engaged to examine the possibilities of oil and other mineral developments in the seabed surrounding the island, but they have been forbidden to go ahead. May I be told why they were forbidden? It may not have been by treaty or contract and it may have been something as simple as somebody saying, " You do that, and you will not get this." Whatever was said, it would be interesting to know the facts, because so far as I understand the position, there is an open door to the ships of Russia, France, Britain— indeed, the world, including Japan, because all are now interested in the Indian Ocean— and there is also an open door to the ports

751
in this and all the other islands if the purpose of such visits is peaceful, such as for the refuelling of ships, the resting of crews and so on. What is particularly alarming is the way in which more and more nuclear weapons are apparently going to that part of the world.
It would be wonderful if I could be told today that this is all nonsense and that no such thing is happening, but whatever the position is I should like a completely reliable and official statement on the subject. I appreciate that whatever is done by the West, the attitude of Russia will most certainly be, "Anything you can do, we can do better ". One appreciates the Great Power rivalry, but surely we have learned from Vietnam and from so many other examples, that all the weapons in the world are useless if one is seeking to operate with an unfriendly population. Incidentally, this is one reason why the Russians and Americans prefer a small island to a mainland.
In all of this, who is going to win? Surely this battle will be fought not with aeroplanes, warships and nuclear weapons, but in the hearts and minds of the men and women who live in those countries, and they will not forgive the super-Power which they believe is responsible for aggravating the situation. We want genuinely to feel that the West— and I am talking specifically about America and ourselves and those associated with America—are doing everything in our power to fulfil the great dream of Nehru and Indira Gandhi and so many more in India that this should be an ocean of peace. But that does not mean playing the fool by leaving our shores defenceless.
That need for security applies also to India. So if anyone should ask why India does not join the non-nuclear club, the answer is that India is perfectly prepared to join provided the five nuclear Powers are also prepared to do so. But, determined not to be the catspaw of Russia, America or any other country, it has to have its own defences. I do not base my case on the fact that Indians insist that their developments are for peaceful purposes. As your Lordships know, there is a great deal of experiment taking place both in Russia and America. If we insist on guarding our shores, so must the Indians. Surely, we ought to take
752
account of the point of view of the millions of people who are living in that part of the world. I should feel very much easier in my mind if I could be told today what we are doing directly and what influence we are exerting upon our American friends and allies to lessen the tensions and dangers in this part of the world where Americans, Russians and all others are welcome if they come as traders, if they come for peaceful purposes. Unless we can do something to reverse the terrifying process which is now going on in the Indian Ocean, there will be another avalanche of hatred and destruction and even we may not be as safe as we may think ourselves. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.12 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest and care to the speech that the noble Baroness has just made, but it has only confirmed my belief that, however laudable the aims and the spirit of the Motion— and the sentiments which the noble Baroness has expressed are very worth while—its terms are totally impracticable. The present international climate, especially as it affects the area of the Indian Ocean, makes the idea of preserving its neutrality in the way the noble Baroness seeks to achieve—or appears to want—impos-sible to implement.
During the last three years, the United Nations General Assembly has passed at least two Resolutions declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace, and each time Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union have abstained. The last Resolution passed by the General Assembly— No. 3259A— called on the great Powers to refrain from increasing their military presence in the area, but that Resolution can never be implemented so long as the great Powers refuse to support it. Ever since the Six Day War, the Soviet Union has been steadily building up its naval fleet in the Indian Ocean and increasing its military and diplomatic presence throughout the whole area. I think that this has been done for several reasons. It puts more and more pressure on the weakened southern flank of NATO's defences, at a time when there is stalemate in the various talks to reduce the size of NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe.

753
It provides protection for Russia's growing interests in the area and it helps to establish and enhance its political influence.
My Lords, it is estimated that the Russians now have some 35 naval ships in the Indian Ocean and in the surrounding area, compared to about 23 belonging to the Western Powers. However, because of the kind of ships involved, the imbalance is not so great as the figures at first suggest. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the facilities which the Russians have in the Indian Ocean can enable their ships to stay there much longer than the ships of the Western Powers. The Soviet Union is continuing to increase the facilities avail-able to it in the Northern part of the Indian Ocean. The Russian Navy has established mooring buoys North and South of Socotra Islands, in the Seychelles and in the Chagos Archipelago, not to mention its facilities in Somalia, Iraq and Southern Yemen. It is also carrying out a proxy war in Oman by giving assistance to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman. I am glad that the White Paper published today continues our help to the Sultan of Oman.
My Lords, the potential threat to Western interests is clear. The escalation of oil prices and the willingness of the OPEC member States, especially those in the Middle East, to use oil as a political weapon have brought home to us how vital Middle East oil is to the industrialised countries of the West. The comments made by President Ford and Dr. Kissinger on what might happen if the tap was turned off demonstrates the potential seriousness of the situation. While I do not believe that the Soviet Union would attack or impede one of our tankers, I do believe that it would be the height of folly to leave such vital interests unprotected and to leave the way clear for the Russians to do as they please. Indeed, the Russians have assisted their allies outside the Eastern bloc on occasion: one has only to look at the help that has been given to Egypt. Admiral Sir Terence Lewin is reported as having said that the West has a very real need to maintain a naval presence in the Indian Ocean, for the Russian Navy has no need to be in the area except as a threat to seaborne trade.
754
The problem will of course be further aggravated with the opening of the Suez Canal this summer. This will be of tremendous benefit to the Russian Navy which will no longer have to make the long journey around the Cape or from Vladivostok. Instead, it can do the short journey from the Black Sea through the Canal to the Indian Ocean. On the other hand, the reopening will not be of much assistance to the Americans and the other Western Powers, which will be unable to use the Canal because of the size of their supertankers and large naval vessels. Thus, the Cape route will still be of major importance to this country for a number of years to come.
My Lords, it has generally been accepted as inevitable by both sides of the House that Britain's world role should contract in those areas where we have no great interest, and that our defence of those areas where we have interests is partly dependent on the participation of our allies. The savage defence cuts announced last year by the Government and confirmed in the White Paper today make this all the more true, although the Government themselves have recognised in the White Paper that,
"we cannot exclude the possibility that the members of the Warsaw Pact might try to use their massive military power, especially in conventional weapons, to bring political pressure to bear, perhaps selectively, on Western countries in the hope of influencing their external and even their domestic policies."
Yet, the Government have still decided to withdraw from Gan by April 1976, and to give up the naval communications station in Mauritius. They have decided to weaken, if not destroy, the Five Power defence arrangements, yet the White Paper says:
"… those interests absorb only a comparatively small proportion of the Defence Budget. Withdrawal from all these areas including the garrisons in the Mediterranean would save £150 million a year at the most"
My Lords, if we have to be faced with this decision, I think that it is even more necessary to offer our remaining facilities for the use and support of our Western allies. I think it is only right that the Sultan of Oman has agreed to allow the Americans to use Masirah on an irregular basis, and it is certainly in our own interests to permit the Americans to extend the facilities on Diego Garcia. However, the

755
noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in another place on 11th March that:
"… there are no plans to base ships or air-craft on Diego Garcia, and there will be no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry ". — [Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 258.]
When the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, comes to answer this debate, could he expand on that remark? What exactly do the Government mean by " no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry"? The idea of excluding nuclear weapons from the area of the Indian Ocean is, I should have thought, a little out of date, since the Indian Government have in fact carried out a successful nuclear test.
Since the Government have decided on withdrawing still further from East of Suez, it is all the more imperative that we obtain the most up-to-date intelligence on events in that area of the Indian Ocean. While I fully realise and appreciate that NATO is not allowed to operate South of the Tropic of Cancer—and I am not suggesting that it should—I do think that NATO should extend its area of interest and should study very closely developments in that area of the world. It would be wrong for NATO to ignore the potential threat posed by the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. On 14th January last the noble Lord's right honourable friend said in another place—
"…I believe that the NATO defence planning Council is worried about the growth of Soviet naval activity around the Cape and the Indian Ocean and that it will probably be embarking upon the study …".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/75; col. 176.]
Can the noble Lord give the House any more up-to-date information on this point, which I think is of vital importance?
My Lords, one of the great advantages of the Simonstown Agreement, outside the fact that Simonstown has the only deep water harbour between the Cape and Singapore, is the provision of intelligence information in respect of shipping movements on the Cape route. If this facility is removed because of the Government's surrender in the face of pressure from the Left over the special provisions offered this country at the Simonstown base and over the joint
756
exercises with the South African Navy, it will be a damaging blow to this country. I recognise that the facilities available at Simonstown would probably be still offered to us on a cash basis, but this depends on the result of the talks with the South African Government, and I notice that the Government White Paper on Defence conveniently skates over this very important point. It is regrettable that it does not go into greater detail on what the Government hope to achieve. I doubt whether it is in this country's long-term interest to antagonise the South Africans—whatever we may think of their internal politics—when such major changes are taking place in South Africa as a whole, and at the moment when the South African Government, anyway in their foreign policy, are trying to reach some understanding with the Governments of black Africa.
The withdrawal of Portugal from Africa has changed considerably the political situation in that Continent. Although the Frelimo Government of Mozambique is probably more sympathetic to Marxism than to capitalism it is likely that it will follow a rather pragmatic course after independence in June because of the disastrous state of the country's economy. This, I would presume, means that the Government will maintain the Beira patrol. It also, of course, poses an interesting moral dilemma. If the Indian Ocean were made a neutral area, as the noble Baroness wants, and foreign naval vessels were excluded, Rhodesia would of course find it much easier to evade sanctions.
We on this side of the House certainly want the Indian Ocean to be an area of peace, but we believe that this can only be achieved through mutual security. The Russians are not going to pull out and consequently give up the political influence which they have in the area. Thus they pose a potential threat to our vital interests in that part of the world and to the Southern flank of NATO. The answer surely lies in offsetting the Russian military presence by that of the Western allies. While I would readily agree with the noble Baroness that many of the littoral States would like to see the foreign forces totally removed from the area, I also believe that in general they would not want to have the Russians alone.
3.26 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, is chiefly reflecting the fears of Mrs. Gandhi that the Indian Ocean might eventually become the scene of some contest between the two super-Powers, especially some nuclear contest. But her main fear, if not her only concern in this respect, lies in the alleged development of the small and almost uninhabited British possession, the Island of Diego Garcia in the South of the area where we are said to have given or offered—and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will confirm or deny this —the Americans certain communications facilities. It can hardly be suggested that we ourselves, despite what the noble Baroness suggested, could make any prejudicial use of this island. In any case, though I am not sure whether I am here in agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, the Royal Navy has, I believe, no intention of developing Diego Garcia as a base. Anyhow it is obvious that it could be no real substitute for Simonstown.
So it comes to this. There is no intention of any kind of making Diego Garcia into a nuclear base. The landing strip, I understand, is quite unsuitable for any large bombers. And, if you were thinking of nuclear bases, why should that be necessary on an island thousands of miles away from the scene of any action, when presumably, if there was a catastrophe and a nuclear war, it would be conducted by nuclear submarines which both sides might send to the area so as to bombard any State in the area affected? That might, of course, be a danger, but I suggest it has nothing what-ever to do with Diego Garcia. What does seem to be clear is that, if the Americans are not given such communications facilities in Diego Garcia as they are asking for, they will have no facilities of any kind in the Indian Ocean, except as I understand from what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, conceivably in Oman; otherwise nothing.
This obviously is not the case so far as the other super-Power is concerned. The Soviet Union has now very nearly taken over Aden and is also, I understand, constructing a base in Somalia at Mogadiscio, to say nothing of facilities in Socotra and, I believe, also in the island

758
of Kamaran. We hear, too—as no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has heard —of requests for facilities for so-called fishing boats and trawlers in Mauritius. And I have no doubt that before long we shall also be hearing of similar requests from the newly instituted independent Government of the Seychelles. And as for us, we have, of course, withdrawn from the Persian Gulf and now that we have given up Gan in the Maldives, and indeed Singapore, there is nowhere, except presumably Diego Garcia, where our war-ships or submarines, if there should be any in the area, could have any facilities at all.
Why, then, I ask myself, is it that Mrs. Gandhi is so occupied with what she apparently regards as an exclusively American menace? Suppose the Soviet Navy extends its system of bases even further, as I have suggested and as I think is probable, what would Mrs. Gandhi's attitude be to that? Is she perhaps pre-pared to give Soviet fishing vessels facilities in Bombay or Madras, and what would be the attitude of the Government of Colombo? We have not heard much about that so far. I believe that they are also backing up the Indian request that the whole of the area should, in some way, be a nuclear-free area.
But, my Lords, irrespective of all that, if the idea is that the Indian Ocean should somehow be transformed into a nuclear-free zone, how could such an arrangement be enforced? Would there have to be neutral inspectors in Mogadiscio, or Aden, or Socotra, or wherever it may be, to confirm that no Soviet warships entering or leaving their bases could be carrying any form of nuclear weapons? Is that the idea? Would India herself be prepared to submit to such disciplines if, by any chance, they were accepted by the Governments of South Yemen, or any other States in the area that might be concerned? We ought to have further information on that point.
The recent explosion of a nuclear device on Indian soil must, in any case— and despite assertions that the explosion has no military significance whatever— cast at least a certain doubt on India's intention to keep out of the nuclear arms race altogether. And, of course, if India should ever possess a single nuclear weapon, however small, the entire idea

759
of a nuclear-free zone in the Indian Ocean would collapse. But irrespective of nuclear considerations, the object of any neutralisation or "peace zone" proposal would, I suppose, be to exclude any war-ships from the ocean, other than those belonging to the riparian States. If this could be arranged it would be an excel-lent thing. Here I do not altogether go along with the noble Earl, Lord Cowley. If that, I repeat, could be arranged it would, in principle, be excellent despite certain disadvantages; for instance, in regard to the blockade of the Portuguese coast for controlling Rhodesian imports, and so on. But after all, it would chiefly be a matter for consideration by the two super-Powers, and if Mrs. Gandhi could persuade them both to enter into a kind of self-denying ordinance we should, I suggest, all rejoice. At the moment, and as things are, it would seem best for Mrs. Gandhi to approach the Soviet Government who are actively engaged in asserting their presence in the area, and not the Americans who, except for some possible communications facilities in Diego Garcia, are totally absent from the whole area in a military sense.
But, my Lords, surely the whole question is whether or not the two super-Powers really are lining up for some global confrontation in the area; in so far as we can prevent this, let us by all means try. However, if by any chance the Soviet Union's objectives should be to threaten—or to put themselves in a position to threaten—our oil supplies from the Gulf, we should presumably, in those circumstances, have to give the Americans all the support we could in order to counter it. That stands to reason.
Apart from the possible approach to the Soviet Government, is there any other constructive step that might be taken? I think there is one. The Suez Canal is not, I believe, as yet completely open. When it is, why should not the Egyptian Government declare that they are to close it to all warships irrespective of nationality? That would make it much easier for Mrs. Gandhi to seal off the Indian Ocean from the activities of either of the super-Powers. I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, might put this proposal to her friend and ask her to take it up with Mr. Sadat, who is in a very good position to talk to both

760
Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Gromyko on this subject. I would ask the noble Baroness to consider this practical suggestion when she sums up.
3.35 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, for initiating this debate which is of very great importance to the world. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, delivered the speech which I expected and stated the Conservative view with clarity and conviction. I was a little disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for the Liberal Party, except for his conclusions. The opening part of his speech seemed to me very different from the Liberal views which his Party used to express in the days when I belonged to it.
We are discussing an area of the world which is very extensive and is of enormous importance for world communications. The Indian Ocean stretches for 75 million kilometres and borders three con-tinents—Africa, Asia and Australia. It is the link between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the West, and the Pacific in the East, and—here I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said in this respect—it is of supreme importance for trade; not merely the oil resources of the Gulf, which we have now learned are so important, but 90 per cent. of world production of rubber, jute, tea and other materials, as well as a large proportion of minerals, must cross the Indian Ocean.
My Lords, it is to protect production and trade to the West, that the West has insisted that a naval and military presence is necessary in the Indian Ocean —the United Kingdom, when Britannia ruled the waves before the World War, and the United States of America pre-dominantly since, with French presence decreasing with the loss of Indo-China. I have in my hand a map of the Indian Ocean which shows that both the Ocean itself and the surrounding lands and scattered islands are dotted with outposts of Britain and the United States of America. Some of these outposts are of little naval or military value; they are not much more than harbour facilities for refuelling, repairs and so on. But others are highly equipped naval and military force bases.

761
There is in the middle of the Indian Ocean the Diego Garcia post, to which the noble Baroness and others have referred. It was a fuelling base for Britain during World War II. In 1966, the United Kingdom agreed to a long-term lease to the United States of America. There was a question in the United Nations and, as a result, the Secretary-General sent technical observers to examine the situation. In April 1974, they reported that the base could be used by almost any aircraft in the world including the US Air Force B-52 strategic bomber and the KC 125, the refuelling aircraft for the B-52. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this American base is much more than the communicating contact to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred. In this situation there was great concern among the nations which bordered the Indian Ocean.
Last month there were discussions between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of India; and Mr. Michael Welford, Deputy Under-Secretary in our Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reported to us and Mr. V. C. Trivedi, Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, reported to India. Mr. Trivedi, for India, said that the US base would stimulate Soviet-American naval rivalry in a region which had so far been comparatively free of it. He did not only criticise the American presence in the Indian Ocean; he criticised the presence of the Soviet Union as well. It has been recently alleged that a threatening Soviet naval force has entered the Indian Ocean and the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, has given figures of, I think, 35 Soviet vessels against the 23 of the West.
I want to admit immediately, as I shall indicate later, that I do not have know-ledge of these facts. The presence of an American fleet was given as one of the reasons for maintaining the Simonstown base in South Africa. I say that I do not know the facts. I doubt whether there is anyone who knows the facts. It seems to me that one of the most urgent needs today is that the facts should be investigated. It is acknowledged that the Soviet Union has no naval or military base in the Indian Ocean. The countries most likely to pro-vide such bases, Iran, Somalia, India, Yemen and Bangladesh have all denied that they have given those facilities. It is possible that the Soviet Union may enjoy

762
port facilities in Somalia, in South Yemen, in India and Bangladesh; but no equipped bases with runways for bombers or deep-water protection for its fleet is provided in any of those territories.
My Lords, I am bewildered in approaching this subject because of the different statements made on both sides. In June of last year the Representative of the Soviet Union in the United Nations wrote these words to the Secretary General:
"The Soviet Union has never had, has not established and is not now establishing any military or naval bases in the Indian Ocean region. Soviet ships and vessels have never posed a threat to anyone in that region. In accordance with the existing rules of inter-national law and with universally recognised international practice they are engaged in training cruises and in the search for and recovery of Soviet space craft that splash down in the Indian Ocean. It must also be borne in mind that transit routes from the European part of the USSR to the Soviet Far East pass through the Indian Ocean and that, accordingly, in order to ensure the safe passage of ships and vessels the Soviet Union is conducting scientific investigations in the region."
I do not necessarily accept all those things; but what I am suggesting is that the time has come, when we are considering this important problem, for an impartial investigation to be made as to the facts in the Indian Ocean. Can the facts about the Soviet Government's presence be investigated through the United Nations, as the United Nations authorised in connection with Diego Garcia in 1974 when two visits were made on its behalf? I want to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, said, that the littoral States on the coasts of Africa —Somalia to Yemen to India and to Malaysia in the North, the States which are bordering the Indian Ocean—are now asking for its neutralisation.
The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, drew attention to the fact that when this subject was debated at the United Nations the Soviet Union Representative abstained as well as the Representatives of the West. But he will be aware that, since then, Mr. Brezhnev and the Soviet Union have unreservedly declared their support of the demand of the nations bordering the Indian Ocean that the Indian Ocean should be neutralised. They have used the phrase and they support the idea of a "Zone of Peace".
I do not accept everything the Soviet Union says; but I suggest that we ought

763
to challenge them when they have made that statement. Let us ask for a United Nations investigation of the facts. There does not seem to me to be any doubt that the majority in the United Nations would support the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean. I have no doubt at all that the vast majority of world opinion which desires peace would also support this proposal. It would be a precedent for other areas; it would be a precedent for the Mediterranean where Mediterranean nations are demanding neutralisation in the presence of great American and Russian fleets.
The Party to which I belong is not only pledged to reduce expenditure upon arms but also pledged to support the cause of peace. One would hope that our Party, in world affairs, will support this idea, which is endorsed by every nation which borders the Indian Ocean, that the area should be neutralised as a great encouragement to the neutralisation of the seas of the world and towards peace.
4.1 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I would certainly follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in agreeing that we are much indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, for introducing this highly important Motion this after-noon. The great American naval strategist, Admiral Mahan, wrote during the last century that:
"Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia and in the twenty-first century the destiny of the world will be decided in its waters."
Whether American or British strategists today would express their concern over Soviet penetration of the Indian Ocean in quite those terms is doubtful; but I feel we should certainly consider the implications of the words of Admiral Gorshkov in July 1967, when he said:
"The Soviet Navy has been converted, in the full sense of the word, into an offensive type of long-range armed force … which could exert a decisive influence on the course of an armed struggle in theatres of military operations of vast extent … and which is also able to support State interests at sea in peace-time."
Then there is Russia's long-term aim of filling the vacuum created by Britain's withdrawal East of Suez, the first incursion of Soviet naval vessels into the

764
Indian Ocean being in 1968. Finally, there is the Russian desire to increase their influence and presence in that area. I think that the following statement which appeared in Pravda in August 1973 is as relevant today as it was then:
"Peaceful co-existence does not spell an end to the struggle between the two world social systems. The struggle will continue between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between world socialism and imperialism, up to the complete and final victory of Communism on a world scale."
Therefore let us not forget the situation in Cambodia and, nearer home, in Portugal, while remembering the Russian build-up in the area we are considering today. I would add en passant that while Russia may be competing with the Chinese in a struggle for influence— in the Indian Ocean area China does not look on it as a strategic or political entity but more as an area in which exists "targets of opportunity"—on the other hand, the Soviet are intent on increasing the facilities they require and the influence they can exercise there.
Excluding for the moment reference to Russia military advisers and instructors in the area, one cannot ignore the fact that Russia is increasing her port facilities. For instance, the Soviet have a naval and submarine base at Hodeida in the Yemen Arab Republic, while in Iraq Soviet aid has helped to develop the naval bass at Umm Qasr at the head of the Persian Gulf. The island of Perim has also very useful naval facilities. Then there is Aden, which has already been referred to, with its excellent natural harbour, constituting as a base a definite potential threat, as it is readily available to Marxist-orientated naval units. At present the island of Socotra has no harbour— reference has also been made to this island—but I understand that about three years ago Soviet engineers made a survey of it. An unstable situation exists in Ethiopia which has a main naval base at Massawa; and last year the Soviet. Somali Friendship Treaty was signed, so that the Russians now have at Berbera important port facilities and the communications centre there is under sole Soviet control.
At Port Louis in Mauritius, the Soviet "fishing fleet"—and we all know what that means—has been granted facilities. At this point I should like to ask the Minister: what is the present situation

765
regarding the important naval communications centre based on Mauritius for which we were responsible until last year? May I ask whether the arrangement has been extended and whether we are still responsible? As I do not wish to go beyond the Indian Ocean into Portuguese Atlantic areas, I feel that some concern should be expressed over some-thing that has already been mentioned; namely, the unstable situation in Mozambique. After the Russian demands for facilities at Madeira, one can imagine that they will seek increased co-operation with the Frelimo Government in Mozambique.
I should now like to turn to the very reasonable proposals to increase the use-fulness of the Diego Garcia Atoll to the United States naval forces in the area. In a Written Answer last year, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said on 5th February, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, at column 770 of the Official Report that the Government:
"… have long felt that it is desirable in the general Western interest to balance increased Soviet activities in the Indian Ocean area Accordingly they welcome the expansion of the U.S. facilities … "
Can the Minister say what the present situation is and what is the Government's attitude now regarding these increased facilities, which are fairly marginal at Diego Garcia?—bearing in mind a 3 to 1 Soviet naval presence as compared with the United States naval presence, and also an even greater ratio regarding "port time" in the area.
Finally, I am conscious of the fact— and I can understand the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on this— that many African Governments would welcome the idea of a neutralised Indian Ocean, but as things are at the moment I feel that the idea of an Indian Ocean denuded of big-Power naval presence is anachronistic. The Russians, it seems, are there to stay and with the reopening of the Suez Canal (this summer, I believe) access to the Indian Ocean will certainly be much facilitated, particularly to the Russians and not so much to the Americans because of the size of naval vessels. At the same time, the major oil-producing countries once the Canal is open will be "ringed" by the Soviet Navy.
Having made these points, I feel that we should listen to the points which

766
African Governments have to make and endeavour to see their point of view and see whether we cannot convince them or at least reach some form of modus vivendi and understanding on this very important matter. It is a subject they feel strongly about, I know. I am thinking particularly, of course, about the views (as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway) of the littoral States. I have in mind Madagascar, because I have been chairman of the Anglo-Malagasy Society since October 1961, and also Madagascar's importance in terms of its geographical location and size and heads of population—it has a population of over 7½ million people. Regarding that country, I think it relevant to point out that since 1972 their foreign policy has been what they term, "A politique d'ouverture tous azimuts" as practised by the then Foreign Minister, Commandant Didie Ratsiraka, which I certainly believe will be followed by the present foreign Minister, Pasteur Albert Zakariasy. In other words, co-operation with all countries, East and West, provided their national sovereignty is not impaired or impinged upon, on a basis of mutual understanding and friendship.
In conclusion, I feel though, as mentioned in a recent report produced by the Institute for the Study of Conflict, that in the Indian Ocean, as elsewhere, a strong Soviet Fleet is an instrument of moral and material support for groups in power or seeking power and willing to work with the Russians. Therefore, my Lords, this country and the United States should recognise this fact and act accordingly.
4.3 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, each of the contributors to this debate has stressed the enormous strategic importance of the Indian Ocean, and none has suggested that any accomplished fact so far as a disturbance of the peace in the Indian Ocean is concerned, has as yet taken place. It is indeed a most remark-able fact that such a huge expanse as the Indian Ocean, with such enormous importance to so many people, has not revealed any of the disturbances which we have seen in most other parts of the world. I think we all agree that if it is in any way disturbed then vital differences could arise as between the great Powers.

