Lords Sitting of 30 October 1979

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Lord Grimston of Westbury—Took the Oath.

BNOC: PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: 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 can give any further details of their plan for wider ownership of the British National Oil Corporation.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, as my right honourable friend has already announced in another place, Her Majesty's Government are pursuing their objective of giving the public the chance to participate directly in BNOC's oil-producing business. A Statement will be made in due course.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, while I have to thank my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask him two questions? Is he aware of the current monopoly position in gasoline production and distribution which is distorting the market, and is he able to give an assurance in that Statement that this monopoly position will not be extended? Secondly, can he give an assurance that such wider public ownership will be designed to ensure that sufficient of the assets will not fall into any one particular grouping, that may have an undue influence in both main and downstream operations?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is correct in saying that there is a monopoly in gasoline production and distribution. So far as the second part of his question is concerned, certainly we would not wish to create a monopoly.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, is it intended to restrict private investment in BNOC to British companies and British citizens, so that control does not pass into the hands of foreigners?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think a decision has been taken on the first part of the noble Lord's question. But the intention would certainly be not to see control pass to foreign companies.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the steps already taken with regard to BNOC, particularly to restrict their first option on farm-ins and assignments, have already helped to create new confidence in the North Sea?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is what we would have expected.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, irrespective of the merits of the proposals which the Government are to introduce, while interest rates are at an all-time high because of the Government's total failure to control inflation, is it not precisely the wrong moment to issue shares of any kind on the market?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I shall ignore the middle part of the noble Lord's question, with which we would not necessarily agree. I think that the question of the timing and the judgment of how to issue these shares is one of the things that still has to be decided.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the reference to wider ownership in the Question, can the Minister say what ownership could be wider than ownership by the whole of our people through our Government?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, that is a question which I asked when I was getting briefed for this Question. The short answer is that I think you have to distinguish between ownership by the Government and ownership by individuals or institutions.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the answer he got was a shocking one?
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government are thinking of any methods to ensure wider ownership, in the sense that the Conservative Party thinks of wider ownership, rather than the present limited method?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not think I quite understood the drift of the noble Lord's question.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, ordinary people do not really deal in the Stock Exchange. That is really the point. I am wondering whether the Government ought to think about wider terms of doing it.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that this Government would believe in wider share ownership.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that ordinary people do deal in the Stock Exchange through their pension funds, life insurance policies and all the other things which go to spread ownership of British industry, so far as is possible, among all classes of society, which is surely what we should encourage?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Yes, my Lords, I would certainly agree with my noble friend, if he is suggesting that my noble friend opposite is peddling a rather outdated philosophy.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government have said that they have no present plans to sell off BNOC's North Sea assets, will they also confirm that they have no future plans either, so that, since their very commendable U-turn—the first, I hope, of many—the oilfields may remain safe?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, again I am not entirely clear about the drift of the noble Lord's question. The intention is not to realise the assets but to ensure a wider ownership of the assets which BNOC have acquired.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, further to my noble friend's answer to my supplementary question regarding monopolies, may I ask him whether he is aware that, in their recent report, the Monopolies Commission accepted that there was a monopoly position already existing? Therefore, may I ask my noble friend again whether he can assure noble Lords and myself that such a position will not be further extended?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have not read the report of the Monopolies Commission to which the noble Lord refers, but I just wonder whether he is getting muddled up between gas and petroleum.

SHEEPMEAT: BRITISH EXPORTS TO FRANCE
2.45 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are planning to secure free entry to France for British sheep-meat following the European Court decision.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the French Minister of Agriculture confirmed to our Embassy in Paris last Thursday that although some British lamb would be imported by France, he was not prepared to allow unrestricted access to the French market for British lamb. This decision is totally incompatible with the judgment of the European Court. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pressing the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Gundelach, to fulfil the Commission's responsibility for upholding the treaties and to take action with the French Government to ensure that they comply with the judgment of the European Court.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask him whether there are any plans for the Commission to make the French abide by the rules of the Commission and whether or not, if it is impossible to do that, Her Majesty's Government have any plans to help in any way those British producers of sheep who are being severely hurt by this policy, which is quite contrary to anything we hoped for when we went into the Common Market?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that some consignments of lamb have been permitted into France. My right honourable friend, who is attending the Council of Ministers at the moment, is concerned to ensure that these consignments will be continued, and he is pressing the agriculture Minister of France to ensure that that should be so.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords can the Minister tell us what action he expects Mr. Gundelach to take to ensure that the French Government comply with the clear order of the European Court?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I shall be in a better position to answer that question when my noble friend has come back from discussing the matter with Mr. Gundelach.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British fruit farmers, particularly Kent fruit farmers, have suffered considerably through the importation of French apples? Although I could not agree that it would be wise to go against a ruling of the European Court, as France has done, would not my noble friend agree that we in this country have various means of putting quite considerable pressure on France to lift this ban on British lamb?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, because one Member State happens to act outside the judgment of the European Court it is not our intention to do the same.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the Government confirm that this is the first time in history that any member Government of the Community has ever failed to accept and immediately implement any judgment of the Court?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is very nearly correct. All I would say to him is that if the Community is going to succeed, as we all wish it to do, then we must abide by the judgments of the European Court.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on the stand he is taking, but will he also indicate to the Government that, should these negotiations fail after the worst period of weather on the hills in history, a period of 13 months, and the worst prices following on enormous increases in costs, they ought to accept some responsibility for looking after their sheep farmers, in the same way as the French illegally are trying to look after theirs?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the answer to that question of my noble friend is, no, because the inference is that we should act illegally, and we shall not act illegally.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the Minister agree that probably the best retort to the French would be for us to put an embargo upon the importation of French wine into this country?
Several noble Lords: Perish the thought!
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that is an ingenious suggestion which would not find a lot of favour with a number of people.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, may I correct my noble friend. I was not asking him to act illegally in any sense at all. However, my noble friend and his colleagues have said that, should other things fail, matters like the hill sheep subsidy would be considered in the light of results at the end of the year. The results have been disastrous but nothing has happened. And that is not illegal.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for having misunderstood his question. It is the Government's intention to take care of the hill sheep and of our own sheep industry, and indeed we shall be doing so.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the Government policy is with regard to sheepmeat other than free trade within the Community? Am I right in assuming that they are not in favour of a full CAP régime, including support buying, intervention prices and export subsidies or the application of monetary compensatory amounts between countries? Would he further agree that if the full CAP régime was applied it could be very costly as regards the Community budget?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are perfectly prepared to consider a Community régime for sheep provided that it takes into account the fact that we are the major producer and the major consumer of sheepmeat in the Community, and provided also that it takes into account our relations with New Zealand.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, while naturally being glad that the Government are being so firm about this question, may I ask my noble friend for an assurance that he will not enter into an agreement with the French Government which could possibly damage the interests of New Zealand in this respect, in view of the great importance of the British market—indeed, of the whole Community market—to New Zealand? In other words, putting it more simply, that there will be no horse trading in lamb.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think my noble friend can rest assured that in any negotiations over a Community sheep régime we shall have very firmly in mind our commitments to New Zealand; and the point that he makes about the reliance of New Zealand on their exports to this country is well known and well taken care of.

HEATHROW AIRPORT: PROPOSED FOURTH TERMINAL
2.53 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 have now received the report of the inspector who held the
330
inquiry into the proposed fourth terminal at Heathrow Airport; and whether in the light of the urgent need for this terminal they have now decided to authorise its construction.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the Government have received the inspector's report and expect to announce their decision shortly.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, may I then ask my noble friend, in thanking him for that reply, whether, although the delay occasioned by this long and probably unnecessary inquiry is not the responsibility of the Government, the Government are aware of the fact that the building of this terminal is grossly overdue and that in any event there will be very serious congestion indeed at Heathrow next summer?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the relief of any congestion at Heathrow, and indeed increase of services elsewhere, for instance at Gatwick, will continue to be the important objective of the Government's civil aviation policies. To this end the British Airports Authority will continue to maintain its present policy of widening the disparity in the landing and the other charges at Heathrow and Gatwick, and indeed the policy will continue of allowing no airline which is not currently operating scheduled international passenger services at Heathrow to begin operations there.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the terms of that answer, however admirable in themselves, do not indicate any feeling on the part of Her Majesty's Government that there is other than great urgency also to build this terminal as quickly as possible?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we accept the noble Lord's proposition that there is great urgency but we believe that there is a relatively short time until the publication of the report, and until the report is published we believe it would be in-appropriate to comment further on any steps that might be taken.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, in studying this report and in reaching their decision will the Government make sure that in the report there are

331
definite suggestions for helping passengers with luggage not only to reach the forth-coming fourth terminal but the third, and if those subjects are not included in the report will the Government ask for them to be put in?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think if the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will wait to see what is in the report we might then be able to take a firm stand, but I do not think it is right to commit the Government to take any action at this stage.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the Government not take any action until at least the report has been published and noble Lords and others have had a chance to comment? In particular can the noble Lord say what assumption is made in the report regarding the future trends in aviation fuel prices and the elasticity in the demand for air travel which may lead to a much lower rate of increase in the growth of air traffic at all London airports than has hitherto been thought likely?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think the assumptions which have been taken into account in the report will be prepared and put forward in the report. I could not comment further on the noble Lord's question.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept, while making allowance for the Addison Rules, that Cardiff Wales Airport has spare capacity and would accept traffic as a result of any difficulties that might arise? May I offer the Government that information and the invitation to consider that airport when considering the report?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the Government are always pleased to receive invitations from the noble Lord, Parry, but noble Lords will be aware after listening to radio reports of congestion on the main motorway to and from London that at this stage the suggestion is, I think inappropriate.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that whenever the report may be published there will thereafter be ample
332
time for the preparation of their case by those local authorities and other bodies who wish to oppose the construction of the second terminal at Gatwick?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that is another question, but the Government have no intention of rushing any authorities into precipitate decisions.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, may I now offer a further invitation to the noble Lord to travel with me to Wales on the motorway or the British Rail system, which is the fastest and most effective in Britain?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I believe that Concorde is even faster.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
2.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a statement on the subject of the report of the Benson Commission. I understand that on Monday there is to be a debate on the adjournment in another place, and that it would be for the convenience of honourable Members there who may attend that debate if they had a Statement from me before then. I also have a short speech to make to your Lordships this afternoon on the draft Legal Aid regulations. It would not be in order for us to discuss the Benson Report on the Motions for those regulations to which, as will be seen in due course, it is irrelevant. I therefore consider that it would be for the convenience of Parliament as a whole if I make a short Statement now, even though, in the nature of things it is somewhat devoid of content.
The report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services was published on 3rd October before we resumed our labours after the Recess. Volume 1 of the report is over 800 pages long and contains 369 recommendations the implementation of which, if accepted, would rest with a large number of departments and agencies both inside and outside the Government. It is obvious, therefore, that a period of digestion and reflection is required before a coherent strategy can be evolved and

333
that this process will require lengthy consultations with the different branches of the profession and other interested bodies.
What I particularly wish to do this afternoon is simply to express our thanks to Sir Henry Benson and his fellow commissioners for the public service they have done over 3½ years of unremitting toil, and for the lucid, well written, comprehensive and monumental character of the report which they have produced. I do so all the more warmly and sincerely because I publicly expressed doubts at the wisdom of the then Government in setting up a commission with such wide terms of reference, doubts which to some extent I retain. These, however, do not reflect in any way on my genuine appreciation of the commissioners' work and particularly that of their chairman.
I should also like to applaud the statesmanship and wisdom of both branches of the profession and others who co-operated so fully with the commission in their labours and spent many hours of time and work in providing the commission with information on which they could base their opinions. I should also like to endorse the alacrity with which they considered and accepted very many suggestions from the Commission without waiting for their formal report. My Lords, that is what I wish to say.
3.02 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Statement he has made. I would also say that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones is particularly sorry not to be able to hear the Statement of the noble and learned Lord. He is attending, in an official capacity, the celebrations in Strasbourg marking the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Council of Europe and the 20th anniversary of the European Court of Human Rights. While he is sorry not to be here, he is, of course, delighted to be there. I hope that that is a balanced legal observation.
My Lords, from this Bench I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept that we would express our gratitude, too, to the chairman, Sir Henry Benson, in particular, and the
334
other members of the Royal Commission for their long and arduous labours. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the report is very thorough and lengthy, and it would not be doing justice to it, in my submission, if it were not subjected now to deep and careful study, not only by the legal profession and other bodies but by the public as well. The provision of legal services is a vital part of our country's social services, and it is important that it should be exhaustively examined from time to time. Now that this vast report has been produced it is essential to allow time for it to be given careful consideration. It was, of course, published, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, comparatively recently, and there has not yet, in my submission—and here I would also agree with him—been enough time to study it fully and to give a considered view on matters of such importance. There is, after all, a very large number of recommendations, and I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that the noble and learned Lord needs to apologise if his Statement is devoid of content on the substance of the report. I would agree that it is not the moment for final decision.
My Lords, I would add this and ask the noble and learned Lord to consider it. This report is not only deserving of most careful consideration and study; it is also important that decisions on any necessary action be taken in due course without unnecessary delay. What would be most regrettable, and indeed unforgivable, would be if this matter were to be pigeon-holed. I feel sure that we can rely on the noble and learned Lord to ensure that that does not happen.
There is only one other matter that I should wish to mention and to raise with the noble and learned Lord. It has to be acknowledged, I think, that the report has not been greeted with universal acclaim. There are those who would argue that it is not so radical in some respects as might have been hoped for in some quarters. On the other hand, and without wishing in any way to prejudge the view that one might take after more detailed study, certainly the overall view of the profession that the Royal Commission takes is a reassuring one. In saying that, I had better declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar.