767
My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge who opened the debate mentioned the position in Mauritius. I was there about a year ago when she was, and there can be no question that Prime Minister Ramgoolam and others are extremely worried about what could hap-pen in Diego Garcia. I rather resented the imputation made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that, because the Russians have certain fishing rights at St. Louis this seemed to him to indicate there was a bias in favour of Russian power being encouraged in the Indian Ocean. I could find nothing of that kind in the discussions I had in Mauritius. In-deed, I would repudiate the thought that people with whom I negotiated in my days as Colonial Secretary, and who have always honoured their side of the arrangements we then made, would be capable of that kind of duplicity. It is somewhat ironic that at the moment when we are debating this issue the Constitutional Conference for the Independence of the Seychelles is now taking place in London. We, as a result of such Constitutional Conferences—whether they be for independence, as in the case of the Seychelles, or for associated status, as in the case of large areas of the Caribbean where I negotiated—do not cut ourselves off from friendship and assistance to those areas. They remain within the Commonwealth, and to me it would be unthinkable that we could rather hypocritically talk about granting Independence to the Seychelles if at the same time we were to lend our aid to build up warlike fleets within the Indian Ocean itself.
I should therefore be grateful to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts if, when he replies, he will say who is right. Are my noble friends Lady Lee and Lord Brockway right in saying that in Diego Garcia there is to be a very considerable build-up of American military and naval strength, or is the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, right when he says it is merely a question of communications? There is, I suggest, a slight difference. One's attitude would be very largely determined by which way that question is to be answered. May I also ask this? Especially when one looks down the African coastline one sees that here again are members of the British Commonwealth of nations. Has there been close consultation between Julius

768
Nyerere and people of this kind and the Americans before any arrangements were made—or will there be if arrangements are to be made—on the question of what is to happen on Diego Garcia?
I like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that with the reopening of Suez, which will bring the Gulf of Aden very much into this particular picture, it would be a good thing if the Egyptian Government made some statement about warships going through Suez. One looks at the Mediterranean and the access via Suez to the Indian Ocean of both the Americans and the Russians. It is now a feature which could change the disposition of power within the Indian Ocean very considerably indeed. For my part, I hope that Mauritious's Government would not only suggest to the Egyptian Government that they might consider doing this; I would go further and agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that it would be first class if we got an inquiry into the whole basis of this situation; if we suggested at the United Nations that it would be an excellent feature of their work in this part of the world if they could initiate such discussions, with a view to ensuring— I will not say the neutrality of the Indian Ocean, but certainly that the new possibilities which the reopening of Suez will bring are vetoed so far as both the great Powers are concerned. These, to me, are vital issues indeed.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lee on raising this issue. As I said, she, like myself, had practical experience of the feelings of the people in Mauritius If there is nothing in this suggestion about the build-up in Diego Garcia, how is it that it comes about at this particular moment? We have all known a very old friend of ours, the Prime Minister of Mauritius, for many years. I never heard any suggestion from him that there was danger of animosity between the Soviets and the Americans until the question of Diego Garcia came into the headlines. Therefore, I do not accept either that they are behaving hysterically or that they are merely surmising about what could happen. I think that today's opportunity is an excellent one. When he replies. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten what I confess is my complete ignorance about the answer to these matters, and that he will do so in a way

769
which will enable the Conference on the Seychelles which is taking place now in Lancaster House to feel that they know that the answer is not only Independence, but Independence from what.
4.11 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge for introducing this important subject for debate, and for the balanced and cogent way in which she spoke. Britain has had a long history of involvement in the Indian Ocean and of relations with the littoral countries in that area. We were there first as traders, then as a colonial and naval Power; and I think it is reasonable to state that we exercised this power responsibly in fulfilment of our commitments to territories which we administered by the best lights available to us in that period of Imperial power, and in fulfilment of Treaty obligations in the area. I think it is true that we can look back with some pride on the rapid and harmonious transition which has been made to a new pattern of relationships with countries in the area, and there are noble Lords who are present in this House who have made distinguished contributions in that direction.
Of course, we continue to have an interest in the Indian Ocean, as have other countries, including European countries; but somehow it always falls to us to solve all the problems which occur in such areas, even though there are other countries which are directly interested. Like other countries, we have a legitimate interest in ensuring the security of these trade routes, and it is against this background that we have agreed to a limited expansion by the United States of the facilities at Diego Garcia. This offers no threat to the security of States bordering the Indian Ocean; nor, indeed, has it attracted any-thing like universal hostility from those States.
In recent years our military presence has been progressively reduced as we have reassessed our role in the world. Indeed, in this area of South-Western Asia and the Far East our presence has very greatly diminished in accordance with that reassessment. We are now almost confined to considering the future of Diego Garcia. I hope that what I have to say

770
will, in some respects, reassure my noble friends and others who are concerned about the natural anxieties which have been expressed by the people of Mauritius and others about what is pro-posed to happen there.
May I therefore take the outstanding questions which my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge has put to me. She said that the Mauritian High Commissioner in Delhi had publicly stated that there was an undertaking not to use Diego Garcia for military purposes. My understanding is that when the Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius to form part of the British and Indian Ocean Territory, it was made clear to the Mauritian Government that it was needed for "defence purposes". The Mauritians sought to place no restrictions upon this use. I believe that this is also the official understanding of the Mauritius Government.
My noble friend asked about nuclear weapons, and in this question she was joined by a number of noble Lords who took part in this debate. The Americans do not plan to base ships or aircraft at Diego Garcia and, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, there will be no facilities of any kind for nuclear weapons. My noble friend Lord Lee of Newton and my noble friend Lord Brockway, as well as the initiator of this debate, sought reassurance on this point. I give that assurance and add that if there were such a proposal they would have to come to us.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister says that there will be no American aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia. However, according to the report presented to the United Nations by representatives of the Secretary General, is it not the case that the run-way has been extended so as to allow aircraft of any size to arrive at and depart from that base?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I was coming to that point and to one or two related points. However, I thought that it was right and courteous to deal first with the extremely important questions that my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge has raised. My noble friend also asked a question about oil or other minerals discovered in or near

771
the Archipelago. We have told the Mauritius Government that they would have the benefit of any minerals or oil discovered in this area. But the Islands are British sovereign territory and, in our view, this includes the territorial waters. However, we have said to them that they would have the benefit of these discoveries, if any; and, of course, as in the past, I think we shall do a great deal to assist them at the right time to make use of these benefits, if and when they are found to exist. My noble friend and, I think, my noble friend, Lord Lee of Newton, quite rightly asked whether there had been proper consultation.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, on the question of the surrounding seabed, I have been officially in-formed that the Mauritians had engaged an American company to explore for oil and other minerals in the surrounding seabed, and that they had been told that they could not go on with those explorations. It would be very useful if that point could be cleared up.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not immediately in a position to clear up that point. I think it is related to the immediate defence question in that area. I recognise my noble friend's interest in the matter and I share it. I do not wish to give a complete answer, because I am not in a position to do so. What I will do is look into it; but I repeat that we have told the Mauritius Government that they would have the benefit of any minerals or oil discovered in this area, and I have no doubt that we shall assist them, if and when this becomes practicable. How far this is related to the needs of defence is a matter for definition, and I wish to be more precise about this before I answer.
I come now to one or two detailed questions which have been put to me, including one put in supplementation by my noble friend Lord Brockway. The improvements at Diego Garcia, which are relatively modest, will provide facilities for refuelling, resupplying and minor maintenance of ships and aircraft. They include lengthening the runway, enlarging the parking area, improving ship sup-port facilities and storage and accommodation facilities. This does not in any way

772
minimise the force of what I said previously, that it is not the intention to base ships or aircraft at Diego Garcia. There will be no specialised support facilities for submarines. The improvements to the runway will not strengthen or widen it sufficiently to permit B52 bomber operations, which I think the noble Lord mentioned. At present there are some 300 US personnel stationed there and the number will increase gradually to some 500. That is about the size of it, and noble Lords and others who have some experience of these stations—I avoid the word "base" because it is not a base; it is a station—will realise that it is not proposed to increase it markedly. I repeat that it does not constitute a threat to any State in the area, and I want to add that it certainly does not conduce to an imbalance of presence in the area.
I do not propose to engage in an evaluation of the Russian presence as compared with that of the Western countries in this area. Rather I should like to take up one or two points made by my noble friend about the prospects of moving towards—if not an absolutely nuclear-free zone—a peace zone in the general area. Here, if I may say so, I thought the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was most thoughtful and constructive. There are real practical difficulties about organising such an area over a wide ocean. The same difficulties do not obtain over a territorial expanse such as Latin America; may not obtain in what is mainly a territorial part of the world like the Middle East, but certainly do obtain over an oceanic part of the world.
We have, of course, a record of strong support for meaningful and constructive advances in regional neutralisation. We found it impossible to support—we did not vote against, but found it impossible to support—proposals put forward at the United Nations in regard to the Indian Ocean, for quite substantial reasons. We believe that these changes should be pre-ceded by proper studies and preparation. The suggestion that the Indian Ocean should be neutralised certainly reflects a genuine concern among the countries of the area. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the best approach to neutralisation in the Indian Ocean is offered by the suggestion of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Gough Whitlam, who we feel has

773
gone to the heart of the matter. He has suggested—and we completely agree with him—that it is necessary to secure substantial agreement by the two super Powers before we move on, hopefully, to a conference designed to draw up a blue-print, however idealistic, but which, unless there is substantial prior agreement by the super Powers, may not result in any advantages to that area or to the world.
The countries bordering on the Indian Ocean do not form a distinctive group in a political or a cultural sense. It is natural that many of them should express concern about what is happening there— not just now in Diego Garcia, but what has happened over the past 10 or 15 years all over the Ocean—and should feel anxious about these developments. They are developments deriving from the lack of effective detente in the area between the two super Powers, and our role must be—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out very cogently —to support every practical way of get-ting the two super Powers together to agree to effective action.
A very interesting suggestion was made about the control of the Suez Canal. That would apply to one of the super Powers but, clearly, it would be a contribution in the sense that one super Power in particular would be subject to a possible sanction.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, before he leaves the subject of arms limitation in the Indian Ocean? The proposal for arms limitation is a very reasonable and desirable one, provided it is balanced and controlled and properly surveyed, and I am sure that if such a proposal were to be implemented it would certainly be welcome to China, to India and to the oil producing countries of the Middle East. But can the noble Lord say whether there has been any indication at all, apart from words, that the Soviet Government is in any way pre-pared to reverse the existing build-up of the forces in that area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would be rather difficult for me to explain or project Soviet policy or intentions. We have heard words spoken by Mr. Brezhnev quoted in this debate.

774
We have had recent experience of helpful and hopeful contacts with the Soviet Government. There may be others. Shall I say that we hope very much that the progress of detente will include a readiness by both the Soviet Union and the United States of America to look at the question of build-up in this area, in particular. I think that should be part of it, but I accept the noble Lord's point —in fact, I was dealing with it—that first the Russians and the Americans should indicate and seek to prove by deeds, possibly by a policy of small steps, that they are in earnest about achieving, first, a balance and, later, de-escalation in this area.
There are, of course, other considerations that we must bear in mind before we support positively well-meaning but, perhaps, not sufficiently thought out proposals in New York for conferences and arrangements designed to achieve what my noble friend and I—and I think all of us—so passionately want to see. First, the decision to form a nuclear-free zone should be taken voluntarily and freely by the States concerned in the area; secondly, the creation of such a zone should not diminish security or have a destabilising effect. This is particularly important in regions of nuclear confrontation between the great Powers.
Thirdly, all militarily significant States, and preferably all States in the zone, should be included. Fourthly—and here I join with the noble Lord—there should be arrangements for impartial, inter-national verification adequate for the particular circumstances of the region. It is no good having a blueprint unless it is first of all effectively implemented, and, secondly, effectively supervised in practice. Any progress towards creating any such nuclear-free zone or, indeed, zone of peace, would certainly contribute to-wards the reduction of tension in the area. We have shown willing by action as well as suggestion at the United Nations, and in other discussions, when we have supported effectively other proposals—at least five which I can call to mind— relating to Latin America, to the Middle East and to Africa.
My Lords, we have had natural doubts about certain proposals made about the India Ocean. This is not quite the same as Latin America, or even the Middle East. I can completely assure my noble

775
friend that it is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to support the objectives she has so eloquently described. I hope that in these few remarks I have gone some way to reassuring her and my other noble friends about the position in Diego Garcia.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he at least try to answer the points I raised in relation to the study being carried out by the NATO Defence Planning Council in relation to developments in the Indian Ocean?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not clearly at this point. If the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, will help me by possibly putting down a Question, I should like to look at that separately from the general points raised this afternoon about the Indian Ocean.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his courtesy in answering in detail the questions raised. As the noble Lord knows, every word he has said will be carefully scrutinised by the Governments to which we have referred. I look for-ward with interest, as I am sure he does, to the replies we shall receive from our many Commonwealth friends and others. We hope that what has been said by the noble Lord today will not only be re-assuring, but will be something to build on towards more secure times. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

ALCOHOLISM
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to draw attention to the growing problem of alcoholism in this country, the increasing number of man-hours lost to industry thereby, and the shortage of health and social service facilities to deal with the problem; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of the debate this afternoon has been shrouded in mystery for many years, largely through the ignorance and misunderstanding of the general public. I feel that it should be a non-Party debate.

776
I hope that by the end of it we shall have cleared the air considerably, and recognised many of the problems that exist. I feel sure your Lordships will bear with me while I briefly describe what an alcoholic is not. However, I must add here that whenever the term "alcoholic" is referred to this afternoon, it refers to either sex.
My Lords, for many years, the alcoholic has been drawn as a character on a bomb site with a bottle of "meths" stuck in his pocket. He has been ridiculed on the stage as the proverbial drunk with a red "hooter" propping up a lamp post, as someone everyone laughs at. He has been described as a person lacking in moral fibre, who has no will-power. For many years, metaphorically he has been swept under the carpet and not admitted to by any of his family, because of the stigma attached to Ms so-called weakness. How wrong this conception is!
My Lords, the alcoholic suffers from a very severe illness, both mental and physical. It is a progressive illness, often taking from eight to 15 years fully to manifest itself. Due to the inadequate knowledge of the family and of the general public with regard to this illness, the alcoholic gets progressively more ill, fighting with his family, thereby putting an excruciating strain on his nearest and dearest who, for the sake of peace and quiet, by all the wrong methods try to stop him from drinking, usually with disastrous results. In the end, either he dies, or ends up in an insane asylum as a vegetable.
He will go out with the best intention of having only one or two drinks. When he sets out on a social occasion, it is his avowed intention that that is all he will have, but as soon as he has had them, he cannot help himself and usually ends up by getting hopelessly drunk. If the family have no drink in the house, he will wait in agony for the pub to open. He will wake up in strange rooms, in strange towns, wondering how he got there. He will steal money from his wife's purse. The wives of alcoholics are forced to go out to work to pay the rent and keep the family. After a period of time, the alcoholic completely disrupts his family life, his social relations, and invariably loses his job. His mental and physical condition is so affected and weakened by

777
the continuous use of alcohol that every-thing is neglected except the procuring of more alcohol.
My Lords, the problem of the alcoholic is not only in his physical being, but also in his mind. If asked why he went out on a "bender", he will give you any of 100 excuses. Women alcoholics have exactly the same problem. Why they drink is rather irrelevant, although it has been ascertained that many women start drinking through loneliness and boredom. Their husbands do not understand why they do not join a bridge club or do charity work. The husband is often envious that the wife has no work to do, and, in the end, all this leads to is that they grow more and more incompatible, and the woman alcoholic continues down the same slippery path of despair and self-destruction. Alcoholism is the fourth biggest killer in this country, coming closely after heart disease, cancer and tuberculosis. The alcoholic does not necessarily die directly through cirrhosis of the liver, but, perhaps, in a motor accident, or he can set his house on fire, commit suicide, get run over, and so on.
Should any of your Lordships think that alcoholism is not an illness, in 1952 the World Health Organisation stated that it was. The stigma that is quite unjustifiably attached to alcoholism often pre-vents him from admitting that he is one, let alone allowing himself to consider treatment. I must point out here that a drinking alcoholic is partially insane, and cannot fight this terrifying addiction and craving without help. He is one of the most unfortunate and lonely characters in the world today. Practically everyone is against him, and few understand him. He has got himself into a condition and situation from which he can find no escape, except to continue drinking in order to anaesthetise himself from all the problems both large and small, from which he thinks he cannot escape.
If anyone in this Chamber thinks I have exaggerated, I would assure them that, if anything, I have done the opposite. I speak from experience, as I am myself a recovered alcoholic. I would add here that I do not preach teetotalism. I have no desire to stop anyone drinking socially. For the alcoholic to recover, he must not drink at all. The percentage of

778
recovered alcoholics who have managed to drink socially again is absolutely infinitesimal. That is why it is no good sending an alcoholic to a treatment centre for a week or so, after which time he has dried out and feels physically well again— so well that on his release he goes straight out and drinks again. To enable recovery to be successful there is a vast amount of after treatment and care necessary.
My Lords, what is the size and extent of this problem in our country? The official estimate is around 400,000, but this figure is of only the known alcoholics. It is probably only the tip of the iceberg, as today the figure of hidden alcoholics is certainly very much larger. I could go into many more details, numbers and statistics at great length, but should any of your Lordships like any further information on those figures I will be only too happy to try to supply them after this debate.
We must remember that the alcoholic affects not only his whole family but other people, such as his general practitioner, the police, magistrates, publicans and so on. Therefore, conservatively, over 2 million people have direct con-tact. The problem is increasing rapidly. Between 1958 and 1973, the number of convictions per year for drunkenness rose from 75,000 to 99,275. This represents an increase of about 25 per cent. per 10,000 people in the population aged fifteen years and over. The biggest percentage increase occurs in the under-eighteen year old convictions—1,880 in 1966; 4,725 in 1973—which is very alarming. I realise that many of those convicted are not alcoholics, but a large percentage are, or are potential, alcoholics. Dr. Glatt, one of the great medical experts in the world on alcoholism, published a survey in 1967 of two London courts and, if this survey was projected nationwide, out of 70,000 males convicted for drunkenness 17,500 were convicted once, 7,000 were convicted two or three times and 10,500 were convicted four or more times. From this it can be seen that the drunkenness pattern of today will reflect the trend of tomorrow's alcoholism.
My Lords, I think it would help if I gave a few figures on the increased alcohol consumption in this country, and I will break it down into three sections. Beer consumption in 1951–52 was

779
25½ million barrels; in 1974 it was 39 million barrels. Wine consumption in 1951–52 was 17 million gallons; in 1974 it was 87 million gallons. Spirits consumption in 1951–52 was 9½ million gallons; in 1974 it was 33 million gallons. The dramatic rise in wines and spirits is even more disturbing when one realises that the greatest increase has occurred in the last three years; namely, 80 per cent. for wine and 66 per cent. for spirits. In fact, wine consumption has increased in the last year by 5 per cent., and although the more expensive wines have decreased, possibly due to the extra taxes imposed by the Chancellor, cheaper wines have taken their place. These figures speak for themselves.
Today in England and Wales 91 people per 1,000 exceed 15 centilitres of pure alcohol per day, and can therefore be classified as problem drinkers. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver increased by 33 per cent. between 1962 and 1972. The admission rate in hospitals has increased in the last few years, but this is not a good guideline because it does not reflect the increase in beds which have been made available, coupled with the decrease which has occurred in the stigma attached to alcoholism whereby more alcoholics have come forward. Nevertheless, admission rates have increased from 2,400 in 1960 to 10,000 in 1972. I hope now, my Lords, that you will all agree that the growing rate of alcoholism in our community cannot be disputed.
I will now come to the cost to industry through loss of man-hours. It is very difficult to produce exact figures for the number of man-hours lost, since so little research has been done. But I am certain that it would pay a handsome dividend to the Department of Health and Social Security, as well as to the Department of Employment, if an inquiry into this problem were set up. It was found in 1968 in one Scottish company that the overall incidence was 14 per cent. According to Dr. Glatt, those in industry particularly prone to alcoholism are top executives, publicans—who, incidentally, have the highest rate of cirrhosis of the liver and mortality from it—journalists, the shipping industries, coalmining, steel-workers and show business. Taking into account the number of people with drinking problems in our community, the con-

780
servative estimate that industry loses only £105 million a year is obviously very much an underestimate. Dr. Glatt estimates that with the sickness benefits, social security, loss of efficiency in a work force of 250,000 problem drinkers, the loss is at least £250 million annually.
My Lords, we must rid ourselves of the completely false picture that the aver-age alcoholic is unemployed and unemployable. In fact, during the last six months the information centre of the National Council on Alcoholism helped 435 people, of whom 70 per cent. had full-time jobs. Quite soon after the onset of the illness the alcoholic becomes less efficient, less productive, less co-operative. His ability to establish relationships, both at home and at work, deteriorate. For years he works below his potential, and therefore the economic cost of absenteeism, accidents, loss of years of training for a responsible post, should be costed.
In 1967, some very revealing figures on alcoholism in British industry were published. Out of 300 alcoholics inter-viewed, it was found that 66 per cent. were frequently late for work, 40 per cent. were absent on Monday mornings once or twice a month, 21 per cent. were absent on Monday mornings more than once or twice a month, and the time lost by an alcoholic per year was 86 days. The alcoholic also sometimes works under the influence of drink, and it was found out that 88 per cent. usually drank before coming to work, 62 per cent. sometimes took a bottle to work with them, 12 per cent. did this every working day, and 90 per cent. sometimes drank throughout the day. It was found that 11 per cent. of accidents occurred through drinking at work, and 33 per cent. of those interviewed considered that drinking might have been responsible for some such accidents.
My Lords, what has been done in the United States? Over 300 major companies have alcoholic programmes, and these include Dupont, Eastman Kodak, Allis-Chalmers, the Bell Telephone Company and many others. Ford and Heinz prohibit the use of alcohol in their canteens and dining rooms. Dupont apply shock treatment. Employees are aware that their jobs are in jeopardy unless they take the treatment, and the Dupont

781
figures of recovery are 65 per cent. successful. Most of the major firms in the United States use constructive coercion. The principles of constructive coercion are very simple. The motive for the employee to keep his job provides the coercion needed. The company has a desire to rehabilitate rather than sack the employee, which is constructive. Inefficient and unproductive work occurs early in alcoholism, thus providing early diagnosis. Most United States companies have recovery rates between 70 and 90 per cent. Even if rehabilitation fails, many companies give a disability pension to the alcoholic, if he has been with them a long time. Experience in the United States has shown that treatment is not the problem, but identification is.
It is interesting to note that in 1968 constructive coercion was tried by the Glasgow Council on Alcoholism, but it failed because top executives denied that there was a problem. In seven years we have come a long way. Just because if failed the first time, that is surely not sufficient reason for not trying again. I have said that we think alcoholism costs industry at least £250 million a year. Unfortunately, most companies—and the Institute of Directors and the trade unions —are still not keen to discuss the alcoholic problem. Why not? I would suggest that it is probably through ignorance and also through insurance difficulties.
If a company retains an alcoholic after treatment, and an error is made, usually the insurance company is most unsympathetic. This discourages firms from re-employing alcoholics. It is high time that British industry and the trade unions examined this long neglected area. Alcoholism is a modern major health hazard to industrial life and it would be of great benefit to industrial and commercial firms if they would encourage early detection of problem drinking. As we all know, prevention is much better than cure; but prevention must commence when the problem is a social one. It must not be left until it has become a medical disease.
We must educate our doctors to a much greater awareness of the problems, particularly with teenagers. We must educate our managers and directors to diagnose and begin to use constructive

782
coercion. All these endeavours are much easier in large firms where separate medical care is available. In small firms it is more difficult. So it is important that the general practitioners should establish two-way communication with managers of small firms. Let us remember that as well as the economic cost there is also the humanitarian cost to our society.
During the last 13 years, the Department of Health and Social Security has made a great contribution towards the treatment of alcoholism. But, nevertheless, there is still an acute shortage of such facilities. In its Memoranda of 1962, 1968 and 1973, the Department has shown great awareness of the need to provide medical and social services to deal with the problem. It has recognised the need for more hospital units, counselling and information centres, hostel accommodation and for more staff and training facilities.
But the services are still inadequate, probably for the following reasons. The provision of facilities leads to a greater demand. Educational programmes have begun to diminish the stigma of alcoholism and, therefore, more sufferers are coming forward. There are more alcoholics today and, lastly, there is the difficulty of persuading local authorities, the social services, and Area Health Authorities to support financially community-based services for the alcoholic.
The DHSS, realising the difficulty of persuading public opinion to recognise the problem, in 1973 sent out a circular. It read:
"The reluctance of public opinion to recognise the scale and nature of the problem in their midst is well known, and it would be unrealistic to expect rapid unaided development of community provision by statutory or voluntary bodies on the scale which is needed to meet the needs of the alcoholic community at large."
People working with alcoholics are hampered and frustrated by the lack of agencies to refer to. I am convinced that the benefit that could be gained by putting some of our resources into the primary and secondary prevention of alcoholism would soon outweigh the capital spent on these services. Statutory bodies working in close co-operation with voluntary bodies could provide a powerful breakwater in preventing and cushioning the worst manifestation of alcoholism.