335
My Lords, I would just add this point, and ask the noble and learned Lord to accept it, about the profession itself: that it has never shrunk from making proposals on law reform; indeed, members of it have been in the vanguard on this matter, as I have had occason to observe at close quarters. I do not believe that it will shrink from whatever reforms eventually turn out to be needed in the provision of legal services. I would come back to the point made earlier, and ask the noble and learned Lord to accept that the report itself must certainly not be neglected.
Lord WADE: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making this Statement? I am impressed by the amount of work carried out by the Benson Commission. I have only one question to ask, namely, when the recommendations have been studied may we take it that priority will, if possible, be given to those recommendations that are most urgent? Finally, as I have retired from practice, may I wholeheartedly join in applauding the statesmanship and wisdom of both branches of the profession.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to both noble Lords for the reception they have given my Statement. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that Lord Elwyn-Jones is at Strasbourg at my invitation, and I was very grateful indeed that he was able to accept that invitation. It is most important that we should be represented by a legal figure of adequate weight, and I could not think of anyone more suitable to do it than Lord Elwyn-Jones. I am sorry it has deprived us this afternoon of his comments on the reports, but I am sure we can bear that with patience.
It is certainly not our intention to pigeonhole the report. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, we must recognise that there is a very large number of recommendations which depend upon the solicitors' and barristers' professions themselves; they do not rest with the Government and could not be achieved by legislation. I have already held a preliminary meeting in my office about
336
the kind of strategy to follow. Of course, there are things that can be done without legislation, almost straight away; they are not necessarily the things which are most important but the things which are most easily done, if I may say that to the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I cannot give any sort of timetable. The report makes quite important recommendations with regard to the actual ministerial responsibility for some of the legal services, and I am sure the House would not wish to embarrass me by asking what I think about that. At any rate, they are being considered. I quite realise that the media have in a sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said, been slightly critical of the report, but I think they rather hoped that the legal profession would not only stand in the dock as a result of these proceedings but be convicted. Well, unfortunately they have been acquitted. I do not share the sorrow that this is so. I must say that one of the deepest reasons for which I am grateful to Sir Henry Benson and his fellow commissioners is the courage and objectivity with which they investigated the matters which were put before them and came to conclusions which might not necessarily be popular with those who like to denigrate our institutions but are in accordance, I think, with the evidence. So that is another reason for being thankful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for what they have said.

BAIL ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1979
3.9 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 26th July 1979, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the first of the two Motions in my name, may I speak to both simultaneously. The regulations increase the income limits both for legal aid in civil proceedings and for legal

337
advice and assistance. It has become the practice in recent years for the financial limits to be increased annually in line with increases in supplementary benefits. This year the limits were increased considerably in April as part of a package of improvements to the legal aid scheme introduced by my predecessor. May I in parenthesis say that I did think that Lord Elwyn-Jones had achieved a very important victory inside the Government machine by improving those regulations then—a thing I had been wanting to see for a long time. He did, to some extent, recapture the ground which had gradually become eroded by the sea since the legal aid scheme was first introduced. The regulations ensure that the real value of the limits achieved in April is maintained.
The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations increase the lower income limit, below which no contribution is payable, from £1,500 to £1,700 a year, and the upper income limit, above which legal aid is not available, from £3,600 to £4,075 a year. Both sets of figures relate to what is called "disposable income" which, as your Lordships will know by now, as we have to say it every year, is a notional figure arrived at after allowances are made for dependants and deductions are made for certain necessary expenses such as income tax, housing costs and the cost of travelling to work.
There are corresponding changes to the income limits for legal advice and assistance, the so-called "green form" scheme. The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 3) Regulations 1979 raise the upper income limit for legal advice and assistance from £75 to £85 a week. Another set of regulations—which are not subject to affirmative resolution—raise the lower disposable income limit from £35 to £40 a week and amend the scale of contributions payable for persons with incomes above that limit.
The allowances made for dependants in both schemes will also increase. These are fixed at one and a half times the corresponding supplementary benefit scale rates, and so, when the supplementary benefit rates increase on 12th November, the allowances for dependants for legal aid and legal advice and assistance will increase automatically.
These increases in the financial limits are intended to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those who would otherwise be unable to enforce or defend their legal rights. It is estimated that legal aid is now available to at least 70 per cent. of families with children. In 1978–79, before the financial limits were increased in April, 152,000 certificates were issued for legal aid in civil proceedings. Over 400,000 claims for payment in respect of legal advice and assistance were received from solicitors. The net cost of civil legal aid and legal advice and assistance was over £33 million, excluding administration.
My policy is to ensure that legal aid should remain available—to quote the preamble to the first Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949—to those of "small or moderate means", and, unless the level of the legal aid limits is maintained, the legal rights of many people will go by default.
I think that I should explain that in previous years the corresponding Scottish regulations have been debated at the same time as the English ones. Unfortunately, that has not been possible on this occasion, but I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring his regulations before Parliament in the near future. Corresponding regulations for Northern Ireland, made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the negative resolution procedure, will come into force on the same day as those relating to England and Wales.
I should also explain that, in addition to the regulations I am now moving which require affirmative resolution, I have laid others subject to the negative procedure which raise the lower income limit and reduce contributions for legal advice and assistance. These come into operation at the same time—12th November—and require no separate comment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1979, laid before the House on 26th July, 1979, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to say on behalf of my profession that we are extremely obliged for the advances that are being made in this