783
We must find an earlier method of diagnosis.
Industrial personnel and medical officers have a tremendous role to play here, as well as the health visitor and the GP. It has often been said that the ordinary GP ignores the problem of alcoholism. In some instances, unfortunately, this is correct, but in the last two or three years I have noticed a much greater awareness of the problem by the GP. There is also this point: May not the general practitioner be much more willing in his practice to identify alcoholics if he knew that he had the facilities for treatment and after-care available in his area? A campaign run by the North Eastern Council on Alcoholism for the last three months of 1974 produced 924 inquiries, and the majority of these were at a relatively early stage in their drinking. The campaign would have been much more successful, however, had there again been more facilities available to cope with the number of cases that presented themselves.
My Lords, I should like to suggest a few ideas for your Lordships' consideration. There should be many small centres run by local authorities. At present, only the GP is available; and as I have said, he is sometimes ill-informed, has no time and is too busy to concern himself with such a complex and time-consuming problem. Local authorities should teach social workers about alcoholic problems and have at least one who specialises in this illness. These services should be well-publicised by advertisements in the local Press and in telephone directories under "Alcoholics' Information Centre" and not left to a sub-heading under "Local Government". Where regional councils already exist this is done.
There is the problem of after-treatment follow-up. Alcoholics often have no one to turn to, and consequently often re-lapse. This follow-up treatment is vital if the initial treatment is not to be wasted. Virtually the only after-treatment ser-vice currently available is Alcoholics Anonymous. This society does a tremendous amount of good but it is not suit-able in every case. Last, but not least, is the importance of help to the alcoholic's family. Some treatment centres try to help, but often do not for lack or short-age of staff. As I have said, in the last

784
few years the number of hospital beds has grown, but the waiting list has grown too. There is the greatest difficulty in getting an alcoholic into a detoxification centre as many hospitals cannot be bothered with it. Unfortunately, the more alcoholics we find, the more hospitalisation will be needed. However, improved community services would allow many people to be treated at home, so leaving hospital beds available for the worst cases.
To sum up, we must inaugurate a primary prevention programme by educating the public on the dangers of excessive drinking and to where it may lead. I am happy to learn that the National Council on Alcoholism, the Medical Council on Alcoholism and the National Association of Youth Clubs are attempting to institute an educational programme on this subject. Also, the Medical Council on Alcoholism is about to research the attitude of English schoolchildren to alcohol and their different drinking pat-terns. An educational programme of this magnitude would, however, require considerable expenditure.
I should like to end with a suggestion as to how some of this money might be raised. In 1973 the British public spent just over £4,000 million on alcohol, and in that same year the drink industry spent £38 million on advertising. The Customs and Excise duty collected by the Government was £954 million and the VAT received was about £350 mil-lion, making a total that the Government received of just over £1,300 million. There should be added the tax on company profits, which in 1970 was assessed at £76 million, and no doubt it is higher today. Surely a society which has a tax revenue of nearly £1,400 million a year could contribute a greater sum than it does to all those services which seek to reduce the ever-growing disaster of the alcoholic problem in our country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.1 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for initiating this debate. I should like to ask your Lordships to consider, first, how old is this problem of alcoholism and how can we learn from the past. Fermentation processes leading to the formation of alcohol must have been

785
taking place long before man appeared on this planet. When he did arrive, it could not have been very long before he discovered its remarkable qualities, and it is likely that for ten of thousands of years he enjoyed its good effects and suffered from its hangovers. It has been one of the best tranquillisers we have ever had, and it is still. Not long ago we heard of a doctor who put a little port wine into almost every bottle of medicine he dispensed; but that was before the National Health Service.
We were fermenting grapes thousands of years ago. Genesis Chapter IX, verses 20 and 21 tell us:
"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent".
The Old Testament contains more than 200 references to alcohol, of which some 40 describe its ill-effects. In Britain, mead made from honey, ale and cider were drunk in our earliest pubs before the Roman Conquest, and the Romans brought us wine. In 1700 the population of Britain was about 5 million and we are told that 12 million barrels of beer were brewed each year. Whiskey was soon afterwards introduced from Ireland, we are told, and not many years later gin was so cheap and plentiful that it caused a great deal of trouble for a long time, until reviews of the licensing laws, punishment for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, taxation and an increase in the price of liquor all helped towards an improvement. So we know that the problem of alcoholism is by no means a new one.
In ancient times alcohol was comparatively difficult to make and keep. Now it is easy to obtain and store; it is widely advertised; some of it is made to taste delicious and it is considered to be almost essential for most kinds of entertaining. In this country now the per capita consumption of alcohol is rising. Most people up and down our occupational and social scales take an innocent drink from time to time and the old sayings, "As sober as a judge", and, "As drunk as a lord", are no longer always applicable.
Our problem now is that apart from an increase in harmless, well-controlled

786
social drinking, there are many indications that excessive drinking is on the increase, too. In many countries—and we are by no means the worst of them— it is a growing problem and a most serious matter, because it will almost surely get worse unless it is treated energetically. We are told by the Department of Health and Social Security that we have now probably about 400,000 people in Britain who have a serious drinking problem.
A rising consumption of alcohol may, by itself, mean only that more people can afford to have a glass of wine, beer or spirits with their dinner in the evening, but we know that magistrates are punishing more people for drunken-ness and for being drunk and disorderly. For the Metropolitan Police District, the figures for 1972 and 1973 were 44,203 and 45,107, respectively. The figures for 1974 are not yet avail-able. There are many driving offences, more than before, involving alcohol. Alcoholics Anonymous is having to in-crease its number of meetings; more alcoholics are being admitted to psychiatric hospitals; more deaths are attributed to alcoholism, and we are told that more women and teenage children are taking to the bottle in a big way, with their drunkenness offences increasing more quickly than those of the general population, a matter about which the Clayson Committee expressed the gravest concern two years ago.
In British industry it has been estimated that 5 per cent. of the work-force have drinking problems, with an annual financial loss from absenteeism, lowered quality of work, cost of medical treatment and so on of perhaps £300 million. In the alcohol industry itself, £1,700 million is invested and 90,000 people are employed. There are more than 130,000 places in England and Wales for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor, which produces more than £1,000 million in taxation annually, which is about 6·5 per cent. of the total revenue from all sources. The latest information I have been given is that about £50 million is spent on advertising liquor each year.
All this is a measure of the immensity of the problem we have to face. Between 1960 and 1970 alcohol consumption in Britain is said to have increased by 43 per cent., which the author of an article

787
in a trade magazine described as "eminently satisfactory". From a business point of view this remark was correct. In the context of what we are discussing tonight, it could be considered almost irresponsible. An alcoholic is difficult to define and more than 100 definitions have been put forward, from the light-hearted quip that an alcoholic is anyone who drinks more than his doctor does, to the rather long definition of the World Health Organisation, which is:
"Alcoholics are those excessive drinkers whose dependence on alcohol has attained such a degree that they show a noticeable mental disturbance or an interference with bodily and mental health, their interpersonal relations and their smooth economic and social functioning; or who show the prodromal signs of such development. They therefore need treatment."
Even with that detailed definition, some people disagree. It is a matter of opinion, too, sometimes as to when a person may be said to be drunk, from the wedding guest who, after a few glasses of champagne, laughs too loudly or slurs his speech a little when toasting the bride, to the cabbie who was picked up from a gutter outside a pub in Smithfield and brought unconscious on a stretcher to hospital when my father was a house surgeon and whose friend, a brewer's drayman who accompanied him, was heard to mutter, "'e's not prop'ly drunk: I saw 'is ears twitch."
I have been asked this evening to discuss the problem of alcohol in Britain at the present time from the point of view of a practising family doctor. It has been estimated that each general practitioner in this country has between 10 and 40 alcoholics in his practice, depending on where he works. Some of them are hidden alcoholics of whose intake of intoxicating drink he is ignorant and of whom Dr. Rodney Wilkins made such a careful study. Every alcoholic has an individual problem, everything to do with alcoholics is equivocal and it is dangerous to generalise.
There are four phases in the development of a chronic alcoholic addict, phases which shade imperceptibly into one another. First, there is the stage of the moderate, controlled social drinker like most of us in the greater part of our country's population. We do not want to

788
give it up, but nor do we want to increase our consumption. Secondly, there is the stage of the heavy social drinker who, for a long time, notices no ill effects from his excessive intake of alcohol. He may be a great leader or senior executive who is under tremendous pressure and stress connected with his work. The tranquillising effect of alcohol may keep him going, and he may feel that he would be worse without it.
Then, thirdly, there is the stage of the heavy problem drinker who may imbibe up to 15 or 20 drinks a day, starting with a double vodka at breakfast, but who can still control to some extent the amount that he takes, though he begins to notice some ill effects—physical, mental or moral problems for which he, his family, a friend, his employer or one of his workmates may seek help from his doctor. These ill-effects include sleepless-ness, irritability, aggressiveness, impairment of memory, blackouts, personality changes, plausibility, unreliability and refusal to take responsibility leading to a breakdown in family relationships. They may also include neglect of children, loss of job, dishonesty, perhaps leading to criminal acts, severe depression even leading to suicide and increased liability to ordinary injuries. Road accidents are common, too, and there is a bewildering diversity of other problems including digestive upsets, heart disease, strokes, cirrhosis of the liver with accompanying portal hypertension and internal haemorrhages, pancreatitis, lowered resistance to infections such as pneumonia or tuberculosis, obesity, lack of vitamins, peripheral neuritis, morning tremors helped only by an early drink or delirium tremens.
My Lords, no one has improved on Shakespeare's description of the effect of alcohol on sexual performance, Macbeth says,
"It provokes the desire but unprovokes the performance."
A patient may go to his doctor complaining of any of these symptoms and, unless the doctor is of a suspicious nature, he may not appreciate that the underlying cause is alcohol. It has been described as the "great deceiver". The doctor finds it easier, more tactful and kinder to say to such a patient, "You have a drinking problem" rather than, "You are an alcoholic".

789
My Lords, the fourth stage is that of the chronic alcoholic addict which may take 10 to 20 years to develop and in which the patient has lost all control of his alcoholic intake—a "man or woman broken by alcohol"—and this condition may lead to a very severe mental illness. Of the estimated 400,000 people in Britain who may have a drinking problem, possibly about one-fifth are in this most serious stage of chronic addiction. As a family doctor, one sees some patients who really want to be cured because they know that alcoholism is ruining their lives or those of their families, or is spoiling their careers. A strong motivation for cure is an enormous help towards successful treatment. As a family doctor, one would like to help all alcoholics, but some are hopeless and do not want to be cured. With these, one may have to admit defeat and cut one's losses.
Some patients are even proud of the amount that they drink. Not long ago, I took one to a specialist to whom I said, "This man claims to have drunk half to three-quarters of a bottle of whisky every day since 1920." The patient sprang to his feet and said, "That is absolute nonsense: it was 1919! " When trying to help a difficult patient like this, I have often been told, "You're wasting your time with that fellow"; but even with the worst of them one may be able to help a little, even if it is only by persuading the patient to reduce his intake, or by supporting his family in some way. It is always worth while trying and an occasional success is an encouragement to do one's best for someone else.
My Lords, we must remember that nearly all doctors now consider alcohol-ism to be a progressive illness, not a sin or something which is due to lack of moral fibre. We must also remember that it does respond to treatment. But the saying "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic "is true. The majority of doctors think that a cured alcoholic addict should , never drink again. Such a patient may relapse after quite a small amount of alcohol, even after a long time, and the only drink that matters is the first. General practitioners with proper training are in a unique position. They can do an enormous amount in their surgeries and in their patient's homes towards prevention, diagnosis, drying-out or detoxifica-

790
tion, which can sometimes be done at home in about two weeks. They can also help with the rehabilitation and after-care of alcoholics.
From the patient's point of view, the three main stages are acceptance of the diagnosis, withdrawal from alcohol and, probably, permanent abstinence. Family doctors have a great many people to help them in this. Their "back-up team", as it has been so well called, consists of members of the patient's family who themselves often need treatment for anxiety, his friends, nurses, counsellors, health visitors, social workers and others, people from the local health authority, psychiatrists—particularly those who specialise in the psychiatric treatment of alcoholism—probation officers, industrial medical officers, the police, magistrates and the clergy.
There are also a great number of organisations, both statutory and voluntary, which are ready to help the alcoholic. First, there is the Department of Health and Social Security, which has shown a great interest in this subject during the past 13 years, since Sir Keith Joseph and, indeed, his predecessor Kenneth Robinson took the initiative, and, also the very great deal that Dr. Alan Sippert has done recently. The Department has given generous support, advice and financial assistance to very many organisations which are helping alcoholics. They include the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA, the Medical Council on Alco-holism (with its educational activities including films, its research, its library, its valuable information centre and its Journal of Alcoholism). There is also the National Council on Alcoholism—a lay body with wide influence throughout the country and many branches with counselling services—several local councils on alcoholism, and the Alcohol Education Centre at the Maudsley Hospital which is helping to train those who are professionally associated with alcoholics. Then there is Alcoholics Anonymous, with more than half a million members throughout the world, which for 40 years has been doing an enormous and splendid job in the after-care and rehabilitation of alcoholics, the Church's Council of Healing, the British Council of Churches the Salvation Army and the Church Army and many other organisations, including Al-Anon, Al-Teen (which helps young

791
people), the Helping Hand Organisation, the employment medical advisory ser-vices and the National Association of Youth Clubs.
In the hospital treatment of alcoholics, all general hospitals play a part, especially in the treatment of accidents and of all the physical complications of alcoholism that I have mentioned. The 152 mental hospitals in England and Wales admit about 8,000 alcoholics a year. We have 20 special alcoholic treatment units with more than 400 beds. There is at least one such unit for each Regional Hospital Board and others are being planned. In this work, which Dr. Max Glatt has done so much to develop in the last 23 years, full withdrawal and aversion treatment are practised. Group therapy sessions are held and, after six to eight weeks, it is claimed that 40 per cent. of the patients are off alcohol and another 25 per cent. have improved.
There are considerable advantages in treating alcoholics in groups, living in communities, rather than scattered throughout several hospitals, though some people feel that the cost-effectiveness of special alcoholic units is doubtful and that alcoholics are better treated at home or in a general ward. Much depends on the ability of the doctor in charge. There are also very many hostels of different types—some day centres, a new alcoholics recovery project and detoxification centres, many of them partly financed by the Department of Health and Social Security. A walk-in advisory service is sometimes preferred by the drunken down-and-out vagrants who are but a small proportion of the total of our alcoholics. The police and other people are beginning to appreciate that these people, who have been aptly called "revolving door alcoholics"—like the man who has been charged 174 times for being drunk and disorderly; "It was my birthday, your Honour", he often used to say—are more often medical problems than criminal ones. When they collapse in the street they should perhaps be treated as would epileptics or diabetics who fall about, rather than putting them repeatedly into prison or fining them. To take them to court frequently seems to many to be a waste of time for the police and the magistrates, and hope-less for the patient.

792
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that I am sure you will realise that much is already being achieved in Britain to help these unfortunate people suffering from alcoholism. But there is a very great deal still to be done to solve this very serious social problem. While more and more alcoholic drinks are being made, advertised and sold every year, it is hard to expect our already strained medical and social services to catch up with the prevention and treatment of the harm that they do. Education is the key —to persuade people, especially the young ones, through their parents, school-masters and others, to be moderate in what they drink, and to teach all those who are in contact with alcoholics how best to make the right early diagnosis and to care well for these patients in a closely integrated comprehensive service.
The Medical Council on Alcoholism is organising a whole-day symposium at the Royal College of Physicians in May for medical students from all medical schools in England, Wales and Scotland, which has the warm approval of the deans despite their already overfull curricula, It is hoped to make this an annual event. We cannot forbid the manufacture, advertisement and sale of alcoholic drinks, although it would be a great help if these could be reduced in some way. We remember the horrors of the prohibition experiment in the USA. We should be a dull lot if we never took any risks, and never ate or drank anything that might harm us.
For someone over 70 it does not matter all that much if he chooses to shorten his life a little by overeating, oversmoking, taking no exercise, or by overdrinking. Treatment of his illness may cost the country something, but so will his old age pension and benefits if he lives longer, and also his terminal illness. But for teenagers and young adults it is vital that they do not ruin their lives with drink, and everything possible must be done to help them. The great need is not only for more alcohol treatment units, more hospital beds and shorter waiting lists but, even more important, for more doctors, social workers, health visitors, counsellors, rehabilitation and follow-up experts and other personnel properly trained to deal with this difficult and enormous problem. Good follow-up and

793
rehabilitation are vital. Much more money is needed, too, and also more research into many aspects of this subject, especially into the relative values of treatment at home, in-patient, out-patient and day-patient treatments. Future research may reveal some way of reducing the toxic effects of alcohol, so that it does less harm than at present to our bodies and minds.
Finally, my Lords, may I quote one sentence from what was said nearly two years ago by Admiral Sir Dick Caldwell, Executive Director of the Medical Council on Alcoholism:
"Alcoholism is a subject as fascinating as it is sombre … there is an immense scope for work, for education, for research and, indeed, for deep thought for all of us who have any interest in this challenging and yet desperately serious affliction ".
5.25 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for once again practically ventilating this important subject. May I specially thank him for the informed sympathy with which he described the condition of the alcoholic. A matter which has probably been some-what neglected in previous debates in your Lordships' House—and it is worth putting on Record—is that those who have had some contact with alcoholics will recognise what an amiable, decent and kindly folk they are compared with others who suffer from social diseases or, in fact, from personal imperfections. It did me good to hear the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, describing so sympathetically a nice group of people, which makes it all the more tragic that they are so often ruined through alcoholism. I am also deeply grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken, alike for his temperate and for his very well-informed contribution to a debate on a subject which requires the expertise to which he particularly was able to address his remarks.
I agree with him in his morphological digression as to the emergence of alcohol and also to his very brief reference to the danger of quoting scripture in order to defend any position in this field. I remember on one occasion, when I was preaching in favour of temperance, being contradicted by a man in a crowd. He said that Paul said:
" Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake."