339
particular direction. The profession as a whole is most concerned that all those who cannot afford to litigate when they have a good cause should be enabled to do so. We feel very strongly that every individual in this country should have a full opportunity, irrespective of his financial situation, to place a reasonable case—about which he is usually advised by the profession itself—in the proper courts for a decision. In those circumstances, I personally am grateful to the noble and learned Lord as, I am sure, is everyone in my own particular profession.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Janner in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing these regulations. I do so also on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is sorry that he is unable to be here for the introduction of these regulations, for the reasons which your Lordships have already heard. I would only add that it is of course vitally important that the financial limits mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor are revised so as to keep pace with inflation and are kept in line with increases in supplementary benefits. Therefore, from this Bench, I offer a welcome to the proposed regulations.
There is, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, just one respect in which these legal aid provisions do not quite parallel the supplementary benefits increases, and that is that, whereas the supplementary benefits provisions were updated to take account of inflation from last November, these legal aid provisions are updated only from last April. However, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has also most generously pointed out, there were the increases which were introduced last April. I am sure that we on these Benches are most grateful to him for the observation that he made about my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Furthermore, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated himself on having coaxed from a no doubt somewhat reluctant Treasury, some more money. Therefore, I would join him in commending these regulations to your Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, first I should like to apologise for having, as it were, almost jumped the gun by putting the Question before noble Lords had spoken. It is very easy to make such mistakes and one apologises when one makes them.
I am grateful to both the noble Lord. Lord Janner, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for what they have said. I do not think that I had to fight a terrible battle with my colleagues over these regulations. I think that they realised the importance and priority which they should receive.
What is, of course, a sad fact for lawyers is that, in a financial situation such as that from which we seem constantly to suffer, we cannot move ahead as fast as we would like. There are areas which the Legal Aid Advisory Committee is constantly urging us to move into and where I would like to move forward if I could. In that respect, I think that I am up against the financial situation. Moreover, of course, there are whole areas of litigation which are not covered at all—there is the area of tribunals and all sorts of matters that one would like to consider but that, in the present financial situation, is not possible. Also, and I say this frankly—I should not say it as Lord Chancellor but I do say it as a Member of the Government—one must recognise that in an age when one is cutting down and economising on essential social services, one must take one's own share on things which perhaps do not excite quite so much compassion but which are none the less important to very many people. I can only apologise for not having a better statement to make, but I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords for being so understanding about the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITONS) (No. 3) REGULATIONS 1979
3.19 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these regulations have already been debated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 3) Regulations 1979, laid before the House on 26th July 1979, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord BIRK ETT: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not intend to move the Motion that the Report be now received, as I intend to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Bill. I am advised that it would be appropriate for me to make a fairly general, though I hope not very prolonged statement, about the matter. The House was kind enough to give my victims' compensation Bill a Second Reading on 3rd July, and on 24th July it passed through the Committee stage. I tried hard between the Second Reading and the Committee stage to modify the Bill in response to points raised by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and other speakers on the earlier occasion. However, the Minister—courteous as always—made me feel remarkably like Sisyphus—for no sooner had one set of objections been met than a whole lot of new ones were brought forward. The Minister paid friendly tribute to the drafting of the Bill, which was indeed a thoroughly professional job. Even so, he made it clear that this Bill, however amended—even if it received a Second Reading here—was most unlikely to obtain Government support in the House
342
of Commons, and without that support, for various technical reasons, constituting, as it would, a financial charge, the Bill could not succeed.
The Minister made it clear that the Government had set their face against any legislation on this subject at this stage; that is to say, until they had had the chance to study the operation of certain improvements in the existing Criminal Injuries Scheme, which they would be introducing. Those improvements, which have since been made available to us in detail, are by no means insignificant. I hope that I can welcome them in general without being committed to any of them specifically and without disguising my serious regret that some of the most important issues have not been dealt with.
The most obvious weaknesses in the present scheme are the fact that such a large proportion of the public—and this can hardly be disputed—know nothing about it; they do not even know that it exists; and the fact that a high proportion of the rest of the public are unable to make use of it because of the absence of legal aid. I had no idea when I drafted these remarks that legal aid would be in our minds at this precise moment. We are told that the Government are proceeding generously in that direction, though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just told us that there are areas which they have not yet been able to enter. We can only hope that they will regard this as one of the crucial areas which they will enter as soon as possible. Under this ex gratia scheme there is also, of course, the absence of any appeal to the courts of the land, which is a grave blemish. There are other defects. Nevertheless, this is a move in the right direction and should be welcomed as such.
The Government have also promised a grant of £15,000 to the national headquarters, which will seek to co-ordinate the growing number of voluntary victims' support schemes. At a time when other social services are being cut or restricted—rightly or, as many of us think, wrongly—it would be churlish for a spokesman on behalf of victims not to express gratitude for this small beginning, which I hope will lead to major developments later on.
When I moved the Second Reading of my Bill, I pointed out that it was in no way a complete charter for victims. Indeed,

343
that could not be claimed even for the more comprehensive report produced by the committee of which I was chairman a year earlier, which we debated in this House at that time. Nothing that I am about to say should seem to diminish the urgency for a much wider and bolder approach than anyone, including myself, has yet undertaken. In all humility—at any rate, in a qualified kind of humility—I am perhaps entitled to point out that since I raised this matter in the House in 1962 there was not a full debate on it until I raised it again in 1978, 16 years later.
The Minister has generously acknowledged that our Bill has accelerated the Government's initiative. Ministers are not always so generous, and therefore I throw myself before him in enormous gratitude for that tribute. I am happy to believe that that is indeed so. The committee of which I am chairman considers that it would not serve a useful purpose if we pressed ahead with this particular Bill at present. We shall be returning, sooner rather than later, to the issues involved not only in the present Bill but in the whole cause of victims generally. There are matters on which we shall certainly press the Government hard, as opportunity offers. We shall be pressing for far-reaching improvements in the amended compensation scheme. We shall continue to urge that it should be placed on a statutory basis as soon as possible; and indeed the Government have made it plain that that is their intention as soon as they have sufficient information to go on. We shall be making suggestions, whether or not in the form of a Bill I do not yet know, for greatly improving the machinery of the law courts in regard to victims and for greatly extending the assistance to victim's support schemes. It was not until I was concerned with the drafting of this Bill that I realised how expensive it is to get a Bill drafted. Our Bill cost perhaps £700 and I was told that we got it at a cut rate; that it was only the generosity of very expert draftsmen that enabled us to get it at that price instead of at £2,000. It should be more widely known that it is very expensive to get a Private Member's Bill drafted, so that job usually falls to very powerful organisations if a Bill is at all complicated.
I hope that the whole aspiration of reconciliation between the criminal and
344
the victim will receive far more attention than it has hitherto. As I know from first-hand experience, the criminal who tries to apologise to his victims—which one would think was an altogether laudable aspiration—is not greatly encouraged. There is nothing in the rules about it; officials can spend much time trying to find out how this can be done. But I would not like to say that without remarking that one particular criminal, who has made elaborate efforts, has received much kindness from individual officials and chaplains.
For the first time in the 30-odd years that I have been a Member of this House, we have a Government which, whatever their other merits and demerits which are not at issue this afternoon, have actually shown a positive interest in victims. For that the chief credit must no doubt go to the Home Secretary, but not a little of it surely should be allocated to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his officials. I take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the sympathetic interest he has shown since it fell to his lot to deal with victims. My last words must be adapted from those used by a much more famous person: "We shall return". My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has asked leave that this Bill should be withdrawn. Is it your Lordships' pleasure—
3.30 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, before the Motion is put by the noble and learned Lord and before we part from this matter this afternoon, perhaps I might add a word or two to what my noble friend Lord Longford has said. In view of the points which my noble friend has made this afternoon I feel sure that your Lordships will consider that he has taken the appropriate course today, but I should not want this moment to pass without a word of tribute to him. There is no doubt that he has performed a most valuable service in introducing this Bill and in having it debated. It has helped to draw attention to this important matter and it has given impetus to the improvements which are being made and to the consideration of further reforms. Therefore my noble