794
That is in the Bible and of course he did, but Paul meant rub it in—but this man was not prepared to accept that interpretation. I was able to quote another passage from the Old Testament, from Proverbs, to the effect that:
"Wine is a mocker. Strong drink is raging for at the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder ".
He said he had been looking for that kind of stuff for the last ten years.
I think it is not improper to introduce into a sombre discussion the warning that we must not be too solemn about it. May I derive two comments from an experience which was mine on 21st January 1971 in your Lordships' House when it was my opportunity to introduce an Unstarred Question on the topic of alcoholism? I remember two reactions to it, one on the part of certain Members of your Lordships' House—and I do not unduly blame them—who thought that this was a spin-off from fanatical teetotalism for the purpose of the total elimination of alcohol as the Devil in solution.
There is a perceptible difference, as I have learned between the teetotal proposition, to which I am personally committed, and this problem of alcoholism which is separate and distinguishable from the problem of total abstinence in itself. The other reminiscence which I cull from that occasion is, I think, more serious and is more than a justification for the raising again of this problem today. I asked in the Unstarred Question, "What is the number of alcoholics in this country at the moment?" The Government did not know, and although the noble Lord said he might make a guess, he was prudent not to engage in that exercise. But a number of other contributors to the debate professed their own knowledge of these matters. In their judgment the number of alcoholics ranged from some-thing like 35,000 to, perhaps, 120,000. As a matter of fact, partly by the stimulus of that debate and partly for other reasons, it was then known to those who had taken the trouble to find out that the number was much more likely to be 300,000 discovered alcoholics—and that was almost a male calculation.
Something that has happened, and was referred to specifically by the opener of this debate, is that the problem has

795
increased and the number has grown, and whether it is 400,000 or 500,000 it is an intolerable figure. I would draw some inferences from what has happened since 1971, in an experience which is person-ally mine, in endeavouring to provide some help for alcoholics in various institutions for which I am responsible. The first is that a great many more people are today aware that this problem exists. I would here draw a very gentle lance with my noble friend who introduced the debate, that there are fewer people today who have the same allergy against any confession of alcoholism. There are more who are likely, in a more enlightened atmosphere, to recognise that they are alcoholics, and not to be ashamed of something which, though it is not entirely a matter of the mind or the body, is an illness, as has been correctly stated this afternoon.
My Lords, I beg to offer one comment here. I cannot accept the proposition that it is purely and simply a disease. I think it would be totally wrong to exclude the moral element. Emphasising, as we must, the physical and mental condition, recognising that it is an illness, it would be quite wrong to exclude from the general diagnosis, and indeed, much more, the prognosis, the moral element. I may come back to that a little later. Secondly, a very large scale change has taken place in the attempted treatment of alcoholics, so far as I am aware. Whereas antabuse and various other medicaments, nauseating in their immediate impact and calculated to facilitate the drying out process, are much more current and much more clearly advocated, there is increasing evidence that the psychological approach —the approach of companionship—and the recovery of a sense of significance, and the breakdown of the sense of alienation, are far more potent medicaments and far more potent methods of therapy.
Since 1971 there has been a vast in-crease in the type of advertisment directed specifically to young people. Those of your Lordships who watch television will be left in no doubt that the main point of attack is made to those who are young. Your Lordships may have seen pictures of a father leading his son along a road to the local pub and warning him that it is time he grew up and become a social drinker. Your Lordships will probably recognise the advertisement which asks,

796
"What's your right arm for?", as if the obvious answer is continuously to raise it in the intake of alcohol. I abominate this kind of advertisement, and I entirely agree with the last speaker that whatever may be the frailties which are permissible in relative old age, it is a matter of total and absolute wickedness to encourage susceptible youth to believe that their maturity and virility must be accompanied by regular drinking in public houses. If there were, in addition to this, an anathema for which I would be pre-pared to accept full responsibility— though I am more concerned with bene-dictions—I should say: To hell with the beer can! I am sure that the capacity to go on your way carrying your beer can with you, and to become more or less bottled in the process is not only restricted to those people who do it in single bad companies, but has a very great deal to do with the rowdiness, evil behaviour and danger on the football terraces.
There is, at the same time, a recognition that whereas alcoholism is a social disease and has to be treated not as some mere delinquency for which a process of moral assertion is required, there are many kinds of alcoholics for whom a process that will be effective must be carried out in a number of stages. There is obviously the first stage of drying out the alcoholic at the point of his alcoholic dereliction. There is the second stage in which the alcoholic can be, either at home or in some kind of hostel or house, induced to recover something of the sense of belonging which he has lost, something of the sense of moral opportunity for which he finds it impossible at that stage to mobilise. This must in itself be part of a process which goes further.
I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that in many cases the alcoholic has broken up a home to which he can return; and domestic therapy is preferable. In the hostels for which I am responsible, the average age of the alcoholic has come down in four years from 45 to 35. I want to speak on behalf of those who have nowhere to go and who cannot be permanently hospitalised in a hostel, but who, sooner or later, will require protective and supported living, if they are to become the permanent convalescents, which is probably the best one can hope for many of them. There is no such thing for many of them—as I think

797
the noble Lord who preceded me would probably agree—as a total cure, but a permanent and uninterrupted convalscence depends on a quality of supported living in which they will have the opportunity, when they are in danger or where they are sorely tempted, of recourse to someone who will help them and tide them over their periods of acute temptation.
This raises all kinds of practical problems and I will concentrate on some of the opportunities which I believe ought to be seized. I readily agree that Governments of the day have made considerable progress in this field, but that progress is insufficient. Speaking as I do for a penurious and yet, at the same time, I think, worthwhile attempt to help alcoholics back to a reasonable state of social fitness, I believe we need much more money. In particular, we need a third-stage opportunity of occupying and of using premises where reference can be made by those who are seeking information, or who, at a time of stress, would want to find a friend; and, at the same time, an opportunity of housing single alcoholics—many of them youngsters— who otherwise would drift upon the tide and quickly become delinquent, or end up on the rubbish heaps, as many of them do.
There are in this country something like 800,000 unoccupied houses. There are at least 100,000 unoccupied premises and dwellings in the county of London, and every night there are 2,000 homeless youngsters who sleep rough, if they sleep at all. Of this figure, it has been calculated that perhaps 800 or 900 of them are to some extent alcoholics, who have drinking problems, who are drunkards— and I am not specifying the various areas in which one can differentiate in this complicated field. I wish to put a point to the Minister who is to reply, and I know that I can count on his consideration and sympathy in this matter. I believe that there is currently in another place a Bill which would provide for the requisitioning of property in the private sector which has been vacant for six months. Further, in the Housing Act 1974 there is a provision where local authorities can, through housing associations, provide money for the rehabilitation and the resettlement in houses, which
798
could be so repaired and improved, of considerable numbers of those who today go through the first stage—which we provide for them—of the drying out process, and who are then for some time encouraged into a better state of social awareness and social belongingness in the second stage hostels, such as St. Luke's Hostel, for which I am particularly responsible.
But after that, what do you do? They cannot be expected to face up to the rigours of a society in which they start with the understandable and terrible handicap of having nowhere to go, and probably having so alienated their loved ones or their friends and relations as to be more or less on their own. Not only do we want more money—I put in a plea for that—but I am quite sure that it is the voluntary organisation committed to this three-stage kind of rehabilitation programme which can offer the liveliest hope for certain groups among the alcoholics. I earnestly ask the Minister what more can be done, recognising as I do, that it is a state of financial extremity in which I make this appeal. Nevertheless, I believe that what we try to do now will be immensely strengthened if we ran go on to provide some kind of supported housing for recovered alcoholics.
May I now return to one of the matters the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to in his speech and to which I believe great attention should be paid. It is true that the loss to the community of man hours of productive capacity is very large and deplorable. The father of the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, between the wars gave evidence to a Royal Com-mission on Alcoholism that, economically speaking, the total loss to any community from alcohol in general and alcoholism in particular was 13 per cent. I do not know the accuracy of that statement. It would not surprise me if it were an understatement today. There is another aspect of this loss which I think is even more deplorable. I believe it to be true that many of these alcoholics are fine people who have lost the sense to be line; who are intelligent people who have lost the ability to be intelligent; who are companiable people and good parents who have lost their capacities in these fields. That, in my judgment, is a much greater loss to the community— particularly at a time when family ties

799
are being stretched and are ever more needed.
Therefore, my Lords, I want to finish by once again making an observation that I am sure your Lordships will take in the spirit in which I offer it. It strikes me as extraordinary that, wearing the collar that I do and representing the faith of the Christian religion, I find practically no reference to the therapeutic value of religion. I hear a great deal about the psychological values which can be attached to this problem; and I must say that I think that psychologists are much better at diagnosis than at treatment. I hear a great deal of the necessity for educational facilities and for teaching the young to recognise the truth when they see it; but would it not be at least arguable that the greatest social voluntary organisation in the community is still the Church, if only it would do its business, and that, in fact, although it may be arguable that reformation is the good advice which no alcoholic can accept, it is probably the right time of the year as well as an eternal truth to say that resurrection is the good news which the Christian Church ought to be proclaiming and which indeed the fellowship of the Christian Church and the offering of companionship and help, intelligent, informed and vigorous help, to the alcoholic is probably the finest answer that can be made to a problem? It is a problem about which I know a considerable amount, which I feel deeply about and on which I am more than grateful if, out of another discussion this afternoon in your Lordships' House, something will be done to bring these alcoholics back to the life to which they can contribute and in which their happiness can be shared by those who love them; so that their future may be a contribution to the community in which they live.
5.45 p.m.
Lord LEIGH: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, asked me if I would speak in this debate I agreed rather hesitantly, particularly as I knew he would say first everything that I wished to say. That he has done except, I think, for one point. I am told that there is a coloured administrator in one of the new African countries who has three files on his desk: "In", "Out", and "Too difficult". I believe that this question of alcoholism has been in the "Too difficult"
800
file for far too long. It is nice that at least it is on the top of the "In" file this afternoon. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, a doctor; and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, a minister of religion, but I should like to speak as one closely connected with one of the regional information centres and, therefore, more or less in the front line.
The centre caters for a manufacturing city with a population of 300,000 and a county with a population of 470,000. The county comprises three boroughs, two district councils and two health areas. Except for a 14-bed treatment centre— not a detoxication centre—the regional centre is the only place to deal with that population of 470,000. The work is done by a dedicated voluntary treasurer, who is not a reformed alcoholic, and an executive director, equally dedicated, who is a reformed alcoholic. He works night and day; he is called out to the local hospital; he is never off the job; and I think he is grossly underpaid.
This centre has been operating for five and a half years during which the expenditure has been a mere £33,122. That has been paid as to 61 per cent. by voluntary effort on the part of the council who runs it, 16½ per cent. from the Department of Health and Social Security and—and here is the interesting part—12 per cent. from local authorities and 10½ per cent. from industry. The town is a big manufacturing town.
The Department of Health and Social Security in a Circular of May 1973 to local authorities says:
"Information centres lie within the sphere of responsibility of both Area Health Authorities and social service authorities who should not hesitate to use their grant-giving powers to help them."
I believe that in this county with two exceptions, that message has been to a large extent ignored. In the case in point, two of the three borough councils have produced nothing; the county has produced £250; of the Area Health Authorities, one has produced £100 and the other £50.
One feels that the local authorities must be encouraged to give more help; one feels that industry—after all, it is in their interest—must be encouraged to help us more. But I think that our big lack— the money may come in; one hopes so

801
—is in men. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, say that the General Medical Council are to run a one-day course on alcoholism; because I am informed that in the teaching hospitals in general very little attention is paid to this all-important subject; yet it is said to be the third highest cause of premature death. I do not believe the ordinary general practitioner has the time (or, if he has the time) the inclination to deal with the alcoholic. Any form of treatment must take a considerable time and I do not think one can blame the general practitioner because often he has more important things to do. But from the medical profession we do need leaders in this field because, after all, the problem is not entirely in the psychological field and there is a lot of ordinary medicine connected with it. But whoever deals with alcoholics must be a specialist, and until there is some urge among medical students to take up this subject I am afraid we are not going to get any great lead from that profession. Whether such an urge might be helped by a financial incentive, I do not know: I take it that the pay structure of the medical profession is rather a difficult subject.
Another point is that in the information centres and other places in which alcoholism is dealt with, there are very few men; there is no training and no financial incentive. They have to be dedicated men, and the ex-alcoholic is far and away the most likely person to be dedicated to the cause. He knows the full horror of the situation because he has suffered it himself. If there could be some kind of training school for people, particularly ex-alcoholics, who wish to take up this work, and if there could be some decent remuneration available when they have finished their course, this would be a great step forward.
5.53 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other noble Lords who have spoken tonight have made most of the points I had intended to make, so I shall be able to make my speech a little shorter than it would otherwise have been. There are just a few points which I should like to make, partly on the medical side and partly on the general educational side.
802
The first thing we really need to know is: what is the cause of alcoholism and where do alcoholics come from?— because the popular feeling is often that they are the tipsy kind of person from the Registrar-General's fifth social class; they are the people we see lying in the street, and so on. Certainly that type of person forms a proportion of the people we see—and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will know a great deal more about this than I do—but most of these people do not come from that walk of life and, therefore, a great deal of research needs to be done. We also need to know whether the disease is primarily psycho-logical or physiological. It is probably a mixture of the two as many things are, but that is something which, again, we need to know a great deal more about
I am certain that the general practitioner should be the main instrument in the care of these people. It is important that he should be encouraged to think about alcoholism more than he does now. There are a number of com-plaints about which people see their doc-tor—simple things like gastritis, for instance—but if the doctor is aware of the fact that alcoholism may be at the back of such complaints or symptoms, it might be possible to detect far more alcoholics at an earlier stage than at present. It must never be forgotten that, fundamentally, the alcoholic is a sick person, and quite a number of general practitioners—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, will agree —do not know how many alcoholics they have in their practice. When they do know I think the bulk of them become extremely sympathetic and co-operative in their care of the alcoholic. Of course, one comes across one or two doctors like the one I saw quoted in a book the other day, who thought that alcoholics were " a confounded nuisance" and would therefore have nothing to do with them ; but this is a relatively uncommon attitude.
One of the troubles about my profession is that we do not get taught about alcoholism as students; we do not come across it at all. Therefore, I am very interested to see that the hospital where I was for a long time on the staff is now running a course under Doctor Glatt, who is one of the great experts on

803
alcoholism in this country. I am sure it will be very successful and very popular. Furthermore, there is a body which may be known to some of your Lordships, of which I have spoken on previous occasions. It is called the London Medical Group and gives lectures on a large number of subjects to medical, nursing and other students. The lectures are purely voluntary and the students go in their spare time. The lectures drawing the biggest crowds tend to be those on alcoholism, given by people who know what they are talking about. So it shows that the ordinary medical student is keen to learn more about this problem, and I think we may find in time to come that the practitioners will take more interest in it and know more about it than they do at present.
The dreadful fact about alcoholism is that it is now spreading to the young, so that it involves a large number of people in their 'teens or twenties. I saw that in a big centre at Nottingham 30 per cent. of the patients were under 30. That is an extremely frightening state of affairs, because alcoholism is, broadly speaking, a treatable disease; but the objective of the treatment has to be complete and total abstinence. Some National Health Service hospitals give group therapy courses, which are very successful and do a great deal of good. Of course, it is probably better if the patient can obtain individual psychotherapy, but that is extremely expensive and rather difficult to come by, because the number who give this treatment successfully is not large. When we are referring to treatment we must not speak about the " cure " of alcoholism ; we should speak about "recovery" from alcoholism, because it is a disease which cannot be cured. One may think one can turn to social drinking after treatment, but I am certain this is not so. It is said that for the alcoholic one drink is too many, and I am sure that that is true. There may be the occasional case where alcoholism can be cured, but it is extremely uncommon.
Quite a number of units are now working under the Health Service for the treatment of these cases. I have worked out the number as about 20 or 21, and the total number of beds is about 450. One of the biggest units is that run by
804
Dr. Glatt in Middlesex, where I think he has about 70 beds. I am told there is quite a long waiting-list, because people telephone or get in touch with him from places a long way from Middlesex because of the general shortage of places. I think one can say that the first six months after treatment are the really difficult and critical months. That is when relapses occur. Some of those who relapse have a curious conviction deep in their minds that they could cope with drinking after all if they tried once again. But of course they find they cannot, and so they relapse and the whole of the treatment has to be restarted.
However, no matter who these people are, they need a great amount of support and co-operation from their general practitioner, from the various social workers, health visitors and such people who can encourage and assist. One must refer also to the enormously important work done by the voluntary bodies. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to them. I know of one place which is run by the Church of England in Central London where a great deal of good rehabilitation work is done. Here I am sure the Churches and voluntary organisations can contribute a great deal. Whether they can cope with treatment for people who are far gone and need to be in hospital, I do not know, but they can certainly carry out a great amount of supportive treatment, and a great deal of preventive work, too.
Finally, one comes to the question of the people who work in industry. I was very interested indeed to hear about the work in the United States of constructive coercion. That seemed to me to be most important. At the present time, one trouble is that if a person tries to obtain a job when he has been an alcoholic and has recovered, he finds it very difficult unless his medical history is kept carefully concealed. One would like to see this situation changed and improved and a more enlightened point of view taken. Furthermore, if an alcoholic is in a job why should he be dismissed? He is probably someone of relative seniority; he has probably had a good deal of experience and training Would it be not only far cheaper for the business but more humane to rehabilitate him and let him continue

805
doing his work, rather than give him the sack and his cards and tell him to go away and find another job, which would probably be enormously difficult to do?
My Lords, these are just a few of the points I wanted to bring out. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, President of the Medical Council on Alcoholism, could not be with us tonight. He wanted to be here to speak, but told me he had another engagement. My observations tonight come partly from what he has told me and partly from what I have been told by the Medical Council on Alcoholism, so I feel that they have had something to do with what has been put to your Lordships.
6.6 p.m.
Lord ST. JUST: My Lords, we have had a very clear picture given from various sides of your Lordships' House concerning the whole problem of alcoholism, especially from the medical profession, as well as from that great expert on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Might I say that I agree especially with one thing he said. I remember that some years ago in your Lordships' House we had a debate on drug addiction. We got on to talking about the question of heroin addiction, and, quite rightly, the most sombre and terrifying results were spoken about from every side of the House, especially from the medical profession, and the possibilities of any cure. At the conclusion of the debate, I was taken to the Guest Room and introduced to two nuns who had for many years been running a drug addiction centre near Reading. They assured me—and I am quite certain they were telling the truth—that they had had total cure of heroin addiction, mainly in the period of follow-up after the medical cure itself had ended. There-fore we know how essential is the spiritual side of these matters.
May I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on giving a very graphic description of the alcoholic and of the total despair he experiences. This is no doubt one of the greatest problems to be overcome. I have spoken to many experts about this condition, and basically the alcoholic must be removed from society for a period of time and put into a unit or a mental health hospital where experts
806
can treat him. As has already been said today, probably the treatment will consist of very little physical treatment. I believe the medical profession are getting away from this now. Perhaps after the drying out period the alcoholic will be given a considerable number of vitamin injections. But the most important factor is likely to be endless group therapy—prob-ably four days a week—under a psychiatrist who will help him to readjust to normal life again in the future.
Quite rightly, much has been said this afternoon—and it has been referred to in so many debates in your Lordships' House—about the problem when a person leaves hospital; about his need to readjust to life, and how local authorities can help. There is little need for me to add anything at all about this. The problem is recognised on every side of the House and a solution must slowly be worked out. I should finally like to say that I entirely agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said concerning the medical profession and training in teaching hospitals. I know that it sounds rather a cheek for me as a lay person to say this, but I have seen a lot of mental illness in my life. I am quite convinced that a great deal must be taught in the teaching hospitals, so that the general practitioner, who is the person who has to look at this problem, will channel off patients at the right time.
If I may, I will end with a small point which I do not expect the noble Lord to answer now, because I gave him no previous warning. Some time ago we read in an American report the horrifying fact that it had been found that the babies of mothers who were drug addicts suffered from withdrawal symptoms, especially at birth. Is the noble Lord able to tell us whether he has any indication that in children born to alcoholic mothers there are any symptoms, whether metabolic or other symptoms, which appear during the first few weeks after birth?
6.11 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as another layman in this very complicated and difficult field, I am very glad to have been here to have had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, especially when he referred to the Book of Proverbs which says that drink

807
"biteth like an adder and stingeth like a serpent",
because it was my first experience in this field that exactly this happened. Also, I was very glad when the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in closing, offered help to the alcoholic, because that was impossible in this particular instance.
May I be allowed to refer to an occurrence which took place a long time ago when I was serving in Germany in the winter of 1950. It was a very cold winter and our tanks had to be replenished and protected against frost with ethylene glycol. Most unfortunately, a quantity of this fluid fell into the hands of a per-son who was subsequently discovered to be an addict. He mixed a little of the ethylene glycol with German gin called Steinhager. It had the most devastating results. Unfortunately, the medical officer was not available sufficiently early with a stomach pump, and I regret to inform your Lordships that it was a fatality. Here is an instance where the lay person, who ought to be sufficiently well-informed on alcoholic substances and their power to destroy the human body, should have known some first aid in order to be able to deal with the situation. I was not involved personally in this occurrence. However, it took place in a unit with which I served and the powerlessness of the individual concerned to do anything about it struck me very forcefully.
I believe that the conference which was referred to earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, is a lesson in public education which every-body should welcome. As a layman, I feel that I am not well equipped to speak about clinical matters, but I should like to refer to some research which I have carried out.
May I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to the role of the Government in combating alcoholism, especially in regard to the laws of past Governments and the errors made by past Governments, because there is a long and chequered history of Government action. May I begin with one of the greatest errors made by any British Government in this field—though perhaps that point is disputable—in an Act, passed in 1690, which prohibited the importation of wines and brandy from France. It had the al-most immediate effect of stimulating illegal and illicit stills and the production
808
of gin which used a method which had then recently been discovered by a Dutch-man in Leiden.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to a population here of 5 million in 1700. In the first decade of that century, the production of gin rose to 20 million gallons. The noble Earl and your Lordships will probably agree that this is a staggering figure, if we assume that at that time the Board of Trade was remarkably ill-placed to cater for either the legal or the illegal production of spirits. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, successive Governments passed legislation; but undoubtedly the real difficulty occurred much earlier when prohibition caused the situation to get completely out of hand.
One can learn from the past; certainly one can learn from the recent past. With that in mind, my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale took up a Report of a Depart-mental Committee on Liquor Licensing in 1972. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, served as one of the most prominent members on that Committee. At that time, there was definite recognition of the rising overall consumption to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred. The graph shows pictorially what is happening, and paragraph 3(17) says:
"The picture we get, particularly over the last 20 years, is of rising overall consumption, accompanied by increases in alcoholism death rates and in offences of drunkenness all of which are, however, still below the peak levels reached towards the end of the last and the beginning of this century."
Paragraph 3(18) says:
"This pattern, however, is very far from establishing that licensing law has exercised or is likely to exercise a decisive influence on these trends ".
I think that that is an important statement by a well-informed Committee.
One can say that licensing laws as such are unlikely to have a very marked effect, but what is most definitely likely to have a very marked effect are the suggestions set out in Circular 21/73, to which the noble Earl also referred. If I may quote from that Circular of 18th May 1973, I think it is most encouraging to see in paragraph 6 that:
" Given treatment two alcoholics out of three can be expected to respond, provided there are adequate community facilities to give support".

809
Surely this was at the heart of the argument of the noble Earl.
If I may be permitted to say so, I liked particularly the very practical suggestion which he made in his summing up, that local centres should be encouraged. It follows the Report on liquor licensing regarding staffing, the after-treatment follow-up by Alcoholics Anonymous and other bodies, and the need to give help to alcoholics and their families in the early stages of alcoholism. I feel unable to offer technical advice, but may I say that it seems that the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing offer certain valuable suggestions. I therefore ask the Government to examine those recommendations in great detail.
6.20 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, has said, that men learned to use fermented liquors many thousands of years ago. But a very great change took place three or four hundred years ago when the art of distilling was invented and very much more concentrated alcoholic drinks were produced. The human body has a very limited capacity to deal with alcohol. It is provided with certain substances which can metabolise it, but the supply of those things is limited and, if the consumption of alcohol exceeds the limits so imposed, it is transformed in the body into various complex substances some of which are alkaloids, which resemble somewhat the constitution of the active principle of heroin. This may explain why alcohol-ism is an addiction.
A point which I want to stress is the importance of educating the young, because if they do not understand what is involved in this they will easily get into trouble. I first came into contact with a case of alcoholism when I was quite a boy; the man in question was a student at Edinburgh University. He had an illness. When he was convalescent he was recommended to drink port wine; he did so and when his convalescence was ended he became an addict of alcohol. His career was ruined and he was shipped out to a farm in the wilds of Canada, where he was all right because he was 15 miles away from the
810
nearest source of alcohol, but if he ever went into a town he immediately relapsed.
This points to an important factor and one which I have certainly observed ever since I discovered this case; that is, that people ought to be taught that alcohol should never be used in a way which is calculated to make one dependent upon it. It should not be used for the purpose of stimulating people when they are tired or for other reasons because then the dependence becomes immediate and, once there is a dependence on alcohol the problem becomes more and more acute.
I hope that recognising, as I believe everybody does now, what a serious problem this is in our society, the most active steps will be taken to educate the young in the schools to understand the dangers of this. It is not practicable in our society to prevent people from taking alcohol, but it is at any rate practicable to try to educate them about it and to make them understand that if they do take it they must take it in small amounts which are not likely to cause addiction, and to take it under circumstances which are not calculated to make them dependent upon it.
6.25 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, your Lordships never listen with greater care and attention than to noble Lords who take part in a debate and have some personal knowledge and experience to bring to our discussion. If the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, does not think it is a piece of impertinence on my part, I should like to congratulate him on his courage and for introducing this matter which is recognised by everybody who has experience in the field of social service to be a very grave problem.
We have been fortunate in having the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who brings a medical expertise to this problem, and my noble friend Lord Soper, who has spent more years working among alcoholics than I think he would care to admit. This goes for many of your Lordships, if not all of them, who have taken part in this debate. This is a subject which is of considerable interest to me, because I worked for some years in the field and I have been to America to look at what they are doing —or were doing at the time I was there —in this field.