345
friend has, in my submission, earned both our thanks and our congratulations.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his decision to withdraw his Bill. I am conscious of the long hours of careful study and deliberation which must have been devoted to the preparation of the Bill, not only by the noble Earl but also by his advisers. This leads me to express special appreciation for the course which the noble Earl has decided upon. I can assure him that all the hard work which has been put into the preparation of the legislation will not have been wasted. There is a great deal in the noble Earl's draft which will be of assistance to the Government when the proposed Bill on this subject is presented.
In his remarks, the noble Earl drew attention to three particular weaknesses of the existing scheme, as he sees it. Each of those matters was discussed in Committee, but I should like to repeat an assurance which I gave to your Lordships on a previous stage of the Bill; namely, that steps are being taken to make the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme as widely known as possible. May I add that I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl for his generous words and for his warm welcome for Government support for the National Association of Victims' Support Schemes.
There is one other word which I ought to say. The revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which came into effect on 1st October, contains a number of significant improvements, the most notable being the removal, subject to safeguards, of the provision which formerly excluded cases of violence within the family from eligibility for compensation. The revised scheme has been warmly welcomed, and the Government are confident that this expanded and revised version of the scheme which has operated successfully for over 15 years provides the right framework and basis for the permanent statutory arrangements for compensating victims of criminal injury for which the noble Earl has called.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, may I follow briefly on what
346
the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Belstead, have said, because this is a subject with which I personally have been concerned for many years. I should like to support them in thanking the noble Earl for the immense amount of work that he has put into getting matters as far forward as this. I should also like to say how grateful many of us are for the tremendous work that the small working party—in their own time and at their own expense—have also put into this subject.
Whatever else we may have done, it is now well known throughout the country that there is here an area of social concern and of compassionate caring which is moving forward but which still needs to move to completion. I hope very much that having got as far as this, and with the encouraging assurances which the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench has given to us, this will not be the last time that we shall hear of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill, but that it will be coming forward, perhaps in a wider and stronger form in the future. I hope that this may be something we shall hear of again quite soon.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

FRUITING PLUM TREE (PLANTING GRANTS) SCHEME 1979
3.35 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS rose to move, That the Scheme laid before the House on 31st July, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fruiting Plum Tree (Planting Grants) Scheme 1979 be approved. If it is to the convenience of your Lordships, I shall address my remarks also to the other order, which is the Plum Material and Clearance Grants Scheme 1979. The purpose of these orders is to provide some aid to the plum industry of England and Wales to help alleviate the effects of plum pox disease.
Plum pox is a serious virus disease which attacks plums, damsons, greengages, apricots, peaches and nectarines as well as a wide variety of ornamental and hedging trees and shrubs. If it is not controlled, the growing of commercially important but sensitive varieties of plums, such as the well known

347
"Victoria", could well become uneconomic. Plum pox spread from Eastern to Western Europe after the Second World War, reached Kent in 1965 and had become established in England generally by 1974. It was soon recognised that the scale of compulsory destruction of trees in affected orchards which would be required by the eradication effort could not be justified, and it was decided that satisfactory control could be achieved by advisory means. It was considered to be essential to ensure that nursery stock remained healthy, and so the Plum Pox (Sharka Disease) Order 1975 was introduced to provide statutory control in nurseries.
Until the end of 1978 some assistance was therefore available to nurserymen in the form of compensation for the destruction of suspect plum planting material which had been exposed to known outbreaks of plum pox, and in each of the years 1976 to 1978 an average of approximately £55,000 was paid out in this way. Experience had indicated, however, that the payment of compensation did not necessarily result in the production of badly-needed certified trees, and it was therefore considered that a more positive approach was necessary which would concentrate the limited resources available on incentives to help to secure an adequate and continuing supply of certified fruiting plum trees to commercial orchards.
The Plum Material and Clearance Grants Scheme 1979 is intended to stimulate the production of certified fruiting plum trees. Grants of 25 per cent. would be awarded towards reasonable costs incurred in establishing or re-establishing nursery facilities required for the propagation of certified fruiting plum trees. The type of operation which would be eligible for grant would include the grubbing and clearance of diseased and other trees and plant material both on the actual site of the propagation unit and to some extent outside it, to ensure the isolation which would subsequently be required by the certification scheme for which the material would have to be entered before any grant is paid. Assistance is also planned for the purchase of certified mother trees which will be required to provide healthy bud-wood for tree production, and aid would also be available for certified rootstock
348
material and for clearance of some additional land on which rootstocks might be planted out for budding and subsequent growing on.
The Fruiting Plum Tree (Planting Grants) Scheme 1979 provides for grants to be paid for the planting of certified fruiting plum trees in existing or proposed commercial orchards in which plum pox is not known to exist or where adequate steps are being taken to control the disease. The rate of planting grants which apply for 1979/80 are 50p per maiden tree or £1 for a two-to-three-year old tree.
My Lords, in addition to encouraging efforts to improve the overall health of plum trees, this scheme will stimulate demand for certified plum trees and so provide a measure of help for nurserymen engaged on the production of certified fruiting plum trees. Both schemes will, of course, be subject to the usual protective devices. In both cases the application must feature a minimum amount of work before it can be eligible. In both cases the basic agricultural or horticultural unit involved must be viable and capable of providing a living for the occupier.
The schemes are planned to operate for five years, after which they will be reviewed. The anticipated expenditure is based on an average of £86,000 a year covering both schemes, and making a total amount to be allowed for of £430,000. That is the background of the regulations now before your Lordships. In essence the regulations are simple, and they allow the appropriate Minister to make modest grants which could be of genuine benefit to this relatively specialised sector of the horticultural industry. I therefore commend these schemes to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 31st July, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not wish to question the Minister about this matter. It is a sensible order which has been approved by the appropriate committee and it means that the Government will give assistance to improve plum trees in different parts of the country, a worthy agricultural object which I would in no way wish to delay. I am glad the noble

349
Earl has acted so quickly, and while only a small amount of money is involved, one never knows with the present Administration; they are tight with money occasionally. Suffice to say that I am glad they are not going to sacrifice agriculture.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for giving this order such a welcome. It just goes to show that the present Government are very concerned to protect agriculture.
Question, Motion agreed to.

PLUM MATERIAL AND CLEARANCE GRANTS SCHEME 1979
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the scheme laid before the House on 31st July, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT) ORDER 1979
3.42 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should explain that the International Wheat Agreement 1971 comprises two conventions, the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. The objectives of the Wheat Trade Convention are to further international co-operation in connection with world wheat problems, to promote the expansion of international trade in wheat and wheat flour, to contribute to the fullest extent possible to the stability of the international wheat market and to provide a framework for the negotiation of economic provisions in a new Wheat Trade Convention. However, this convention is simply a forum for discussion in that it has no economic provisions to enable direct action to be taken on the market.
The objective of the Food Aid Convention is to carry out a food aid programme with the help of contributions for
350
the benefit of developing countries. In practice the convention lays obligations upon its members, who are all donor countries, to make available specific minimum quantities of cereals as food aid each year.
The International Wheat Agreement came into operation on 1st July 1971 for a period of three years. Since 30th June 1974 it has been extended periodically by protocols, each extension being subject to Parliamentary approval to give it the force of law in the United Kingdom. The most recent extension expired on 30th June 1979. Protocols extending both conventions for a fifth time, for a further two years to 30th June 1981, were established by a conference of member Governments in March this year and entered into force on 1st July. The main purpose of extending the conventions is to keep the machinery of the International Wheat Council and Food Aid Committee in being; these are, respectively, the governing bodies of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. Their continued existence provides fora in which discussions on new conventions can continue.
After a number of years of negotiations within the International Wheat Council in London, it was decided to convene a negotiating conference in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in February 1978. The aim of this conference was to conclude a new international grains agreement which would comprise a new Wheat Trade Convention with economic provision, a new Food Aid Convention with an objective of 10 million tonnes of aid annually and a consultative arrangement on coarse grains trade. Three sessions of the negotiating conference were held in Geneva and, by the end of the third session, negotiations on coarse grains and food aid were nearing conclusion.
Discussions on the economic provisions to be included within a new Wheat Trade Convention, however, ran into difficulties and it became apparent that certain fundamental issues could not be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties to the negotiations. The chairman of the conference therefore suspended proceedings until such time as a basis for their resumption should emerge.
It is perhaps not surprising that the suspension of negotiations has been widely deplored by other international organisations concerned with world food security. It is apparent that failure to stabilise the wheat market must place developing importing countries at risk as to the availability of supplies at prices which they can afford. We are therefore anxious to ensure that negotiations should continue as soon as there is a reasonable basis for further discussion.
The International Wheat Council is making every effort to address itself to the outstanding issues, but in the meantime the extension of the present agreement is not only the best which can be achieved, but it is in itself a contribution to world food security since it provides for the continued availability of food aid to those who need it, and it also encourages Governments who are parties to the agreement to keep a careful eye on the developments of the wheat market. I therefore hope that your Lordships, who have approved the extension of the agreement on a number of previous occasions, will feel they can do so today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the European Communities (Defininition of Treaties) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1979, which was laid before both Houses on 25th July, 1979, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and, as with the previous order, I believe it essential that the Government should have this one. The noble Earl mentioned food aid, and there has been difficulty over this, as he said, I have with me a whole brief on the subject which I have collected myself, including details of the whole impact on the Tokyo Round. For example, in the Financial Times on 17th January appeared the headline, "Wheat talks discord threatens trade pact." There are considerable difficulties over this. We are part of the Community, but wheat and cereals are very important politically and economically in the world and naturally we should play our part.
I notice another former Minister of Agriculture, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in his place; no doubt he remembers standard quantities when we used to import wheat from the United States.
352
I was in a similar position. I see now, however, that we are going to export cereals on a considerable scale, and I have with me the excellent British publication Farmer and Stockbreeder. Though it is the NFU's publication, it is very good and I would advise anyone who wants to know about cereals to read its marketing page. For example, one headline reads, "Cereals exports big again." So we are to go in for exporting considerably—and I am all for that. I always believed when I used to go to Europe that Britain should export more though many people thought we should contract.
I welcome this move, but I hope we can argue these and other matters in a one day debate devoted specifically to agriculture. I do not think one can raise big issues of this sort when discussing an order of this type in the way one can in a full day's debate, I hope therefore, perhaps early in the New Year, we will have a full day on agriculture. After all, Labour Governments and Oppositions have always treated agriculture much better than their Conservative counterparts. I am delighted that I can put this marker out, so to speak; I do it with the best of intentions, and in my view the Minister deserves to have his order.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I really am indebted again to the noble Lord, Lord Peart. When I realised he was going to answer for the Opposition on these orders, I knew the depth of his knowledge and, considering the intricacies of the Ministry of Agriculture, I wondered what he would say. All I would say is that when he wished the Government well with the order and commended the NFU for their publication and made his nice little point about the Labour Party looking after agriculture better than the Conservative Party, I thought that that was not quite what I was expecting from the noble Lord. I would only tell him that of course he would be entitled to discuss these very complex wheat problems on this order, but I am obliged to him for being able to find that he would not wish to do so. And of course if he wishes to have a debate on agriculture in the future, that may be a very good thing; I am sure that could be arranged through the usual channels, of which he is a pillar. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his agreement to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRUGS: INCREASE IN MISUSE
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of DENBIGH The Earl of DENBIGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the increase in the use of drugs disclosed in the statistics of the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom 1978, set out in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin of June 1979. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. My interest in this particular subject arises from the fact that I am the chairman of the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse. This is a national co-ordinating agency for voluntary services working with people who have drug-related problems. With regard to my Question, I wish particularly to concentrate—in relation to the Home Office statistics—on first notifications, rather than on overall notifications, because I believe that this is where the problem is shown up best. In 1977 there were 1,108 new notifications to the Home Office. By 1978 the figure had risen to 1,352, and although the figures are not yet officially available, I am led to believe that the first six months of 1979 have shown an increase of over 20 per cent.
We must look also at the whole question of dissatisfaction with the notification system. As I understand it, doctors are required to notify only known or suspected addicts using opiate or opiate-type drugs. This does not include barbiturates or amphetamines. Many addicts are reluctant to be notified, for a number of reasons, one of which is fear of police involvement should it be known that they are addicted to drugs; they might be raided and further harassed in the courts. Therefore these cases are not included. Consequently, I believe that the figures shown in the statistics do not realistically reflect the number of drug addicts and people with a drug dependency problem in this country. There must also be increasing concern over the abuse of prescribed drugs by the people for whom they have been prescribed. This is a problem. Furthermore, the large number of prescriptions is tending to lead to a black market in barbiturates and amphetamines, which are increasingly being abused in conjunction with alcohol.
Dr. Anthony Thornley, to whom I was talking the other day, and who is a consultant psychiatrist at Parkwood House,
354
Newcastle, believes that the national level of prescription has tended to be related to the level of abuse in the country; for example, the more prescriptions there are, the greater the number of drug abuse problems the country is likely to have. I was interested to read in the Daily Mail this morning that in America a USA congressional committee investigating drug abuse reported that a staggering 44·6 million prescriptions for the mild tranquiliser valium were issued in one year alone. It goes on to say that dependency on even minor tranquilisers can be harder to "kick" than can heroin, and ultimately may cause brain damage.
I suggest that new research into these milder types of drug is urgently needed in order to find out what types of treatment are required and where this is needed. Her Majesty's Government's cuts in public expenditure must lead to fewer facilities for what I believe is an underestimated and growing problem. Many of the non-statutory services, which are mostly funded by central or local government, are at present facing serious financial pressure and uncertainty. Many of their funding sources are drying up; even the aid which should be coming to them is being delayed, and they have no real idea of what their budgets for the current year or future years are likely to be.
I should like to say a little about the rehabilitation houses. In 1978 nine rehabilitation houses, with approximately 260 beds available, received 1,500 applications for treatment—that is to say, addicts who actually requested that they should receive treatment on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, 75 per cent. of these had to be refused due to lack of space. Coming back to the Home Office figures, 40 per cent. of the addicts who privately requested treatment were not notified to the Home Office. In the same year one central London hospital alone admitted over 850 drug dependent overdose patients. Based on the figures that the Government are issuing, and for one hospital alone, I find that rather terrifying.
Many young addicts come from broken homes and have a bad history of home life. Therefore we believe that counselling and rehabilitation, rather than psychiatric hospitals or prison sentences, is very