811
I do not want to cover the ground that has been covered so well by the noble Earl who stated the problem, by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who indicated what is being done and by my noble friend Lord Soper who gave us some indication of where the gaps are and what we ought to do to plug those gaps. But I want to say a few words about the situation as the Government see it. They recognise that there are substantial indications showing that there are a growing number of persons being admitted today to mental illness hospitals with alcoholism as the primary diagnosis, and we recognise that there is a considerable increase among young people who are already experiencing drink problems. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, drew attention to the definition of alcoholism given by the World Health Organisation and I do not want to go over that ground again, but one point I want to emphasise, and which he himself made, is that the World Health Organisation said, "There must be treatment". In the last analysis we cannot escape from that.
I am not in a position to estimate the number of man-hours lost in industry, commerce and business as a result of alcoholism and I shall not attempt to do so. But the noble Earl undoubtedly has information and we have no reason at all to feel that it is in any way exaggerated. Probably, as he says, it is only the tip of the iceberg. The Department has taken an interest in alcoholism since the early 1960s and has encouraged the development of specialised treatment facilities. I refer to specialist alcoholic units which are part of our psychiatric hospitals. I want to be perfectly frank and to recognise that progress has not been as rapid as we should like. There have been many difficulties, which I want to come to before I sit down, but, having said that, I want to emphasise that the Department is not unmindful of the nature of the problem and the serious social effects that it has.
However, I think everyone who has listened to the debate today will recognise that some considerable progress has been made. Four years ago when my noble friend introduced a debate on this subject there were 14 specialised alcoholic units in England. There are now
812
twenty-two. Your Lordships may well say that that is not much of an improve-ment—eight in four years, but one has to see these units against a background of support. As has been said today, we can talk about community care, we can talk about having specialised units, but it is not just a question of having a competent member of the medical profession available to deal with all the physical symptoms. If that person is to return to the community and to take his place in the community, there has to be an enormous back-up service; there must be prolonged counselling by someone who is in a position to counsel.
There must be a good deal of supportive help within the home. There must be the right kind of work available, and a fair amount of continuous supervision. It is not just a question of drying out a person, and then feeling that the whole situation has been resolved. For that reason, it is not easy to establish a specialised alcoholic unit. However, in four years we have increased the number of these units from 14 to 22. There are three more special units in the pipeline. This means that with one exception, all regional health authorities have now at least one of these units which, as I mentioned earlier, are complemented by mental illness hospitals, which also pro-vide treatment facilities for the alcoholics.
My Lords, because I speak with some personal knowledge, having worked in this field for some years in the past, I should like to take this opportunity of paying a debt of gratitude to general practitioners at large, who have made a far greater contribution than perhaps many of us realise in the medical care and treatment of alcoholics who are not admitted to our hospitals. This work should not go unnoticed. I should like also to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Medical Council on Alcoholism, whose work I know only too well. I cannot begin to tell your Lord-ships of the value of their contribution to the community. We have heard about a one-day conference which will be held in the immediate future, but their work goes on 365 days a year. They are training doctors in this particular sphere; they are training nurses and health visitors. They are also training medical students. To my personal knowledge they have

813
published quite a number of very read-able books on the problem of alcoholism and the alcoholic. I think I am right in saying that their activities have recently widened to include research.
In the last analysis, there is no point in doing something today unless you know what you must do tomorrow, and this is precisely what they are doing. I am sure they will not mind my saying, as I think I ought, that they are substantially grant-aided by the Department of Health and Social Security, and it is right that they should be. We must recognise that in a problem of this kind, the State is unable to help 100 per cent.
If we are to come to grips with this particular problem, and if we are to make any real impression, then we must harness plenty of good will. We must bring together those in the community, who are committed and concerned, people who can work along the lines that my noble friend and his friends have been working along for a good many years, and who have the right, if I may say so, to look to the State for financial support. Unless we harness the right sort of people in the community who can do this under voluntary aeges, we are not really going to make a great deal of progress.
My Lords, I should now like to say a word or two about detoxification centres. However, if I am going to do so, I ought to say that I stand before your Lordships in sackcloth and ashes, because I have to admit that very little progress has been made in this sphere. Such little progress has been made simply because it is a comparatively easy thing to establish a detoxification centre, but it is a very difficult thing to provide all the supportive help needed. Those of your Lordships who have been interested in problem families and in discharged offenders will know that everybody says, "Oh yes, there must be homes and there must be hostels for these people, but we do not want them in our street". Every-body says that there must be detoxification centres, but how many local authorities really want them? I do not think one can organise a detoxification centre without local planning approval. There are many other problems apart from the back-up problems. There are consider-able difficulties.
814
I must admit that after a considerable length of time and many difficulties, we have succeeded in planning only two centres, one in Manchester and one in Birmingham. In London, the Department of Health and Social Security is seeking the help of voluntary organisations to establish a community-based centre run in co-operation with hospitals, the police and local authorities. But having said that, I can assure your Lordships that we shall not be afraid to experiment— and "experiment" is the right word— with other types of centres. I want frankly to admit that we are far from happy at the slow progress. As I said a moment ago, it is not just a matter of providing facilities for drying out the alcoholic.
I spent some time in New York, and while there went to a detoxification centre, a drying-out centre, where the police and the social workers would go out in the early hours of the morning and collect alcoholics from under the arches and off the streets. Drying out would take five days, and these people were then returned to the community. Three nights later, they were in much the same condition as they were when brought into the centre. The idea of a detoxification centre sounds good, but it makes very little contribution to the problem unless one can provide what is a fairly extensive supportive system. One must look for medical and social work teams who can not only assist with the needs of the person, but who have the ability, the competence, the skills and the facilities for his further treatment, as well as continuous care and support in the community.
We should like to move much faster in the provision of treatment and other facilities for alcoholics, particularly in the provision of the special facilities needed by those homeless alcoholics to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred—those who have become habitual drunken offenders. But again, there are many difficulties in developing this service. If I may say so, the difficulty is really not one of money. There are physical difficulties. Alcoholics are a diverse and difficult group in the community, individually or collectively not easy to identify, and not always willing to be helped or treated, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, knows only too well.

815
In the last four years, special financial provision of over £2 million has been made available to develop health services for alcoholics. This is reflected in the increased number of special units, to which I referred a moment or two ago. I do not want to say—and it would be wrong to mislead your Lordships—that this has nothing to do with financial stringency, but we would find the money; we would provide the money, if it were physically possible to have the co-operation of local authorities. But we would need to provide this support and back-up.
From the legislation that has been through your Lordships' House in the last year, your Lordships will know how much extra burden we have put on the local authority social services. We keep piling on them responsibility after responsibility. When the Children Bill, on which we have spent so many days, comes on the Statute Book, it will put far greater responsibility on the local authority. One of the problems with which we are faced is that they may well have reached saturation point in dealing with the social needs of the community. That is why I come back to the fact that we have to harness the good will in the community, the committed and the concerned, as I like to call them; not the great and the good, because I do not believe they really do very much good. It is the committed and the concerned we want, and they are available. If we can harness that good will, I think we can do far more than we are able to do at the present moment.
At this stage, while I am speaking about voluntary organisations and community services, I should like to pay tribute to what is being done at the moment. One is always on dangerous ground when one starts selecting organisa-tions—Alcoholics Anonymous, the National Council on Alcoholism, the Medical Council on Alcoholism. These are not the only people who are functioning. There are many voluntary organisations to which my noble friend Lord Soper referred, with which he him-self has been associated for a good many years, who are doing this work in a very quiet unassuming way. We have been able to provide a substantial sum of money in the last two years. In fact, we have provided something like £315,000 in less than two years—and I do not think that is a bad sum—to 10 voluntary
816
organisations in order to provide hostel places for alcoholics.
Many of your Lordships will know that when a voluntary body is prepared to provide hostel accommodation, we are prepared to provide a capital grant up to £2,500 per place, and then to back that with another grant, which we call a deficit revenue grant, of up to £300 per annum per place. So if a voluntary organisation can itself raise only £100 per place, then we will provide the other £200. I was informed this afternoon that from 1st April next the deficit revenue grant will be raised to £350 per annum. At this stage, this is perhaps the only thing the Department can do to encourage the organisations which are working in this field to do more, to help them financially, and to encourage any other groups which may be able to do something in this field.
Something was said about the need for education. This might well be the key to a good many of the problems. We have, as we have heard today, a vast army of alcoholics dependent upon the community, but there is not much point in taking people off the front of the queue unless we are simultaneously doing some-thing to stop another vast army from joining the queue at the other end. We can do this only by a very skilful process of education. Here, again, far more is being done in this field than many people realise. The National Council on Alco-holism has something like 16 regional councils where they are providing counselling services to help people who have become the victims of alcoholism, and to refer them for treatment. But—and this is perhaps much more important—they have been able to take on and develop a rather extensive educational programme, not only among adults and young people, but among local firms and schools. This, one must hope, will pay off in the long run.
The other problem with which we are faced—and I think we ought to face this quite squarely—is that we cannot really let people loose on the community to do this kind of work unless they are equipped to do it. One can do a tremendous amount of harm if one tries to deal with a situation with which one is not competent to deal. One sees this in all forms of social work. The Department recognises that those involved with alcoholism require special training; this

817
is a prerequisite for a satisfactory expansion of any of the services for alcoholics. The staffs of the specialised treatment units have a very important role in pro-viding the in-service training for people who are going to do this kind of work.
I know that Members of your Lord-ships' House who are doctors will not mind my saying that it must include members of the medical profession. If we are to make a sincere and sustained effort to do something to come to grips with this problem, the people whom we encourage to do it must be able to recognise and deal with certain situations in order to get the help that is needed. We were interested at the Department to learn that the Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies recently introduced a 36 to 39-week course for trained nurses on drug and alcoholic dependency. This again, is a move in the right direction.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying this. I think that a debate of this kind, in which so many people who have brought so much experience have taken part, can-not do anything but good. The noble Lord, Lord St. Just, asked me whether we had any information about the effect on babies born to mothers who are not necessarily alcoholics, but who perhaps take too much too regularly. The answer is, no, we have no information. I caused a message to be sent to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to see whether he knew of any, and he did not. I would not want to make a promise, but if anything comes our way or can put our fingers on any information, I will certainly let the noble Lord know. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised the question of education. I think this is the key to the whole problem. We have to recognise that we are faced with two alternatives; education versus compulsion by legislation. We all know that compulsion by legislation will not deal with this problem. It has to be education, and we have to find the ways and the means.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, raised the question of research. This is some-thing which is being done. I think I am right in saying that the Medical Council on Alcoholism is doing some research in this field. One of the encouraging things —and perhaps I ought to conclude on this note because it is a very positive note, and I do not seem to have said very much
818
that is positive—is that the Department, or I should say my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, has established an Advisory Committee on Alcoholism. The Chair-man of that Advisory Committee is Professor Kessel who is Professor of Psychiatry and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Manchester. I am informed that he is an authority on alcoholism and that, with his Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, which has an influential membership from the point of expertise and skill, rather than from names, he will in the near future be able to look at this whole problem and advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the steps that need to be taken. With real sincerity I should like to thank everyone who has participated because I think that when we come to read Hansard the Department will find the report of the debate of considerable value.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes may I ask him to clear up one point? He made two references to education, but he left me with the impression that so far as children of school age are concerned it depends entirely upon some voluntary association providing it. Is that right?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right.
6.51 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this after-noon and also to those who have listened. I wish to wind up the discussion quickly because I think we have almost overrun our allotted two and a half hours. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, for exhibiting his great know-ledge of the family doctor. I can only say that if all the rest of the family doctors had his knowledge, probably this problem would be half solved. I fully appreciate the remarks on the spiritual side from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, but I thought he was in a much better position than I to speak about it! I agree with the noble Lord also that many of these advertisements on drink leave much to be desired. My noble friend Lord Leigh said some of the regional councils are short of

819
money. I believe that that is sometimes the case. In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, it may be that these problems will begin to sort themselves out in the near future.
My noble friend Lord Amulree said that general practitioners should try to detect alcoholism earlier, and I agree. I also agreed when he said that they seem nervous about telling a patient that he might be an alcoholic. "Alcoholism" seems to be a dirty word. I think we must try to get rid of that idea. It is not a dirty word; it is no worse than TB, cancer or anything else. I am happy to know from the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, that pregnant women who are alcoholics do not pass the habit on to their children. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said that the public needs educating, particularly in first-aid. I agree. While the public may not necessarily be able to cure or help an alcoholic to recover, they may be able to prevent one from dying.
Lastly, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for everything he said. He was most constructive. It would take me too long to go through each point that he made. There is no doubt that the Department of Health and Social Security realises the vastness of this problem, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, a reading of Hansard tomorrow will probably assist everybody. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

POSTAL CHARGES:BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
6.54 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that the rising cost of postal charges for the transmission of books and periodicals does not adversely affect the contribution that the printed word has to offer in a humane society. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the length of the list of speakers tonight, I think that the House is entitled to one or two remarks from me ; not, I hasten to add, that I am responsible in any way for its length. But I took the view that this Question was
820
a genuine one for information as to what the Government intended to do, that it was too narrow for a Wednesday debate and too urgent to await the outcome of the ballot. I think that the length of the list of speakers somewhat bears out the point about its being too urgent for the ballot. As to whether it is or was too narrow for a Wednesday debate, probably the debate itself will illustrate that fact. If I am right, then perhaps we shall not sit as late as it looked, because a number of noble Lords who intended to make points which will have already been covered by other speakers, will, therefore, be able to shorten their speeches. I say that in the smug knowledge that I am the first speaker and therefore have no obligation of this kind, although I assure noble Lords that I shall keep my speech as short as possible. That is not to say that I do not welcome the large number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate and who between them add almost a terrifying amount of expertise and knowledge.
We are particularly pleased that we shall hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, who has such especially great knowledge in this field. I must make a small declaration of interest. It is merely that my main profession is that of a free-lance journalist. I have no publishing interests — thank goodness!—at the moment, but owing to my past publishing interests I can claim to be something of an expert on the unviability of magazines, which is one subject to be discussed this evening. In what I have to say I shall concentrate mainly on the internal situation. I know that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae— under whom I have the honour to sit on the executive of the British Council—will deal more fully with the overseas export situation of the underdeveloped countries. It is because I know that this will happen — not because I am indifferent—that I shall concentrate on the internal or home situation.
We are told constantly that we have one of the cheapest postal services. This is wholly untrue if it merely applies to the tariffs applicable to books and periodicals. Postage is now the largest single expense for many periodicals. It now costs more to post a 7 oz. magazine from Mayfair to Westminster than it does to write, edit,

821
illustrate, print, bind and wrap it. Virtually alone in the developed world, the policy of self-sufficiency in all branches of the postal service is subjecting periodicals to what would elsewhere be regarded as penal tariffs. Even allowing for substantial discount of the public tariff, the price of posting a 7 oz. magazine in Britain is twice what it is in Sweden, 15 times what it is in France, 17 times what it is in Italy and 100 times what it is in Spain. Looking at books, the comparison is almost as bleak. An ordinary publisher posting a 2 lb. book here would have to pay almost twice what he would in Ger-many, Belgium and Denmark; almost four times what he would in Sweden; more than 10 times what he would in Spain and more than 25 times what he would in Italy.
It is a small wonder that publishers, authors, booksellers, learned societies, printers and journalists view the new tariffs as a most serious threat. Not only do the new rates represent a second in-crease in nine months, but the Post Office has already served notice that it will be asking for more. Only last night I heard on good authority that, when metrication of weights is introduced in the Post Office in July or August of this year, its intention is to round down rather than round up the weights. This will immediately put a 4 oz. magazine up into a higher category and will with such a magazine have the effect of doubling the postage in six months from the beginning of March. I need hardly say that these frequent rises in postage are particularly hard on those magazines which sell subscriptions in advance and thereby have to fulfil contracts which they entered into at considerably lower rates of expense.
It is never difficult to obtain agreement to the proposition that the unhindered dissemination of information is an essential bulwark of the kind of freedom we prize above all our other blessings, precisely because it underpins and supports the other freedoms which wither away if information is not there. As de Tocqueville said
"The free flow of information is a constitutive element of liberty."
That liberty is now being eroded by what I believe to be the mistaken philosophy of a commercial self-sufficiency being pre-scribed for something which is both a
822
public service and a monopoly, which has caused postal costs to rise to unprecedented levels, by 270 per cent, since 1970 and an average of 83 per cent, since just before then. This poses a grave threat, not only to those who earn their living by selling and distributing the printed word through the mails, but even more seriously to the spread of know-ledge itself.
Do not let us underestimate the seriousness of the situation. The last few years have seen a 12 per cent, decline in the number of British periodicals published. Last year some 4,500 remained and of those, only 650 titles were handled by the country's largest distributor. Roughly speaking, therefore, the difference between the 650 and the 4,500 must overwhelmingly rely on postal distribution, and often on postal advertising, to reach its audience. It is the cost of this postal distribution which has been so grossly and arbitrarily inflated as to put at risk the very existence of serious weeklies and monthlies, learned journals, trade and technical Press. The more specialised the audience, the more minority the interest, the greater the dependence on postal distribution.
My Lords, I do not pretend that every magazine and every book that is produced in this country is of this great seriousness. Obviously there is much which your Lordships would consider trash, but it is not in fact for us to decide what is or what is not trash. We are not censors, and indeed a certain amount of what might be regarded as lower grade reading has its strong uses. I imagine that there are very few of your Lordships who did not have part of their interest in reading stimulated by Dandy, Beano and Film Fun. A cousin of mine who is a Member of your Lordships' House taught himself Spanish by reading thrillers in Spanish. I have heard of people who have taught themselves foreign languages by what they regarded as the interest of reading pornography, though the result of that is often to give them a very peculiar vocabulary at the end of the day. It is, perhaps, to a certain extent, the trash which may well survive because it is the minority interest papers and magazines, the more serious ones, which the problem is really about.
In an interesting article in the New Stateman recently, Mr. Anthony Howard drew attention to the danger

823
faced by the magazine which he edits, and by others, a large number of whose copies go out by mail. He rightly asked how the certainty that some of these journals of opinion would go to the wall could be squared with the Labour Party's professed desire for a free and varied Press as called for in The People and the Media. I mention that point because the present Government are a Labour Government, though all Parties have an equal dedication to freedom of expression, and we would put this challenge to any Government.
Publishers who rely on the Post Office for selling as well as for distribution are even harder hit. Typically, I am informed by the Association of Mail Order Publishers, postage costs account for approximately 22 per cent, of their total revenue. As the new postal charges represent an increase of about 50 per cent, on these costs, it will be seen that any company making less than an 11 per cent, net profit on its revenue will find itself immediately in the red. The typical net profit percentage in the publishing industry was well below 10 before 17th March. Is it really intended that this form of industrial genocide should take place?
I come briefly to the question of books. Fewer and fewer bookshops now grace and enlighten our cities. Many of those which survive do so only by stocking copper-bottomed best sellers and by taking as few risks as possible with the 30,000-odd titles published in this country every year. They will order a book if the customer knows that it exists, knows the title of the publisher, is prepared to wait while the order goes to the publisher and the book comes back through the post and is willing to pay another visit to the shop to collect it. This has a very great effect on the whole economics of book selling. In fact, the more it happens the more it is a vicious circle whereby one gets fewer and fewer book-shops selling fewer and fewer books, or rather more and more copies of fewer and fewer books, again raising the unit cost to the publisher who can produce only smaller numbers of the valuable books he wants to provide for minority and professional interests, and this then
824
becomes a vicious circle because again there is less and less demand.
The main point of the question which I am asking is not about the workings of the Post Office itself. I am not pre-pared to argue the toss as to whether the Post Office is or is not as efficient as it should be; the Government would merely say in those circumstances that, even should my strictures be justified, it is a matter for the day-to-day business and administration of the Post Office. It may be that other noble Lords more knowledgeable than myself will have points to make in this connection, to which it is hoped the Post Office will pay due attention. My case is that postage for the printed word should be subsidised by the Government, just as the Arts are subsidised by the Government— and for precisely the same reason: that such subsidy is necessary for the cultural and social health of this country. That is what needs to be done.
There is a real danger today that part of our publishing industry, already beset by many difficulties, will finally succumb because of the increased costs of distribution which can no longer be passed on to the reader. What we shall be left with —and this is a most important point— is, on the one hand, the mass media which enjoy newsagent distribution and, on the other, a few very elitist magazines where the price does not matter. In the middle will be left a black hole into which the bulk of the minority and smaller magazines and books will vanish, and with them our hopes to retain the cultural lead that we are able to give in this world and which is very important to it. The consequences, both inside and outside the country, will be immeasurable and, although slow, will, unless something is done by the Government, be quite inevitable. It may well be that in ten years from now we shall have to fund a cultural revival from the public purse at a cost far greater than any subsidy would cost if it were applied at this time. I hope that I have made a case. I know that other noble Lords have additional points to make, most of them in support of this case. I hope that in replying tonight the Minister will at the very least give us his assurance that the Government will give this problem their most serious consideration as a matter of extreme urgency.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for raising a Question that is causing a great deal of anxiety in a very large number of firms and among private individuals. I, too, have an interest to declare. I am Chairman of the British Library and what these new postal charges mean to us will, I believe, illustrate—and illustrate shortly—what they will mean to a great many other people. In the financial year 1975-76, we had estimated our expenditure on postal charges at £430,000. We shall now have to revise that estimate to £590,000. That is an increase of £160,000, and we shall be paying the Post Office £3,000 a week more.
Your Lordships will wish to know how this large increase will affect our own operations, how it will reduce the demands of our customers—or may do so—and how it may damage the publishers and book-sellers with whom the British Library has very special relations. The lending of books, journals and extracts is done from Boston Spa and, by its nature, it is done by post. Boston Spa is receiving requests for loans at the rate of 2,300,000 a year and this rate is advancing rapidly. The increase in the charges will put up the cost of a loan by about 5p, or 22½ per cent.
My Lords, we are an institution which is supported by public funds. We should be criticised if we did not recoup the costs of operating these lending services. There-fore, we shall have to pass on this 5p to our customers. That is what all the nationalised industries—coal, gas, electricity, the railways and the Post Office— are told to do. The public must pay when the costs go up and usually they do so, because the services in question are largely monopolies. In the case of the British Library, our customers are other libraries —public libraries, university libraries, technical college libraries and so on—and all are now squeezed for money. Their funds are not being increased to meet the rise in their costs due to inflation. Your Lordships will observe that if our funds were increased they would have had to come from the taxpayer and the ratepayer. There is therefore no saving to the Government in what they are doing now, if we consider the Post Office to be one of the taxing authorities.
826
My Lords, the libraries to which I have referred have been finding in their present straitened circumstances that it is cheaper, faster and more convenient to borrow books and journals that are not in common use rather than to buy them. They will now have to pay 22½ per cent. more. The result must be either an increase in their budget, which I think very unlikely, or they will buy or borrow fewer books. It is most certain that they will buy less and, if they can afford it, borrow more. It might be thought that this process would be agreeable to the British Library, but in fact there is a definite limit to which borrowing instead of buying should be carried in the interests of the regular users of public and educational libraries. As the volume of library purchases declines— and I hear that many libraries consider that these postal charges will be the proverbial last straw—it will cause big changes in their acquisition policies. As their purchasing declines, either fewer books will be published or the price of books will go on rising to compensate for smaller sales. In whatever proportion these results follow, the intellectual life of the country will suffer.
I now turn to the overseas business of the British Library. Boston Spa provides the world's most efficient and heavily used loan service to libraries outside the country in which the service is provided. In many parts of the Commonwealth, libraries prefer to borrow from us rather than try to find a book in their own country. It is cheaper and much quicker. A library in British Columbia will certainly borrow from Boston Spa rather than try to get a book in Ottawa, for instance. The same is true for many of the Australian libraries. We have to charge for the operational cost of this service— that is, the handling and the postage—but we do not charge for the acquisition of the book or journal concerned. To that extent, our service is subsidised. The new overseas postal rates will mean an increase of 48 per cent, in our charges to overseas borrowers We have been very proud of the acknowledged supremacy of our overseas lending service. It is an operation which is a great ambassador for the English language and for British books and journals. The rises in postal charges must diminish the attraction of what we have to offer, and they raise the question of whether

827
we shall be able to maintain our lead in this field.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has already told your Lordships, postal charges overseas are very much less than ours. We maintain our lead because our handling is more efficient and because we have a better supply, not because our postal charges are less than theirs. The competitor on whom we must keep an eye is the United States. American postal charges were well below ours before this increase came into force, and now in many cases they will be about half for large packages of books. We share the English language with the United States and, clearly, they compete with us in the publication of books for export abroad. Provided this competition is fair, I am all for it. I think it is very good for the general distribution of our intellectual talent. But we do not expect our Government to load the dice against our publishers and our lending services in a market where quite small differences in price can often be decisive. If we go on inflating as we are now, severe unemployment in the British publishing business is inevitable as the costs of production and of mailing books increase. The demand for British publications will decline. Publishing is part of the private sector of the economy where the increase in costs cannot be passed on as an increase in price to the customer. Of course in the public sector it is different. Unemployment can and will be avoided, and the burden of their rising costs will be loaded on to the private side of industry and personal consumption.
The firms concerned in the publishing trade cannot, like the Post Office, insist on higher prices to meet the rising costs of inflation and therefore both home and overseas sales will drop. Unemployment is therefore inevitable. I must ask the Government whether the Post Office took the slightest trouble to inquire from the Department of Education and Science what would be the consequence of these swingeing increases in postal charges. Did they ever ask the British Council? We are going to have the benefit of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and no doubt he will tell us. Did they consult the University Grants Committee? Did they have a single word with Sir Fred Dainton? I believe not one. We are
828
governed by Ministers who are continually asserting their belief in economic planning. What sort of planning is this when charges are increased which must reduce the access to knowledge in all its printed forms, and which is bound to deal a blow to a most valuable export? The export of books has a double advantage. It not only earns us foreign exchange; it also makes it possible for us to spread to the rest of the world our ideas, our scholarship and our way of life.
I would not expect these cultural considerations to weigh with the "Little Englanders" who want to keep us out of Europe, but I would expect Ministers such as Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Anthony Crosland and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who care about books to have seen to it that these postal charges were not so savagely increased where books were concerned. Books are zero-rated for VAT. There was great discussion about this at the time. Why were they zero-rated for VAT? It was because I believe all Parties in the House of Commons, and no doubt in your Lordships' House as well, agreed that knowledge was something which should not be subjected to this tax. Therefore there was a discrimination in favour of books. What is the Post Office now being allowed to do?—to reverse that discrimination and to hit books extremely hard. My Lords, there is only one result. It is that fewer books and journals are going to be published, bought, borrowed, consulted and read. I only hope that your Lordships' protest tonight will have some effect upon Her Majesty's Ministers.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for putting this Question to Her Majesty's Government, and the list of speakers for a debate which it was known would be a little late in your Lordships' House indicates the very widespread interest which Members of this House take in this matter. We are particularly fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, is going to make his maiden speech on this subject, because he holds a distinguished position in the world of publishing, being chair-man of both Longman's and Penguin, and I am sure he will be able to speak from a very wide experience.

829
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, indicated, this debate clearly falls into two parts, although the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has covered both the internal and the overseas aspects. I would wish to confine my own observations to the really drastic increases in postal charges as they affect the overseas postage rates. These rates, if fully carried into effect, will bring about an increase of no less than 167 per cent, in a period of 18 months. The first increase was on 24th June last year; the second was two days ago, on 17th March and—I was going to say, hopefully, " the final increase ", but I fear it may not be the case—the next proposed increase will take place on 5th January of next year. Had the Post Office had its way the increase this month and the proposed increase next January would have been one increase only, taking place his very week.
The main blow so far as the overseas transactions are concerned is the abolition of the former special rates for surface mail on printed papers—a term which covers newspapers, periodicals and books. Under the new arrangements there will no longer be these reduced rates or the special rates for direct agents' bags which, of course, save a great deal of postal expense because they are packed in bulk and collected by the agent to whom they are consigned. The publishing world have been trying since last July to gain attention from the Government for the likely consequences of these overwhelmingly increased charges. They first went to the Department of Trade, but were promptly referred to the Department of Industry, the reason being that the latter Department is concerned with the Post Office, although the Post Office, as we know, has now become an independent corporation. The Department of Industry pointed out this fact and told the publishers that they should have recourse to my noble friend Lord Peddie, who is chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council. My noble friend Lord Peddie and his colleagues went to work very quickly when they were sent the proposed new rates by the Post Office, and they did at least secure a partial stay of execution in that, as I have explained, the total increase has now been spread, instead of being concentrated in
830
a period of only nine months. But neither the Post Office nor their Users' Council, nor the Department of Industry have any particular concern with what is the truly significant substance of this situation. Even the Department of Trade may view books and newspapers as only one export among many, although certainly an export which has consequential effects of which they must surely be aware.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said that to the best of his knowledge— and I can confirm this—the Department of Education and Science was not brought into the picture. The Departments which in my opinion should have been on the alert were the Foreign and Common-wealth Office on the one hand, and the Ministry of Overseas Development on the other. It is these Departments which are responsible for sustaining Britain's standing in the world, for upholding British influence abroad and for maintaining lines of communication with our partners, friends and allies. What is the use of having commercial attaches or cultural attaches in all our posts abroad and in the Commonwealth if no representations are made at home on changes which may drastically affect British interests in these spheres? I can find no evidence that any active interest has been taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—a Department which I once had the honour to serve. I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, as chairman of the British Council, is here to reinforce this case. I have myself been in communication with my right honourable friend Mrs. Judith Hart, Minister of Overseas Development, who tells me that her Department is putting in for a consider-able increase in the financial provision for 1975-76 for the English language low price books scheme. This is certainly helpful so far as it goes, but it is only a small part of the story.
Surely the nub of the matter is that books, newspapers and periodicals are different, as we have always recognised — as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, emphasised— in our domestic taxation policy. Their importance to our trade is far greater than their own intrinsic value. Through the information conveyed directly in the text— or as far as

831
periodicals and newspapers are concerned, in the advertisements as well— persons overseas are influenced in the way they buy or do not buy, as the case may be, from Britain. We all know that professional men trained in the United Kingdom, or in firms or institutions with British traditions, are disposed in later life to order British equipment; engineers are possibly the most important in this respect, but other professions are significant too.
I have here a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who greatly wished to be here tonight, but was unable to join us. He has written to me, with permission to refer to his letter. He says, with emphasis:
"The devastating effect such charges can have on the distribution of British medical journals and books, through which despite pre-sent difficulties this country still maintains its acknowledged world leadership in medical knowledge and education, is infinitely distressing."
This opinion would apply to a whole range of other activities.
I am happy that my noble friend Lord Ardwick is present to deal with news-papers, which have not hitherto been mentioned in the debate. There is no satisfactory way to send newspapers to most parts of the world, except on a regular subscription basis. With national newspapers, I am informed that under the new arrangements postal charges for foreign subscriptions will be increased from just over £1 million per annum to nearly £2 million per annum; the actual estimate is £1,950,000. If there proves to be serious subscriber resistance some very well-known newspapers will have to consider whether or not to maintain a subscription department at all. I am told that these increases come at a time when British Airways has indicated that it intends drastic reductions in its freighter services, and therefore possible arrangements for joint freight or the like may be no way out, even in areas where this would be practicable.
All this means that advertising, news and views may be denied to our friends overseas, obviously to our national detriment. On the periodical side, trade and professional journals, as well as journals of opinion, are extremely important and will be similarly affected, as will be such printed items as prospectuses and regular
832
lists for academic and other libraries, which are now sent by publishers. I am told that many publishers will have to cut down on these quite drastically. Again, British outlets abroad will be diminished.
I return to books and wish briefly to make three main points. Books are the only major export which normally are sent by post; most others are sent by freight. Books therefore are far more significantly affected by these extra postal charges than any of our other major trade exports. The Universal Postal Union Regulations allow what they are pleased to term "serious printed matter" to be sent at 50 per cent, of the full rate. But as I have explained, our Post Office, by abolishing the distinction between printed matter and other items, is saddling British publishers with uncompetitive rates by comparison with other countries, it is admitted quite freely by the Post Office that the United States, West Germany, Sweden and Holland— among those countries which print books and periodicals in English—have lower rates. But the official answer by the Post Office to the Publishers' Association was: "They can afford it; they are richer countries ". On this basis, my Lords, they are likely to become richer still!
It now costs a British publisher 15p to send a book weighing 11b overseas. Until last Monday the cost was l0p. When the full rates—if they are permitted to do so— become effective next January, it will cost the British publisher 20p to send a book weighing 1 lb, while his competitor in the United States pays 8½p. For a larger parcel of books—a 7 lb. parcel—the rate was 52p. From this week it is now 80p., and next January it will be 105p. The American rate in this case is 49p. For the largest parcel, 11 lb., the rate was 80p until this week, and today it is 120p. Next January it will be 165p. The American rate is 74p.
My Lords, how can we face competition from other world publishers of English language books if our publishers have to meet rates as high as this? There is a very special condition so far as American competition is concerned. Since 1943 there has been an informal arrangement of spheres of influence in book exports between the American publishers and our own. But a recent anti-trust case in the United States has now, I think,

833
destroyed that arrangement, and we shall have to face far fiercer competition in the next few years than we have in the past, weighed down with these completely uncompetitive postal rates. That is the comparison with the other countries in the postal rates and it shows that we have a very severe handicap.
We are also handicapped under a complex agreement reached in Paris in 1971—ratified by the United Kingdom— to the effect that if books which are imported into a country become too expensive, the importing country (and this applies particularly to Third World countries) becomes entitled to abrogate the copyright conventions and can license the free copying of the relevant books in its own territory; again to the extreme detriment of British publishers. Under the proposal postal charges up to 30 per cent, of the retail cost of a book is likely to be postage—at any rate in the lower price ranges—and this will bring a whole new range of books into the scope of the Paris Convention on copyright.
Finally, my Lords, books, papers and periodicals are the only major exports which suffer from another recent inter-national agreement whereby Britain has to pay very heavy imbalance charges, amounting to between £4 million and £5 million per annum, to countries to which we post more items than we receive from them. This is something about which I knew nothing until I became interested in this crisis which is facing our publishing industry. The very success of British publishers has put this millstone round their necks. The fact that they export so successfully means that our imbalance payments are all the heavier. This is not a minor matter. British books earn directly around £1 million per annum. The British Council's latest report puts the figure higher still, but I would assume that that includes other publications besides books—
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, the figure is £ 100 million.
Baroness WHITE: I am sorry. I made a slip of the tongue. The figure is £ 100 million. The British Council, as I under-stand it, makes a total computation for British publications of between £175 mil-lion and £200 million per annum. In any case, it is a very substantial amount in direct earnings of foreign exchange.
834
But indirectly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said— and I most strongly support him on this— British publications can earn very much more. As the late Sir Stanley Unwin said: "Trade follows the book". I am deeply concerned that so far the Government seem to have been entirely blind to the wider considerations. I am very sorry for my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, because he has to take on his shoulders the responsibility of answering for at least five Government Departments who are involved in these matters. These are five Government Departments between whom consultation seems to have been minimal, if not non-existent. I hope very much that he wil indicate that there will be much closer consultation, and really constructive consultation, between now and January of next year. We have a little time. I am not blaming the Post Office. It is not the business of the Post Office to take these wider considerations into account; it is the business of other Departments of Her Majesty's Government to take on board these wider matters. It is they who should consult and see how one can meet a position in which, unless something really significant is done, British influence undoubtedly is to be diminished.
7.41 p.m.
Lord ALLAN of KILMAHEW: My Lords, despite the kind and warm words of welcome spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, I wish in many ways that the subject on which I have the honour of first addressing your Lordships was one in which I am not quite so deeply involved as I am in this. However, since it is the tradition in your Lordships' House to speak from experience, I hope that you will accept that I approach this subject not with any idea of self-interest, but from the broad view expressed in the Question put before the House by the noble Lord who, if I may say so, was far too modest about his own contribution to the publishing industry.
The noble Baroness has stressed the importance of the export of British books and also the severe threat to that trade from these new postal charges. This is a line which I had intended to develop; but I shall resist this, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, will undoubtedly be speaking and enlarging on the contribution made by British books

835
to the growing understanding of Britain, its culture, its scientific and technological expertise and know-how. I would say only that, the export trade, which accounts for over 40 per cent, of the out-put of British publishers, gives an essential strength to the domestic publishers. If they did not have this, they would suffer severely and so, too, would the British reading public. There is one other point raised by the noble Baroness which I think worth emphasising. It is that English is coming to be the most important of world languages. Much flows from this. Education and entertainment— through British books and journals— brings with them an interest in. and the use of, other British exports which are not in any way directly connected.
My Lords, it is this vital sector of the British publishing industry which is already threatened from two external sources, both briefly touched upon by the noble Baroness. The first is the anti-trust suit filed by the United States Department of Justice seeking to make illegal the arrangements whereby the English-speaking market was divided between British and American publishers. If this action were successful— and it looks as though it is likely to be so— British publishers will face the severest competition in their traditional markets, competition from a country which is already the greatest publishing rival to British publishers and whose exports can be spring-boarded from a home market which is eight or nine times the size of ours. It is also a country in which today the manufacturing cost of books is certainly no higher than in the United Kingdom. This being so, the price of British books now becomes every bit as import-ant as their quality.
The second external threat comes from the erosion of copyright mentioned briefly by the noble Baroness. The latest moves, as the noble Baroness said, give developing countries the right in certain circumstances to license the publishing of books originating in other countries. This is particularly relevant to the Indian market.
I am a director of one of the Indian publishing houses; and I should, perhaps, also have declared a wider interest at the beginning and said that I had spent most of my working life in the publishing
836
business and am now either chairman or director of a number of book and newspaper publishing concerns. I know that, if the price of United Kingdom books gets too high, these Indian publishing houses will force the Indian Government to invoke the 1971 Paris agreements. This will have a devastating effect on the sale of British books and periodicals in the whole of the sub-Continent and beyond it. These are two situations which demand the lowest possible price of British books— and this is at a time when British publishers are having to contend with enormous increases in material and production costs. Forgetting the external threat, from within we are adding substantially to these spiralling costs by the new postal charges. These postal charges are bound to be passed on to the customers. Because of the inflated costs of replacing stocks today —as anybody in the publishing business knows—all publishing houses are faced with acute cash-flow problems.
Postal charges can be absorbed only by very few, and those are the largest; others will have to pass them on to the customers. This is because the cost of the distribution of a book is a basic cost; it must be reflected in the price. It is not like the administrative costs of additional postage on letters which, in all conscience, will increase our overheads; this is a basic cost which must be reflected in the price. My Lords, you have heard a number of figures from all speakers indicating the various ways in which these charges are to affect British publications of one kind or another. In general terms, may I say simply that what it amounts to is that our overseas competitors will have a minimum advantage of 15 per cent, over us in relation to postal charges, and, as the noble Baroness said, in America the advantage will be 50 per cent.
I should like, if I may, to give your Lordships a few examples from my own experience. By 1976, the two main book publishing companies with which I am associated, which sell huge numbers of books abroad, will be faced with additional postal charges of something over £500,000 a year. This puts at risk mil-lions of pounds worth of exports. It will force us, incidentally, to examine whether still more of our books can be printed overseas, with obvious repercussions on

837
ones, so the figures involved are also large. But smaller publishing houses are even more severely affected, because the smaller houses cannot take advantage of the cheaper rates for bulk postage. So although in their case the figures may appear smaller, in practice they are even more crippling than they are to the larger houses. As the noble Lord said, it is in these circumstances that the small man is under pressure and it is the minority that is most likely to suffer and go to the wall. That is something which I am sure we would all view with the utmost distaste.
The noble Lord also mentioned learned journals. We have a journals division publishing learned journals which help to enhance British prestige all over the world. From next year this division will be forced to pay an additional sum of £120,000 simply on overseas postage, and it is inevitable that overseas subscribers will be lost. The Economist, perhaps one of the most influential of all British journals, had hoped to export by post next year about £1¾ million-worth of journal and other subscriptions. With postal charges now due to rise, in its case by something like £230,000 in a year, this invaluable export is also in jeopardy. I shall not continue with this list, but will end by saying that there will be an additional cost of £200,000 next year on the overseas sales of the Financial Times and its subsidiary publications. There is one additional point which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will probably take up, which is that if, as a result of these increases, the overseas sales of a news-paper fall off, then a very considerable amount of overseas advertising will be lost.
What I have said is in no sense special pleading. It is rather an attempt to show the practical effect of these increased charges, and to emphasise to your Lord-ships what is at risk. So much is at risk that I very much hope the Government will follow the advice given by the noble Baroness and seek to bring together in consultation all the interested parties, to find means of alleviating this quite unnecessary burden which is being placed on British publishers. Such ways do exist, and they exist within international regu-

838
lations and, in my view, will not destroy the Chancellor's new policy for the public sector. What is needed in the first instance is very little: simply a readiness on the part of the Government to take part in talks with interested parties, and work out the solutions which are there. I suggest that if this discussion this evening achieves that end, we shall all be immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for having initiated it.
7.55 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord and to be the first to congratulate him on a most notable maiden speech. It was not-able not only because of its content, arising out of his rich experience, but because of the ease and fluency of the speaker. As one of those who are still scriptbound, even after some years in this Chamber, I regard him not only with admiration but also with a certain amount of envy.
I shall not speak out of experience tonight. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord and also my noble friend Lady White, but I shall not speak about news-papers, simply because it is 20 years since I was associated with the Guardian —a newspaper which then had a consider-able postal circulation. In more recent years I have been associated with the Daily Mirror, and I cannot pretend that the sales of the Daily Mirror will plum-met because it will cost more to post it to India or Ceylon. But I must plead an interest in this debate, since in working, as I do, for the Mirror Group of papers, I work for one of the biggest publishing houses in the world.
The case one has to make tonight is not only in defence of the threatened interests of publishing companies or of the printing and journalistic staffs who work for them: it is also in defence of public and national interests. When I say "public" I mean the vested interest that we all have in the exchange of thoughts and information through the printed word. That is why in this country we have always avoided—at least since the early days of the last century—taxes on knowledge. Indeed, there was a tremendous fight put up, in one of the darkest moments of war, against special taxation being put on books. We are not concerned tonight with a tax or anything like it, but with

839
something that yet amounts almost to the same thing—a change in postal arrangements which, taken with the natural inflationary increase, could make the price of certain publications prohibitively dear.
Postage, in fact, is one of the most important cost elements of those periodicals which depend heavily on the post as a means of distribution—industrial journals, trade and technical journals and journals of opinion. Indeed, it may amount to between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent.—perhaps even 50 per cent. in the case of minority journals with a con-trolled circulation—of their total costs. There is great difficulty for the layman in debating postal increases seriously: it is not a simple matter like the price of sugar. But I take it the mail order publishers, who were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and who are equally affected by these changes, are right when they calculate that the cost of second-class mail has risen nearly 3½ times in the past seven years, whereas retail prices are less than double what they were, and wage rates are up only by one and a third. Of course, the Periodical Publishers' Association admit that, though publishers will have to pay more than in the past under their contracts for inland post, they are, to some extent, being cushioned. Even so, the initial increase of about 20 per cent. will be dangerous to those journals who are only just breaking even, many of which are serving a specialist interest.
It is all very well for the Chancellor to lay down general rules about nationalised industries paying their way, and imposing increased charges in order to do this, but who is the member of the Government able to take into account the social consequences of such policies and to find a way of mitigating them if they are adverse? My noble friend went round four or five Ministries which might be concerned, exploring the situation, but none bears responsibility. Who, in effect, is the "Chancellor of Social Values"? If we had a Minister of Culture, in this case, he or she would be the Minister to whom we might appeal; but we do not have one. So where do we go? We have a Minister for the Arts, but we do not have a Minister for more generalised culture.

840
Of course, it is not only journals but books, too, which are affected, as a number of other speakers have said tonight. It is not only the bookseller and his private customer who will experience difficulty but also the public libraries, the universities and the schools. Of course, for overseas publications the problem is even clearer. Their charges are up by over 50 per cent. and books and periodicals, as others have said, are an important export in themselves—over 1 per cent. of our total exports ; some people put it at 1½ per cent. But their effect upon the rest of the export trade must also be profound. Very often they are a catalogue not only for British ideas and British values but also for British goods—a kind of permanent peripatetic trade exhibition. I do not know how the Government should or could find an answer to the problem. Of course, postal costs must rise as every-thing else rises. The problem is the suddenness and the steepness of the increases. As a rule subscriptions to journals are paid annually in advance, and even when they can be raised to cope with vast increases in postal charges it is a very dangerous moment in the life of a marginal periodical. As many of us know as sub-scribers to journals we get from abroad, when there is a substantial increase it is often very easy to say, "I am going to cut that out."
What I am pleading for is that some-where in the Government there should be a kind of Ombudsman or Department which can swiftly examine and report on the social consequences of severe increases in administered prices, and propose appropriate remedies. Efficiency in the public sector is vital. Producers and consumers cannot be protected for ever, or even for very long, from increases in costs and prices. But they and their suppliers could sometimes be given more time to adjust to price increases. The one great advantage that Governments have over the smaller companies and over individuals is that they can play it long; and so they are always in a position, if they wish, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb until it has had time to grow some new fleece.
8.3 p.m.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, it is a delight to be in a position to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, on that notable maiden

841
speech. We all admired it. Most of us remember that castanetting knocking of our knees when we made our maiden speeches. We all admired the courage with which he delivered his speech, and its fluency, and we are grateful to him for the sample of what we hope to hear in this House many times hereafter. It is a real pleasure to congratulate him. He spoke with authority too—something I do not feel I always do.
One particular facet in the debate in your Lordships' House tonight I feel I can speak on with authority, although I ought perhaps to declare my interest as Chairman of the British Council. But it is not my interest; it is the interest of us all. I shall be brief anyway, but I should like to begin by saying that the British Council maintains overseas 117 libraries all over the world. In them we have an enormous number of books, millions of books. Last year alone, one of our biggest libraries, that in Bombay, lent out half a million books. This is quite apart from the people who come to the library to look at books and reference books, to consult books or just to browse.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I believe another noble Lord, mentioned the professional people who come to depend so much on what we send over-seas. I have now been chairman of the British Council for 2 years and 4 months. I have visited 27 countries, and wherever I go, I see doctors, medical students, engineering students and others using our libraries, without which, especially in developing countries, they would be lost for the technical education they so badly need. The British Council on its own behalf and on behalf of the Ministry of Overseas Development spends £2¾ million a year on books and periodicals. We have our troubles. It costs us too much to send periodicals by air. We have difficulties in stacking up back numbers. But we do our best to slake the thirst overseas for knowledge, and for English books and periodicals and technical books.
Apart from the fact which another noble Lord has mentioned, that British publishing earns over £100 million a year; apart from the fact that to overseas go many illustrated books for children to look at—there is nothing like "catching

842
them young" and inculcating a taste; the technical books for students of all ages and all disciplines, learned journals for specialists: it is not just a matter of foreign currency, although we earn a lot and stimulate a lot of taste for buying books. We are exporting ideas and good-will, and the phrase "trade follows the books," which Sir Stanley Unwin devised and the noble Baroness, Lady White, quoted, is a very true phrase, still pun-gent and correct this day.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, we are facing competition from the Americans and other people. If we lose out in this market we are very stupid. We have established the market; it is a good one; we are in it. Our stuff is in great demand and we are foolish if we go out of it. Higher postal charges make it more difficult, particularly for developing countries with balance of payments problems, to go on importing our books. In another place on 10th February this year the Under-Secretary of State for Trade said this:
"We face a daunting balance of payments challenge, a key feature of which is the need substantially to increase our exports.
These are the stark facts of the present situation, and they mean that the support and assistance which we give to our exporters must be broadly comparable With that available to exporters in other countries. To do less than this would mean placing British exporters at a significant competitive disadvantage."— [Official Report, Commons; 10/2/75 ; col. 106.]
If the right side of the mouth says that, why is the left side of the mouth saying to us something totally different? I repeat, in export it is not just the pounds, shillings and pence, or whatever currency we are using nowadays, that matters. It is the export of ideas.
My Lords, I am 100 per cent. Scotch. I have no Highland blood in me at all but I think I have some element of second sight. I suspect we are to be told this evening that postal charges, in whatever sector of the Post Office they may occur, must pay for the service. I have been told this in another context about STD, but never mind that. I suspect we are to be told that this is an economic rate to charge for sending things overseas by post. I think it is a specious argument. As a former Speaker has said, under the UPU rules we do not have to charge more than 50 per cent. As the noble

843
Baroness and another noble Lord said, the United States are already giving favourable terms to their exporters of books and printed matter. I was told this afternoon—on what authority I am not certain—that the postal rates in the United States for overseas are going up in July—but not for the printed word. It is no good trying to tell us that we are unable to produce favourable rates for the printed word going overseas.
There is an old song in Scotland which has the couplet:
" There's cauld kail in Aberdeen
And castocks in Strabolgi."
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be able tonight to give us something more heartwarming than "cauld kail". When I was in the Army and was fighting against authority, as I often was, there were two replies that used to irritate me. One was, "That would constitute a precedent." The other was, "That is against the policy." If it is a good precedent, let us set it. If it is a bad policy, let us change it. But for goodness sake!, my Lords, do not let us cut off our nose to spite our face.
8.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I regard it as a special honour to rise to my feet so soon after the most distinguished and interesting maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew. It is not for me to be so pre-sumptuous as to commend him, because others who are more capable than I will do so. However, it was certainly an honour and a privilege to hear his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is right to raise this most important matter this evening, and the House will be grateful to him for doing so. The noble Lord is asking this Unstarred Question in the shadow of the terrifying increases which came into force this week. In the light of these increases, we are entitled to ask—indeed, I believe that we have a duty to ask—some fundamental questions about the postal service. I doubt whether an Unstarred Question affords the right opportunity to make a long and detailed speech and I shall not do so; but I hope that I may be allowed to draw in some broad outlines of disquiet.