355
important. One of the reasons to which I refer may well commend itself to Her Majesty's Government. The cost of rehabilitation is approximately £56 a week, whereas I understand that to keep someone in prison costs approximately £115 a week. I also understand that last year over a thousand people who were sent to prison were on arrival judged by the prison medical service to be drug dependent. I do not wish to connect that fact with what I am to say next, but I believe that we really must question whether drug addicts or people with a drug dependency problem should be treated as criminals for possession of substances to which they are addicted.
The problem is becoming more of a national one. It used to be mainly centred in the South-East, and particularly in the Greater London area. But over the last seven years, there has been a 127 per cent. increase of notified addicts outside the Greater London area. Many of these addicts have no facilities available to them. Even in areas where treatment centres are available, the number of general practitioner notifications appears to be increasing over the number of treatment centre notifications. I would suggest that this means that treatment centres are not containing the problem.
Her Majesty's Government must do more research into the problems of drug abuse, and treatment and rehabilitation services should be expanded. We also believe that intervention is extremely important. City Road Crisis Intervention Centre, for instance, which is a relatively new centre operating in London, is the only non-opiate multidrug abuse centre anywhere in this country. It appears initially to be very successful, yet through an uncertainty of funding—it was originally guaranteed finance for three years—it may have to cut back on its proposed programme and might even be forced to close. I hope that this will not happen, as the type of work that the centre is doing is desperately needed. I also believe that we must look very closely at early intervention into drug problems before people are totally addicted. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to think seriously before allowing any of the services relating to drug abuse to suffer from financial cuts.
356
At a time of expanding drug abuse more facilities and research are needed, not less.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords in the House will be most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, for instituting this debate this afternoon. Those of us who have to deal with young people have realised for some time that drug abuse is an escalating problem, and I fear that it will continue to be so in the future. I personally am most grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this question to the notice of the House. However, he highlights only half of the problem, and I believe that unless Members of the House have personal experience of people who are suffering from the results of drug abuse, it is very difficult for them to realise the degradation in which people become involved due to the misuse of drugs.
We are told by the Home Office that in 1978 13,400 people were found guilty of offences involving controlled drugs; that was 5 per cent. more than in 1977. The number of addicts known to the Home Office to receive narcotic drugs from medical practitioners as treatment was 2,408 as at 31st December 1978. Anyone who reads the relevant Home Office documents will be aware that they use the phrase "known to the Home Office", and I would submit that those cases known to the Home Office represent not even the tip of the iceberg. They do not come anywhere near the figure of all those involved in drug abuse in our society today.
As we all know, the importation of drugs continues to increase. It increases from the Middle East, it increases from the Far East. As an island, it is perhaps easy to import drugs into this country; it can be done by sea and by air. Whatever the ultimate destination of the drugs may be, whether it is the Continent or this country, it is very easy to import drugs here. They take up very little space. For instance, the other day I had to deal with a case which involved a small suitcase which had a false bottom, which was very small indeed. The opium which it contained when it was found at Heathrow, when put on the street, had a street value of £275,000. So it pays; and what we have to try to do is to make