844
The Post Office seeks to justify the latest swingeing rises with two arguments; namely, inflation generally and the price restraint policies of various Governments in previous years. I submit that neither of these two reasons, nor even both together, justify the size of the latest increases. First, with regard to inflation, we ought to ask why, taken over, say, the last four years, the rises in Post Office charges exceed 200 per cent., while inflation during the same period accounts for only about 50 per cent. Other figures which I could take to illustrate the same theme show that since 1968, which is a little longer, Post Office charges have risen on average by no less than 340 per cent. while the retail price index has risen by only 88 per cent. during the same period and the wages index, if that is relevant, by 133 per cent.
While it is accepted that in the past the Post Office has been restrained from raising its charges by as much as it would have wished, the facts seem to indicate that such restraint was not the villain it has been made out to be. The large deficits which occurred during periods of restraint were largely caused by big, once-and-for-all payments to the pension fund, which should probably not have been charged to revenue account, anyway. This is an area in which one is somewhat handicapped, because the Post Office does not publish detailed figures and it is difficult to ascertain the precise facts.
If we regard the Post Office's explanations of its disappointing performance with some scepticism, what, then, are the real difficulties and what steps can we suggest to improve the position? First, while accepting that the postal service is labour-intensive, should we not ask whether the total labour costs are not excessive? I refer not to the rates of pay but to the numbers of persons employed and to the nature of their employment. We gather that the introduction of automated sorting equipment has been consistently obstructed by the unions, and I suggest that that alone has in no small measure contributed to the present problems.
Secondly, it is common knowledge that the work in sorting offices "peaks" twice during the day—once in the morning and once in the evening. Is it not possible to meet these "peaks" with some part-time labour rather than employ

845
a large body of full-time labour which is fully utilised for only two short periods each day? I do not suppose that the concept of part-time labour will com-mend itself to the Post Office union, but surely they are as anxious as anyone to secure a viable future for the postal service, which must surely now be threatened, and they themselves could greatly help in the solution of these problems.
Thirdly, it has been suggested that payments made to the Post Office by other Government Departments—for example, in respect of the distribution of pensions —do not now accurately reflect the costs involved. An underpayment figure of £14 million per annum has been mentioned. If that be so, the 1971–72 and 1973–74 deficits would largely disappear. Fourthly, and finally, there are two purely financial matters which I believe bear examination. I refer to the interest charges on Post Office debts incurred prior to the establishment of the Post Office Corporation and also the top-up payments made to the pension fund to which I have already referred. I wonder whether either of these two items can legitimately be charged to revenue account, particularly in these specially difficult times. I think there is a strong case for these items to be the subject of special treatment by the Government. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can say something about that tonight.
On this side of the House, and, indeed, in other quarters of the House, we have taken the view that, save in certain exceptional circumstances, the nationalised industries should stand on their own feet and not be subsidised by the tax-payer; and the Post Office is certainly no exception in that respect. Speaking for myself, I believe that the postal ser-vice can be viable at rates which users will find acceptable. The latest increases may well prove to be counter-productive by pushing customers away to other means of communication. In particular, publishers of books and magazines about whom we have heard a great deal this evening and who rely on the post for their distribution arrangements, will either have to find other means of delivery or curtail their activities. If that happens, our cultural, scientific and educational pre-eminence, which has been so apparent

846
from tonight's debate, will surely suffer. The Post Office must be very careful to ensure that these important users of postal services, both at home and overseas, are properly provided for in the contractual arrangements which are available to them. I believe that the Post Office management is not now immune from some justified criticism. I think we shall need rather more convincing explanations when, and if, the Post Office asks for more increases later this year or early next. May I end by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, and by saying that I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
8.18 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the way in which he has made both valuable and new points at this stage of the debate when a great many things have already been said. Also may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, who in his maiden speech made such a notable contribution to the very formidable case which has been made tonight by noble Lords who know much more about these matters than I do.
Some years ago I was chairman of the Book Development Council and at that time I was largely concerned with the book export side of the publishing industry. Tonight I should like to speak on the effect of the new overseas postal rates on book exports. Book exports are vitally important; they make a major contribution to our balance of payments. As many noble Lords have said, we earn £100 million a year in foreign exchange from the sale of books. But it goes much further than that. Why trade follows the book is to a large extent because text-books form a very considerable proportion of our book exports. They help to maintain British standards in engineering and all kinds of things, which then bring in many more secondary exports.
Exports are also essential for the very survival of our book publishing trade. Relatively the United Kingdom has a very small market. The book market in the United States of America is eight times as large as ours, and it is only through book exports that we can obtain

847
a large enough market to enable us to produce books competitively. The present and proposed new postal charges will undoubtedly hit exports. In the cost of books postage is a bigger element than probably in the case of any other export, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and my noble friend Lady White said, relatively it will give a very great advantage to the United States, which is our chief rival in book exports and which now, in all probability, is about to invade our traditional markets from which they have previously kept out. Our revised postal charges will make our overseas postal rate 72 per cent. higher than the rates paid by United States' publishers. This is an appalling handicap when one thinks of them as our main rivals in this field.
It may be argued by my noble friend speaking for the Government that if con-cessions—subsidies, in effect—are made to books both at home and for export, it will be hard to resist similar demands for preferential postal rates for many other interests; and also, as many noble Lords have said, the Post Office must make its various services pay. But this and previous Governments have recognised the very special status of books. They do not regard books simply as a commodity; books are, of course, a commodity, but Governments have realised that they arc also something very precious and valuable, and they have made a number of important and special con-cessions to books, which have not, in fact, spread back to other interests which could make similar demands. Books are free from VAT, and they have the unique right that the publishers can preserve the resale price maintenance arrangement. This is a unique concession to books and it shows how Governments have regarded books as a special kind of commodity.
There are, in fact, direct subsidies to books. As I understand it, the British Council gets something like £4,300,000 to help Her Majesty's Government's book aid programme, which is funded by the Minister of Overseas Development and is very valuable. Therefore, I submit that it would be in accord with past and present Government policy to discriminate in favour of book exports, and other aspects of books at home, and so on, and

848
to give them relief from the full effect of the new overseas postal rates.
In the last resort the Government are responsible for these things, and it seems to me that their policy is contradictory and inconsistent: while they give books these special concessions, while they give books aid through the British Council, at the same time they damage book exports and sales by exposing them to the full force of the new overseas postal rate. It seems to me to be very hard to defend both sides of that argument.
I hope the Government will be influenced by, and will pay attention to, the very powerful case that has been made by noble Lords tonight, and will think again and try to find some special way of helping book publishing in general, and exports in particular, with which I am concerned. I hope they will consider taking advantage of the rights they have under the Universal Postal Union which allows serious printed matter to be sent at 50 per cent. below the full postal rate. If the Government do this, they will be acting in accordance with an international agreement to which they are a party. In my view, only action of this kind will avoid the very great danger that now threatens British books.
8.25 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should first like to join in the tribute paid to my noble friend Lord Allan of Kilmahew on his excellent maiden speech. In another place the noble Lord was for some time closely allied to my noble friend and cousin Lord Avon, and his contribution to your Lordships' House today has been both knowledge-able and extremely valuable.
My Lords, I do not have any financial interest to declare in any aspect of the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has so valuably tabled and prefaced with a notable speech, but anybody in the field of commerce or industry today who travels abroad will have noted with dismay the end product of these increased and in-creasing charges.
I should like particularly to pay tribute to my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Ballantrae, for the excel-lent work that he is doing as Chairman of the British Council. When I was in Finland, about seven years ago, I met our

849
representative of the British Council. I think I am right in saying that in Helsinki there is one of the largest libraries in Europe, and it has in it a very large number of British books. It is in countries such as Finland, which is such a close and valuable ally of this country, that these charges will send a nasty draught through those who are interested in reading and studying our books and periodicals.
Reference has been made to the medical profession. As some of your Lordships know, I have served on a number of hospital committees. We all know the value of the exchange of doctors and nurses, particularly between countries such as this country and New Zealand. When I was in New Zealand, just three years ago, I visited Auckland General Hospital and most of the top administrators were British, while over here we have a number of prominent New Zealand doctors. A number of medical periodicals go to New Zealand and Australia and countries far away from this country. What will be the situation with these heavy postal charges? It may well be that some of those periodicals are air freighted. I do not know—perhaps this is something which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be able to inform us about. How many are, in fact, air freighted and what are the rules about air freighting magazines and books, which presumably may save postal charges? Doubtless these savings are counter-balanced by freight charges, so that one does not really know whether money is saved by this method.
Also, of course, books and periodicals go to other countries, particularly the developing countries which have been mentioned by a number of speakers, and for which we have a responsibility. There is a shortage of airports and landing strips in those countries, so that for obvious reasons there are not very regular air services and, therefore, books and periodicals have to be sent to these places by post at some of the charges which have already been mentioned. At a time when the English language is the second language in so many countries, and when it is held in such high respect, this seems to be a most inopportune moment to put these swingeing increases on reading material.

850
My Lords, the written word is a vital comunication with those whom we seek to interest in the ways of our democratic life, and in the ways in which this country works. I was in the Caribbean, in Santa Lucia and Barbados, at the end of last year on business. I noted the number of British newspapers and periodicals there, and how avidly they are read. If we are to have such an increase in charges, it will be very difficult indeed for reading material to be sent to places like the Caribbean. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her hope that our Embassies in these countries are in communication with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is undoubtedly in a difficult situation here, as any Minister would be. Presumably, there are several Minis-tries involved in this problem, and communication between them and other Government bodies and representatives of the countries concerned is absolutely essential.
I have concentrated primarily on the overseas market because, working as I do primarily in the sphere of insurance, I recognise this as one of our major invisible exports. Clients overseas want to know what is going on through such magazines as Lloyds Log, the Insurance Gazette, and others. There are many other professions which publish magazines. If we are to be faced with these very high charges, what will be the chances of such magazines reaching with the required frequency some of the countries which they need to reach? Of course there are problems. We are living at a time of raging inflation, and the Treasury has only a certain amount of money to dole out. There must be priorities. As I said earlier, and as other noble Lords have said, the value of the written word overseas today has never been so vital as it is in these crucial times.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for putting this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper today. I think appreciation has been felt by every speaker. I should like to thank him also for what he said, particularly when he stressed the urgency of this matter. It seems that it is much better to put down an Unstarred Question and to have an informed debate, than to wait for another

851
opportunity. We ate most grateful, and we hope that the noble Lord will be rewarded by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he comes to reply. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew. We all feel very pleased that his knowledge made it inevitable that he should make his maiden speech today. We are grateful for what he said, and look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I am particularly glad, because I want to talk about the new inland rates. It has not been possible for Parliament as a whole to pay a great deal of attention to them, and it seems to be the case tonight, as is so often the way in this House, that your Lordships will show the way on these matters. I should say that I have an interest to declare. As the House knows, I am President of the Association of Mail Order Publishers and Chairman of its Authority. I share the deep concern for the future of minority interest books and magazines. Also, I believe that the levels of postal increases are now so swingeing each time that they can only motivate larger users to use alternative methods of delivery. I was very interested this evening—and I wrote down the names—to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Auckland, all use the term "swinge-ing". I think it is not a word that we use a great deal, but as we have all separately made use of it tonight it must convey to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, what we feel on this matter.
My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for me tonight, in what I want to say, to kill the myth that large users receive their small discounts from the Post Office at the expense of individual users. The large users save the Post Office a good deal of money, and they save it for various reasons. First, they do not use stamps. By printing at their own expense "Postage Paid Impression" envelopes and cards they save the Post Office the cost of printing and retailing postage stamps. They also bypass the stamp-cancelling process by which the Post Office prevents the reuse of postage stamps. Secondly, they post from one point. Unlike general mail, which has to be collected at considerable expense from about 150,000 different post boxes, bulk

852
posters take all their mail direct to one, or at most two or three, sorting offices.
Thirdly, they post uniform, clearly addressed items. In fact, bulk letter mail, and most parcel mail, is despatched in quantities of a standard "Post Office Preferred" size and shape. Addresses are typewritten or printed, clearly legible, in the precise Post Office format, and, increasingly, with the correct post code added. Fourthly, they pre-sort the mail. According to the quantity posted, the items are sorted into countries and large towns, or into the full range of some 1,500 "post towns". Some posters, using the post code, pre-sort their mail right down to the individual postman's "walk". Pre-sorted mail is bundled, bagged and labelled by the poster. "Direct bags" do not require any examination by the Post Office from the moment they leave the poster until they reach the delivery office. Lastly, the Post Office know exactly when it is coming.
I was very pleased to see this recognised in paragraph 32 of last month's POUNC Report, and I quote:
"Without larger user business the finances of the postal service would be even less healthy, and the burden falling upon the small business user and the private user proportionately greater."
I have stressed this aspect because it can-not be healthy for the Post Office that so many large users—publishers and others —are now costing other means of distribution. One very large member of the Association of Mail Order Publishers tells me that it will now pay them to deliver their magazine by hand in towns where they have a circulation of over 1,000— and that is some 60 per cent. of their total. This would leave the Post Office with the expensive deliveries to distant Scottish farms and other remote areas. And, of course, if this starts, other magazines could well make use of the same service. Or as the Daily Telegraph pointed out on 22nd February these other magazines could all use the distribution network set up by Great Universal Stores during the last postal strike, and still retained. Another very much smaller member of the Association of Mail Order Publishers, who publishes educational books, has now calculated that it can save 10 to 15 per cent. by signing a con-tract with British Rail. Yet a third example is the Bristol Law Society, which

853
is now going to deliver legal documents among its own members in the near future.
I am sure the Minister will agree that this potential loss of business is of much concern when we recall that the Post Office, even before the last round of increases, lost the Barclaycard magazine, with some 6 million copies a year, which is now distributed over the counter, and the American Express magazine. Even the Government themselves have suffered problems with the old postal charges, and give the postal rates as the main reason for the HMSO loss last year, a loss of £348,971. Lord Beaumont's mention of the decrease in the number of periodicals, which are so very dependent on the post, was vividly illustrated in an article I read the other day. And now that W. H. Smith & Son has wound up its subscripiton service, it is only too easy to understand why the magazine publishers are alarmed.
My Lords, we are all keeping our speeches short tonight, and time precludes me from commenting further on Lord Peddie's most thorough report, but I should like to add my voice to those organisations who have called for a full inquiry into the costing of the postal services. Of course, the user wants to know what he is paying for every time he is told that the price of his stamp is going up again.
In common with every speaker tonight, I would whole-heartedly support Lord Beaumont's call to the Government to investigate very carefully what they can do to preserve the dissemination of the printed word. From what has been said tonight, we all feel that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his personal capacity anyway, will understand the problems we are talking about. He has a very difficult job in replying for five Ministries. I hope that he will give us comfort, and that behind the scenes he will convey to the Government the very real anxiety felt by every speaker tonight. All of them have spoken with knowledge and raised problems which I think should be attended to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the special problems of a village solicitor, if he is in a litigious practice, arise from about five o'clock at night to about 7.30. Counsel

854
has notified us at the last minute that he cannot be there for the case due tomorrow. The Clerk of Assize has brought forward a case on an application for adjournment. There is a case in Birmingham that was expected to be reached on Thursday and is now about to be reached tomorrow. The necessity of urgent and frequent communications is absolute, while one must keep one's lines open for notice of further disasters. If the clients knew what was happening they would go "scatty" and sometimes the solicitor very nearly did.
We used to rely on the Post Office, and it was then, I believe, a nationalised industry. It paid very low wages. In order to get these messages through, there were three or four methods open to us. One could pay sixpence a mile to a Post Office messenger to take it all the way. Normally that was practicable only for short-distance communication. One could use the ordinary post, which was then three-halfpence, and when I talk about a penny, I mean the old penny. One could pay a small extra fee—I think it was 1d or 2d—for an express delivery, which, unfortunately, in London had the disadvantage of being so prompt that the letter arrived before my London agent's office was open: they had to stick a paper in the letter box asking them to call for it. Or there was the night telegraph letter, which we usually relied upon. The cost of that was 9d for 36 words, a halfpenny extra for every additional three words, so that for less than two "bob" you could write 100 words and have it delivered, I guarantee, next morning. For an extra penny or two, I think you could get an acknowledgment if you wanted it, and have a record. Having records of documents is rather important in a solicitor's office, where disputes are liable to arise in the course of negotiation about debts.
Of course, you could also use a rail service, in which you went to the local railway station and handed in a stamped envelope for an extra fee of 2d., which covered the transfer of the latter at the various junctions on its way until it arrived at its destination where it would be called for. The modern Post Office has slightly improved this service; you can now get your letter collected and delivered to the station and then have it delivered from the station at the other

855
end. The price of that has now gone up from 2d to £2 exactly. I regard that as a fairly substantial increase. I said, and I admit, that the wages were low and conditions were low.
I married, fortunately for me, the daughter of a village post-mistress, and I recall something of the conditions. I learned how to work a village postal telephone exchange during the night, when one padded down in bare feet on a cold floor, and had to listen, perforce, to the conversation, in order to switch the ex-change off. The conversation nearly always started with the question "Did you get home all right?" and the second was "Was she up?" and after that a contained dialogue.
Conditions had to improve, and they have improved. But I am not quite sure whether the service has. I have today an excellent postal service at Dulwich, and I make no complaint about it. Many of these privileges have gone. The 4 oz. were reduced to 2 oz. and the 2 oz. were reduced to 1 oz., with a dreadful increase of weighing and putting letters on balances and so on. It was a busy office and everything took a considerable amount of time. I do not know anything about economics, and I have never had the good fortune to meet anybody who does. I find it difficult to understand why, running over those 50 years—which have included periods of deflation, inflation, deflation, distress, unemployment, overemployment, peace and war—there is never an occasion when postal charges go down. So far as I know, they have never gone down since Rowland Hill. The present increases are absolutely prohibitive.
I have had some experience of technology. In Oldham we never mentioned politics at Election time, because we regarded it as controversial and distasteful and liable to arouse discussion. I certainly never read out the briefs submitted to me from Transport House. I remember when on one occasion I got up at a meeting of 2,000 or 3,000 workers at the Avro Works and I produced that classic phrase of the Election:
" We are going to harness together all the resources of modern technology and lay it at the service "—

856
and at that moment the loudspeaker broke down and I was unable to continue that thoughtful and profound theme.
I did indeed have to use the service to transmit to Mr. Tom Harrison in Borneo some urgent documents for signature, and I had a message back to say that he was 14 days away by runner in the jungle, and asking whether we wanted them to run out, and we decided that we did not. Still more recently, as your Lordships know, the glad tidings that Mohammed Ali had retained his world heavyweight championship in Central Africa, which were transmitted by all the resources of modern technology to the civilised world, were sent almost as speedily, and much more appropriately, by drum throughout the forests of Africa.
But I rise today to make a case on behalf of one institution—the London Library. This is not at their request; it is my own desire. The London Library is a unique institution. I would have spoken at length on this matter if the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, had not made the point quite clearly on behalf of the National Library. The London Library, which has been buffeted from Westminster once every three or four years, is a library so great that I often leave the British Museum Reading Room to go there and find the book which I could not find at the British Museum. You cannot give it much more distinction than that. It is a voluntary organisation in service of learning. How it will go on under these conditions, I do not know.
They had a withdrawal of their rate rebates some months ago, and a gentle-man whom I have never met, and who was full of zeal, raised the question of the benefits and referred to almost every learned institution in London—the Royal Colege of Music, the London Library and so on. I introduced a Bill to remedy that situation and was duly rebuked by the Speaker at a private interview for a wilful and calculated breach of the Rules of the House, after being warned of the consequences in words which to me are still memorable. He said:
"I never spotted what you were up to, until you said you were on the horns of a dilemma ".
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who opened the debate, dealt

857
with the problems of magazine proprietors and so on in a very able memorandum which I received only today from the Publishers' Association. That case is overwhelming. Much of it was set out with the greatest possible ability by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, in what it was surprising to learn was a maiden speech. It would be almost impertinent of me to congratulate him, because its quality was so obvious to everyone, but it was singularly accomplished. I will add a single sentence in corroboration of what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. Only a few weeks ago, I paid a five years' subscription to the magazine Newsweek which, of course, has its headquarters in America, at a price which was not very much more than it would cost me to pay a year's subscription to a magazine of equal price in this country. These are serious and grave matters which will have reprecussions all over Britain in industry after industry. But the great burden is on books, publishers, readers and libraries. How will they survive? I do not know. It may well be true that many useful scientific magazines will perish under this unmerited and, so far as I can see, wholly unjustifiable burden.
8.56 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for having initiated this very well-timed debate. I shall not attempt to reinforce the powerful arguments that have been made from all quarters of the House, but I sincerely hope that the Government will take heed of them. I intend to speak for a few moments about "talking books". Here I must declare a personal interest in that I recently became chairman of the National Listening Library which is a charitable organisation providing literature in the form of recorded material on "talking books" for the physically handicapped. The National Listening Library, though still in its infancy, provides a "talking book" service similar to that of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. By the terms of its charter the RNIB is unable to make its services available to people suffering from other forms of handicap, many of which either make the reading of books impossible or so diffi-

858
cult, or even painful, that no benefit or enjoyment can be obtained. That is why the National Listening Library was born.
Owing to the generosity of many individuals and many institutions, so far it has been made possible to limit the annual subscription to members to £12. Before this week's increase in postal charges the charges amounted on average to 50 per cent. of that sum. It would be most unfortunate if the subscription has to be raised, but without help that seems to be inevitable. Fortunately, there is a tailor-made precedent for help being given in almost exactly similar circumstances. Noble Lords will be aware that some 40 years ago Parliament approved the pro-vision of free postal delivery to the blind of braille material and "talking books". By international agreement this facility is now universally available.
I suggest that this enlightened precedent should be followed by a similar con-cession to those who are prevented from being able to read by physical handicap other than blindness. Surely that is only fair. It is something which I think the Government could and should do, either by conceding free postal delivery or by a grant to cover postal charges. After all, a book remains a closed book just as much if you cannot open it as if you cannot read it. It is estimated that at least 100,000 disabled people are eligible for this ser-vice, including children and those who are temporarily disabled. As yet, in these early days, there are only about 1,200 members growing at the rate of about 50 per month.
We want to make the service available as quickly as possible to all those who are eligible and we want all the help we can get. The cost of providing free postal delivery to the disabled would be at present the trifling sum of between £25,000 and £30,000. I do not know the cost of the concession to the blind, but it must be very much higher. To put the whole thing in perspective, it is interesting to look at the present cost of the library services, which are available absolutely free to the able-bodied. The annual cost in England and Wales of the public library service is about £90 million and that of the university libraries about £17 million.
It needs no words of mine to describe the mental stimulation and happiness that the library is already providing to

859
the few, nor the scope for giving confidence and education to disabled children, nor perhaps in years to come preliminary reading; for those who will require retraining owing to the need to change their jobs. At present we lag behind the United States and Canada, which have recognised the need to enable the disabled to continue to enjoy the written word as of right. In those countries a "talking book" service is pro-vided free to the disabled, so I am not asking for much for the disabled—just a concession of free postal delivery already granted internationally years ago to the blind. This is a special case and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will agree with me.
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the whole House was moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, rightly called a special case. This House has shown itself repeatedly full of concern for the disabled, and of course some of our most respected and distinguished Members are themselves disabled. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said—that whatever may be the outcome of the general discussion, the House will treat this particular case as indeed special. The noble Lord had every justification for speaking, even towards the end of this quite prolonged debate, though my justification is slightly less convincing. If I am asked whether my speech is really necessary, I think the answer can only be "No", but if I am asked whether it would not seem a little cowardly, possibly even sinister, if I simply scratched my name off the list of speakers, then I think the answer to that must be, "Yes".
I rise in the spirit of a notable character well known to your Lordships who, after Edmund Burke had spoken, rose and simply said, "I say ditto to Mr. Burke". All noble Lords will clearly remember his name, and if they do per-haps they will tell me later who it was because it has temporarily escaped my memory! However, I rise to say "ditto" to all the previous speakers, beginning, of course, with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who I was afraid I was going to have to congratulate in his absence but who has made one of his fleeting returns to the House.

860
I wish also, of course, to congratulate the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, who is a very much larger publishers than I am, though whether the rate of progress of my family is quicker than that of the vast organisation over which he presides I would not know. However, as one medium-sized publisher to a very large one, I salute him on his contribution. I think it would be a good idea to congratulate those sitting closest to me, which is always a prudent thing to do before one sits down, not-ably the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker.
I hope the Minister will find it possible tonight to give us some encouragement. I realise the enormous difficulty of his position. Before he reached the scene, he clearly had been given some guidance by his colleagues and I do not want to embarrass him unduly. When I first came to this House, 30, or it may have been 100, years ago—whenever it was, it was in the Dark Ages—his father gave me tea on the first day I arrived and it would be poor recompense if I were to add to the noble Lord's afflictions tonight. But he must realise that I should doubt whether, in my over-long experience here, there has been such a unanimous volume of criticism of any step as we have listened to tonight. I hope the noble Lord will not say to himself, and possibly to us, that those who are speaking are speaking on behalf of some business interests of their own. Some are and some are not, but the truth is that in this debate we have speakers—in some cases they might be said to have a personal interest and in some cases they are detached—who are all thoroughly expert and truly concerned about the public good, and I am sure that that is the spirit in which the noble Lord approaches these problems.
I will not delay your Lordships for long. The noble Lord may tell us, or his colleagues may think, that this is now a matter that has to be left to the Post Office, that in their wisdom they must decide. Obviously the noble Lord and any Minister, however unenlightened or obdurate, must agree that some damage, and I should think a lot of damage, will occur if these extra charges go through. But the noble Lord may say or think— or his colleagues may say or think, "This industry is now outside our control." I

861
hope that that will not be said. I have been a Minister of a nationalised industry and, when I was Minister of Civil Aviation for three years, one part of our concern was with the aerodromes, which were nationalised in the sense of the Post Office, and another part comprised the corporations, which were nationalised on the present lines.
So whether the Post Office is nationalised in the old or the new sense, the truth is that the State, the Government, cannot divest themselves of all responsibility for what takes place. They would be completely betraying their trust if they said to themselves, "This is regrettably damaging to the national interest, but what can we do with these people? We have told them that they must make it pay and if this is the best way they can think of making it pay, so be it, we must leave it to them." I hope that we will not be told that tonight and, above all, that the Government will not think that, for the truth is that no Government responsible for a nationalised industry can ignore social considerations, can avoid the question which they must put to themselves: "When all is said and done, will this help or damage the country?" Obviously, so far as possible the Government wish to avoid interfering, but when they get this volume of criticism, the noble Lord and his colleagues must think again. I hope that tonight he will at least leave the door open and tell his colleagues that, so far as he can judge, there has never been an occasion when the House of Lords has been so unanimously against what is now being proposed.
9.8 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has been responsible for giving the House this opportunity for a most interesting debate. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that the subject is too important for an Unstarred Question, but I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had difficulty in getting time and so we had to have the debate rather late in the day. However, it has been none the worse for that, and certainly the subject has attracted a scintillating list of speakers, including a former Minister for the Arts. I do not know whether my

862
noble friend Lord Ardwick would call the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the Minister of Culture, but I certainly considered him to be so, just as I now regard my honourable friend Mr. Hugh Jenkins to be the Minister of Culture.
My Lords, I am, of course, the spokes-man for the Arts Department in your Lordships' House, and because the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, ended with the words "a humane society" and referred to the place of the book in such a humane society—a matter which I shall deal with later—the task of replying has devolved on me instead of upon the spokesman for the Department of Industry, which is the Department responsible in a general way for the Post Office. However, as several noble Lords have surmised, I have had the task of co-ordinating what I hope to say with a great many Departments. I shall do my best to answer all the various points which have been made.
First of all, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Kilmahew, on his maiden speech, to which we all listened with the greatest interest. I want to say more about paperbacks later, but here I must say how much I have always admired Penguins and how much pleasure I have derived from them. They compare very favourably with many of the paperbacks produced in other countries, particularly on the Continent, and —dare I say it?—with the Livres de Poche.
Despite what my noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Longford have said, I must be plain at the outset on the subject of the higher charges. Although the Government are naturally consulted by the Post Office about its general pricing policy, postage rates for particular services are primarily a matter for the Post Office. These responsibilities are conferred by the Post Office Act 1969, which was passed by Parliament and which gave the Post Office, first, the power to provide, inter alia, postal ser-vices and, secondly, the general duty to exercise that power in certain ways having regard to efficiency and economy. The 1969 Act also gave the Post Office power to make schemes which prescribed the charges and conditions applicable to its services. I may say in this connection

863
that the second sight of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has been as accurate as I am sure it usually is.
However, having said that, I must say that the Post Office's freedom to set rates for its services has been somewhat curtailed by the counter-inflationary policies pursued both by this Government and by the previous Administration. As a result, compliance by the Post Office with the terms of successive Price Codes has meant that this year the Post Office—taking both postal and telecommunicttions businesses together— faces losses of some £300 million, which would have risen to an estimated £700 million in 1975–76. Continuing losses on this scale were clearly unacceptable and I must remind noble Lords of statements made at the end of last year by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made it clear that it was the policy of this Government to phase out price restraint subsidies to the nationalised industries as soon as possible.
Of course, everyone recognises that implementing that policy is bound to be both painful and unpleasant, even if its impact were to be reduced by stages. Nevertheless, it remains the Government's view that economic pricing is as essential to the economic wellbeing of the public sector as to the private sector and is necessary if public expenditure is to be effectively controlled. Confronted with the massive deficits which had been fore-cast and mindful of the Government's policy in regard to nationalised industries, the Post Office had no choice but to propose massive increases in the prices of its services. Even so, I should point out to noble Lords that, at the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry, the Post Office sought increases of a lower order than the maxima permitted by the provisions of the current Price Code. As a result, it will still be left with an estimated loss of some £50 million in the coming financial year.
The proposals made by the Post Office were referred, as the 1969 Act requires, to the Post Office Users' National Council which has been referred to by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Peddie, who I know wanted to be here tonight but was unavoidably prevented, was kind enough so to inform me and to send his apologies. I think the Council

864
under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Peddie, to whom I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute, enjoys an enviable reputation for the vigilance with which it has discharged its functions in the interests of all classes of users of the post. After full consideration of representations made to it, the Council has of course made public its reluctant acceptance of the proposals of the Post Office, and increased postal rates were accordingly introduced on the 17th of this month. Before that date, there was also a statutory referral—except for the overseas rates—to the Price Com-mission, which accepted the proposed increases.
The overseas postal rates are very much factors in considering the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has asked. Assuming no price changes, the Post Office forecast a deficit in the current financial year of £4½ million on those services, but this would be expected to increase to £24½ million in 1975–76. Although sea conveyance costs, reflecting the increased price of oil, have risen enormously, the largest single item in this increased forecast deficit, comparing 1974–75 with 1975–76, is caused by the decision last year of the Universal Postal Union Congress to increase and extend the compensation arrangements in respect of traffic imbalances referred to by my noble friend Lady White. This may not have been appreciated, but the Post Office is bound by that decision which was strongly resisted by the British delegation, but, my Lords, the views of the majority unfortunately prevailed. There are very few countries like the United Kingdom which send more letter post traffic than they receive. Accordingly, the Post Office has had to increase its rates for printed papers—these of course are principally books and periodicals.
After considering the representations of the Post Office Users' National Council and the industry, the Post Office agreed to introduce these particular increases in two stages. It was not really, as my noble friend Lady White said, that there were more increases on the way. They were increases which should have been made now, but which have been deferred in order to make the position rather easier, although I appreciate the difficulties which the book industry is facing, as

865
indeed are all industries and all of us in many fields. The first stage which increased the full rate printed paper tariff by 24 per cent., the reduced rate by 54 per cent., and the direct agents' bag rate by 50 per cent., came into effect on 17th March. The second stage, which advances the full rate to 66 per cent. of the tariff prevailing before 17th March, and the reduced rate and direct agents' bags to 100 per cent. of the pre-17th March tariffs, will, as I said, be introduced next January.
It is these services which very largely create the imbalance of traffic with other countries. They were operated at a very heavy loss before 17th March, and they will continue to be operated at a loss after next January, despite the large increases in tariffs which I have mentioned. In spite of the continuing losses on those services, I am able to reiterate an assurance given on the occasion of a similar debate in another place at the end of January, and I am sure that noble Lords will be gratified to learn that the Government know of no plans on the part of the Post Office to abolish the special rates, for all that they are not as low as certain noble Lords would wish and as I myself would wish for books and periodicals sent abroad by post. These are the facts of life that we have to live with.
So far as the inland service is concerned, there are no comparable services, and books and periodicals must go at either first- or second-class letter post rates or at parcel rates if they are sent by post. At this point, I would remind noble Lords that the Post Office has no mono-poly over the carriage of items other than letters, so that books and periodicals may be sent to a destination in the United Kingdom, or abroad, either by post or by other means. The choice as far as possible, though I realise this may sometimes be difficult for smaller publishers, is the senders. The serious financial position of the inland postal service clearly called for some action: without a tariff increase a deficit of £126 million was forecast for 1974–75 and £277 million in 1975–76. Following acceptance by the Users' Council and the Price Commission of the Post Office's proposals for increased rates at 49 per cent. overall for letters and 51 per

866
cent. for parcels, these revised rates were also introduced on 17th March. Their effect will be to reduce the forecast inland postal deficit for 1974–75 to £118 million and for the period ahead to £65 million. My Lords, I must stress that these figures for the forecast deficits are still very substantial ones.
In the light of the economic situation of the Post Office and the Government's expressed policy in relation to subsidies to the nationalised industries, it would be unrealistic to expect any form of subsidy to be made to offset the effect of increased postal rates, either inland or overseas, on a particular industry. I must therefore tell noble Lords that the Government can see no ultimate justification for such a subsidy, which would have to be paid for by other users of the post, or by the tax payer. Nevertheless, I will undertake to bring what has been said today to the attention of my right honourable friend and to the other Departments concerned. I include here the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that books and periodicals should be subsidised, although I do not know how one decides which are to be subsidised; but this is something of which we shall take account. When one is a spokesman for the Arts, one is always approached by many people to subsidise various things. Some people come to me wanting the Government to put aside a reserve fund to buy every masterpiece in the country. They say, "It will cost only £30 million." Other noble Lords want to subsidise the postage of books and periodicals. These are matters which have to be taken into account and which are considered very carefully, but one cannot do everything while at the same time keeping taxes at a certain level, when already they are rather too high.
My Lords, I am well aware—and can fully understand—the book trade's view that the large increases in postal charges are viewed with alarm, and I have seen the figures which the Book Development Council has produced showing the usage of overseas postal services in 1973. These figures were made available to the Post Office Users' National Council. But it is a fact, though a sad one, that we all have to live in inflationary times and acknowledge that the higher postal charges are but one element in the rising costs of

867
producing the printed word, alongside the higher costs of materials and labour, and, indeed, the higher costs of producing and distributing all manner of things.
Except of course for the paperbacks, the cost of books has gone up enormously. A novel now costs £3; it used to cost 15 shillings. Art books, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and others will know, used to cost a couple of pounds. I can remember Phaedons were 10 shillings before the war ; they are now £10, £15 or £20—anything almost; the sky is the limit! Postal charges really are one element in the whole question of book production and everything else. I will only repeat that in the matter of distribution the Post Office does not have a monopoly. Users can, and do, use alternative means. Given the increases in postal charges, users will be considering further use of alternatives and central distribution points. This is quite understandable. I am sure that, either way, publishers will be determined to maintain their trade and the best possible service to their customers at home and abroad.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, would my noble friend explain how he proposes to send newspapers other than by post to arrive within a reasonable period?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will come to that a little later, but having worked in the magazine industry, I know that a great many magazines, particularly the mass circulation magazines, with which I used to have a lot to do, go by road.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I am speaking of the overseas trade.
Lord STRABOLGI: I will deal with the overseas trade in a moment. With regard to periodicals, it seems probable that in many ways these will be harder hit by the loss of advertising revenue in the present economic situation than by the higher postal rates; because we know to what an extent practically all periodicals depend on advertising to subsidise their costs.
I should like to say a word on the effect of the international copyright mentioned by my noble friend Lady White. Mention has been made of the possible consequences of an increase in postal charges under "international copyright agreements" to the detriment of British

868
publishers. My understanding is that the point relates to the situation that this country's publishers may face in the developing countries where at the present time they have a market in, for example, India because they can sell there more cheaply than an indigenous publisher could sell a re-print.
The argument runs that if publishers have to increase their prices to cover higher postal charges, local publishers might be able to under-cut them legitimately by using the facilities offered by the 1971 Paris Revisions of the Copyright Conventions. These Revisions constitute an exception in favour of the developing countries to the general copyright principle that the author or his successor in title, who could be the publisher, shall have the exclusive right to authorise reproduction of his work. They allow a local publisher in a developing country to get a compulsory licence to reproduce a book if that book has not been offered in his country by the original publisher at a "reasonable" price and within a certain time.
My Lords, I feel sure that no attack on the Copyright Conventions is intended and I take the point as merely an example of how the publishers might become less competitive in certain over-seas markets. But the United Kingdom has ratified these Revisions, and it is most important to be clear that a royalty is of course payable to the original publisher in return for compulsory licence. There is also the question of the Low-Priced Book Scheme in the emerging countries which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, in his capacity of chair-man of the British Council is concerned with, and who mentioned it in his speech.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development has naturally considered the probable effects of the increases in overseas postal rates upon the selling prices of books produced under the British Low-Priced Books Scheme for developing countries. She believes that the effects will be relatively small compared with the increases resulting from inflation in book production costs over the past three or four years and to which I have already drawn your Lordships' attention. These have been absorbed apparently without undue difficulty, except in certain sectors, and far from there being a reduction in sales of

869
these books they are still increasing. The financial provisions being sought by way of subsidy for this scheme in 1975/76 is substantially higher than for the current year. That I can certainly say, but without going into details, because the estimates have not yet been published.
Similarly, in relation to the Books Presentation Programme and Library Development Scheme, although the increases in postal charges will mean that fewer books can be purchased and dispatched overseas for the same outlay, the annual financial provisions planned for these schemes in future allow for rising costs and should be sufficient in my right honourable friend's view, to cover increases both in production costs and postal charges as well as for some degree of expansion. If, in the event, there are indications to the contrary, my right honourable friend, who is watching the situation, will consider carefully adjustments to the provisions to prevent a quantitative reduction in this form of aid to developing countries.
That is the general situation. Perhaps I may now try to answer a few specific points which have been raised. First of all, may I say that of course we shall pay great attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, about postal concessions for the blind and for other disabled people. I regret that at this stage I can give no further assurances, but I will certainly undertake to see that this particular point goes to the Post Office and is considered by them. I am sure we all have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Lord said.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked whether the Post Office consulted the British Council. The answer is that it would be invidious to consult any particular user and of course it would be impossible to consult them all; but they do consult the Post Office Users' National Council, who represent all classes of users. In addition, any particular group may of course make representations to that Council. In respect of the latest increases, the Book Development Council, for example, spoke for a large section of the publishing industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked about air freight. Here there is no monopoly and I am sure British Airways

870
would welcome approaches from publishers about air-freighting their publications. Air freight, I believe, offers an excellent service and in many ways it is quicker and more reliable than surface services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, asked about the increased rates for over-seas printed paper services—a point which was also referred to by my noble friend Lady White. Even after next January, the Post Office do not expect to run these services other than at a loss. They attempt to recover only directly attributable costs such as sea freight, land transit costs in other countries and imbalance payments, to which I have referred, and so on. But it is certainly their intention to carry on these services.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, raised a great number of points. He spoke about the impact of inflation on postal charges in recent years. Of course, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is possible to draw different conclusions from the statistics available. Postal charges, of course, have risen more rapidly than, perhaps, the general rate of inflation might have led one to expect. From 1968 those charges were insufficient to cover costs and, despite subsequent increases, the fact of the matter is that the discrepancy between costs and revenue has widened. The economic indicators which have been mentioned all have their limitations. While it is true that in an industry where 75 per cent. of costs are paid in wages, and basic wages have been increased by substantial percentages—in passing, I might point out that postmen's pay alone rose by over 40 per cent. in the current financial year—that factor must be considered in conjunction with others. There have been a reduced working week, improved holidays and unforeseen over-time brought about by staff shortages and similar factors, and they mean that the total wages bill is increased by a proportionate amount when compared with increases affecting the basic wages structure.
I think the noble Lord also asked about the Post Office Pension Fund. This is not a once-and-for-all payment; it is a continuing commitment, and the independent auditors to the Post Office took the view that it is properly chargeable to the

871
revenue account. The noble Lord asked about staffing. Noble Lords will know that for some time the Post Office has had a recruitment problem, and for some considerable time the number of postmen fell substantially below the number that was required. But following the special pay review authorised by the Government last year, the recruitment position has eased. I understand that, broadly speaking, half the vacancies have been filled. But I must admit that some quite important offices are still substantially below strength. The Post Office, I understand, is actively considering, in conjunction with the union concerned, the various questions relating to staffing, including of course the employment of women.
With regard to mechanisation, the Post Office expects mechanisation to show worthwhile financial savings in the longer term, although full advantages can be obtained only when automatic sorting machines are operating in a completely integrated network. Thus, there will be an adverse cash-flow in the earlier years.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am fully appreciative of all the answers he is giving to my points. But is it not the case that the introduction of automatic sorting equipment in the Post Office has been a very long-winded process? They have been talking about it for years. They have had some equipment on trial for at least five or six years, and we are still talking about the long-term benefits.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that may well be so, but of course these things take time. I also know of no evidence that there has been resistance from the union in the kind of Luddite way which the noble Lord referred to. The noble Lord also spoke about agency services, I think, and suggested by implication that part of the cost of the services carried out at Post Office counters on behalf of various Government Departments falls on other users of the postal services. This is not so. The agency services as they are known are carried out by the Post Office under the terms of an agreement which provides for the Post Office to be paid the costs it incurs in providing those ser-vices and, in addition, a service fee of 4 per cent. This agreement has operated since 1st April last year. Previously, a service fee of 2 per cent. was charged. I

872
am unaware of any loss attributable to such agency services in the years mentioned by the noble Lord.
Also, the sum of £14 million which has been bandied about. I do not know where he got that. For example, in 1971–72 the Post Office made a profit of £1 million for agency services; in 1972–73, the com-parable profit was £1·3 million; in 1973– 74 the profit was £1·6 million. So it is a rising profit rather than an astronomical loss as the noble Lord surmised. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also suggested that past losses incurred by the postal business are adding to the burden which today's customers are being asked to shoulder. That is not so. The net accumulated deficits in the years up to and including 1972 and 1973, which in total amounted to £177 million, were written off, as your Lordships will remember, under the provisions of the Post Office Borrowing Act 1972.
One or two noble Lords asked me about the recent anti-trust case which is taking place at present and which involves the British Publishers' Association and other publishers. The Department of Trade is well aware of the valuable contribution which the book trade makes to our export efforts, and is following very closely the developments in this anti-trust case in the United States. Also, the Department is keeping in close touch with the British Publishers' Association. The fact that any problems arise as a result of litigation in the United States imposes constraint on the action which we can take. Nevertheless, our Embassy in Washington has made the American Administration firmly aware of our concern at the potential international implications of the case. We shall continue to watch these developments and will not hesitate to take appropriate action in future. Beyond that I cannot say, because the precise nature of the injunction which the United States Justice Department is seeking in this case is not yet known. It is hoped that any decree would not prevent individual negotiated licensing agreements.
With regard to the other question which was raised about comparable rates in the United Kingdom and the USA, it may well be that the United States charge less for postal services than we do. Every country has its own rates for all kinds of things. Some are higher, some are

873
lower. I think that most things in the United States cost much more, but their postal charges are less than ours. On the other hand, the United States will have imbalance problems similar to those which have affected the British Post Office following the Lausanne Congress decision. I expect them to adopt measures similar to those taken by the British Post Office; so any existing disparity in rates must tend to contract significantly. Indeed, it may largely disappear within a comparatively short time.
My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry asked about bulk postings of periodicals. Bulk postings of periodicals were referred to also by my noble friend Lord Ardwick and others. Bulk postings of periodicals in the inland post will be affected by the increased rates which, as I have said, have been accepted by the Post Office Users' National Council and by the Price Commission as being justified. However, may I point out that special arrangements exist whereby periodicals registered as newspapers at the Post Office travel in the inland first-class letter stream at rates equivalent to second class postage. So far as inland bulk rebate postings of items other than newspapers are concerned, I understand that existing arrangements will not be affected in terms of service. Nor will the amount of the rebate vary in percentage terms, although clearly both the amount of the postage and the amount of the rebate will be more in absolute terms as a result of the increased rates introduced on the 17th March.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, although I know it is getting late, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? The point that I had hoped to convey was that the Post Office was in danger of losing finance because the largest users would seek alternative measures on account of the high postal rates, and I wondered whether with some urgency he could bring this home to the Post Office?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly undertake to do that. Of course, pre-sorting and postage from one point is the kind of thing which the Post Office takes into account in allowing the rebate to which my noble friend has referred. The Post Office has certainly

874
no intention of penalising this class of user by reducing the percentage rebate as such. On the other hand, I must point out that the Post Office has no monopoly in this field and does not wish to have a monopoly, and there are other ways open to users of delivering in bulk—I have dealt with them myself and I know. Those are open to users if they wish to make use of them. I am afraid that may be cold comfort to my noble friend, but that is as far as I can go.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, surely he is undermining the Post Office. If he keeps on telling us that if we have a large volume of business we had better try an alternative way of handling it, what will happen? The more expensive business will be left with the Post Office. The Post Office is clearly not well managed now, and the problem of managing it better will get more and more difficult. Will the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the fact that this debate shows either that the British Post Office is not as well managed as Post Offices overseas, or that they subsidise their rates? We should like to know which it is.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I shall certainly bring that to the attention of the Post Office, but of course they do make a rebate on these bulk mailings. To what extent they depend on these bulk mailings for their profitability, I do not know. But I will certainly go into the matter and will get in touch with the noble Viscount. The overseas rates are of course controlled by international agreements, which include the question of the imbalance, and so on.
The last part of the Question deals with the contribution that the printed word has to offer in a humane society. The invention of printing and the spread of the printed word in all its forms has made—and will, I am sure, continue to make—an incalculably great contribution to civilisation and to society. The world output of books has long been growing fast and shows no sign of diminishing, to the extent that a new major library in a civilised country has yet to be built whose librarians feel that there will still be room and to spare in it to keep pace with this output before many years have passed.

875
The number of books lent out by public libraries has increased, I believe, from 400 million to 600 million over the last 20 years, and the number of books in stock has doubled. Also, during the last few years we have seen the phenomenal growth of the paperback, and I believe that 31 per cent. of all book sales and 29 per cent. of book exports are now in paper backs. Will more books be bought now than would have been bought had broadcasting not been in-vented? We cannot know. I believe it right to look upon the printed word and other modern means of communication as complementing each other in the spread of education and enlightenment in our society, and not as rivals. A striking example of this lies in the wide series of written publications and linked paperbacks to complement the educational broadcasts, and your Lordships will be familiar with the effect on book production and sales of such broadcasts. I think therefore we should pause before expressing serious views in regard to the future contribution of the printed word to a humane society, either on account of higher postal rates or for any other reason that can be reasonably predicted.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
  INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (NORTHERN IRELAND OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [H.L.]
SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUEN-TIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.