357
people more aware, not only that many young people's lives are being ruined by drugtaking but also that, unfortunately, it is a very financially rewarding part of some people's lives.
The human degradation that I speak of I have seen many times. For instance, I had an office near the seamy end of Jermyn Street, just outside Piccadilly Tube station exit. There, there were just bundles of people. You could not really tell that they were people until the police came and rounded them up, put them into ambulances and took them away. They were all people who had been given drugs on prescription at a local chemist shop and who were then selling those drugs on to other people waiting for them at Piccadilly Tube station. This goes on day in and day out. Until fairly recently there was a slowing down in the taking of drugs. The high point was supposed to be about 1973, but, unfortunately, because of the situation in the Middle East and the Far East, more drugs are now getting into this country than ever before.
Something has to be done to try to stop it. But how? Most of the people who buy drugs are young people, and the young people are notoriously difficult to reach. In other words, they do not read the Daily Telegraph, they do not read The Times, and they very rarely watch television. They are very difficult people to make aware of the situation they are bringing upon themselves. The three social evils that are with us in this country today, in my view, are alcohol, smoking and drugs. The advertising of alcohol is not allowed, but as we all know it can be a killer in the end. The Government, by putting a notice on every packet of cigarettes, advertise that smoking can also be a killer. But in the case of drugs it is very difficult indeed. Drugs can be taken in tiny pellets, and you cannot possibly put any warning sign on them to any young person that a particular drug could kill them. So I am asking the Government whether they could possibly find some way of advertising the possibility that a young person will lose his or her life by taking drugs.
One way of doing it, I suggest, is this. I am sure most of your Lordships will remember that there was a horrific poster that went up on many of the hoardings in this country which said,
358
" Keep death off the roads ".
People were very frightened by this. It was specifically horrific; and I should like to ask the Government whether they could put something like that on the hoardings of this country dealing with drugs, because in my view that is about the only way in which we shall get at the young people. It could be something showing somebody very near to death—which I have seen many times—because of the misuse of drugs. Perhaps there are also magazines ill which we could advertise. I have heard of one called Time Out, which I think is read by a lot of young people. It may be that we could have an advertisement inserted in that.
I should also like to see more visible means of enforcing our laws at the various ports and airports in this country. For instance, would it not be possible to have more dogs, which we are told can sniff out drugs, at our airports and at our docks? I know they have to be trained, but it might well be worth it. Then, something which the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, mentioned, I should like to encourage the provision of more places, either voluntary or under the NHS, for addicts who wish to be cured. This is one of the troubles with drugs, as it is with alcoholism: if you do not wish to be cured you will not be cured. I also want more rehabilitation units, and I think these can be provided on a voluntary basis as well as through the NHS. But, my Lords, because of the escalation of the importation of drugs they are bound to be more widely used and more young people—those people we know; those young people (perhaps I should not say this) who are somebody's children—will continue to lose their lives because, perhaps, we have not taken the trouble to draw the attention of young people to the possibility that the drugs they take will kill them.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to intervene in this debate for one moment and to thank the noble Earl for asking this Question today. Since he has couched it in very wide terms I hope Her Majesty's Government will deal with it in wide terms. It is always interesting, when dealing with people who come before the court, not merely for drug offences but for other reasons, to observe the number of people who plead

359
that they committed an offence because they were under the influence of a drug at the time. Occasionally, one is led to the belief that two-thirds of the population are walking about under the influence of some drug or other; and I should certainly like the Government to take this Question in its widest terms. Can we look a little more into what seems to me to be the over-prescription in which the medical profession appear to indulge? Luckily, I do not have to go to "the quack" very often, but if you have anything wrong with you these days you are offered only one of two remedies, surgery or drugs. Surely there must be a much better way to discover, first, the cause, and, secondly, the cure, for certain illnesses to which mankind appears to be prone. I would suggest that perhaps many of those who are drug dependent became drug dependent originally because they had a drug prescribed for them for some particular disease or, indeed, sometimes, for some particular pain, although we understand that pain is an indication of some much greater malady.
I should therefore like to impress upon the Minister that this is a much wider question than the mere dealing with the drug dependent person who comes before the court because he is accused of an offence connected with drugs. Far too many people commit offences while under the influence of drugs; and these are not necessarily the drugs which we know are categorised—cannabis, heroin and so on. I believe there is a far wider issue here, and it is something which we must look at in our time. On one occasion—I think it was in 1975—I recall there was an inquiry into the fact that a certain chemical company, a Swiss company, had overcharged the National Health Service for drugs. I seem to recall that the matter was raised in this House. What horrified me was not the profit the company were making—that was bad enough—but the size of the business that was being done; the millions of prescriptions for drugs which were being issued each week. May I, therefore, ask Her Majesty's Government to take up this valuable and timely question, in its widest context?
4.10 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I have no knowledge
360
of the subject at all but I was shocked by something that the noble Earl told us in his speech and which was confirmed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. In my ignorance, I had thought that the drugs problem was tending slightly downwards, that it had improved from the position of some years ago. I did not realise that its incidence is apparently turning up again now, owing, presumably, to the tremendous number of ways in which drugs can be imported. I happen to believe that addiction to drugs is the worst fate that can possibly overtake young people. It is more disastrous than anything else. It kills; and there is so little time to get the matter put right. With alcoholism there is a rather longer period to get it put right. I found the instances given to us by my noble friend Lady Macleod very moving indeed.
I only hope that if it is true that this problem—which there was some reason to think we were getting the measure of a few years ago—is tending upwards, my noble friend when he comes to reply will assure us that the Government are taking it very seriously indeed and will pay a great deal of attention to what the noble Earl has told us in his opening speech.
4.12 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I intervene only very briefly tonight. I do not wish to seek to use this occasion for any definitive statement from this Bench on future action on drugs. I intervene principally to express my warm thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, for having posed this Unstarred Question this afternoon. He speaks with great experience as chairman of the Standing Conference on Drug Abuses and he has a very wide knowledge of these matters. As he said, this is increasingly a problem and a matter which is of widespread and growing concern throughout the country. Indeed, to any of us, whether it be in the courts or in other ways, who have seen those who have been affected by it, it is a deeply distressing one, too; as, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, mentioned tonight particularly in her references to young people.
I do not want to repeat the valuable points that have been made by the noble Earl, by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and by other speakers in this debate tonight. One of the questions

361
which the noble Earl raised in the course of his remarks was whether we should treat as criminals those with a drug problem. That is, I think, a question which is receiving increasing attention in many quarters. It poses some extremely difficult problems, obviously, and ones into which I do not wish to go in detail tonight. Indeed, in a matter so complex, this is probably not the occasion to do so.
One of the points which arise and which have been receiving closer attention in some quarters in recent months is whether or not, in relation to the question as to how we treat those with a drug problem (whether we treat them as criminals or not), to remove or reduce, at least, in part, the alternative of imprisonment as far as certain drugs are concerned. The one which has been most spoken of in this particular connection is cannabis. Again, this is not perhaps the occasion to go in depth into those considerations; but I think that at least one of the points that we should need to bear in mind very firmly in considering whether any action of that kind should be taken, would be what we should do if, in fact, we removed the alternative of imprisonment. If you remove it simply, you also must bear in mind that in doing so you remove the alternatives to either imprisonment or a fine—which on many occasions have proved very valuable. I am thinking of such alternatives as community service orders and dealing with those convicted on drugs matters in other ways of that kind.
It may be that a way of achieving that could be found; that is to say, not simply removing imprisonment as a penalty and thereby losing those other (in many cases valuable) alternatives as well. It is, I think, one, and only one, of the things which would have to be given very close and serious consideration if that policy were to be further pursued.
The only other matter that I would mention tonight is a point which arises out of the Home Office Statistics Bulletin, published on 19th July, which is the subject of the noble Earl's Unstarred Question. That is the paragraph on page 2 which says:
" In 1978 the average age of drugs offenders continued to increase. Of those found guilty of offences involving controlled drugs in 1978, 24 per cent. were under 21 and 17 per cent. were aged 30 or over; in 1977 the corresponding
362
proportions were 24 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively, and five years earlier, in 1973, they were 44 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively.".
I think that many of your Lordships would find that trend (and is it a growing trend) very interesting, indeed. So often when one looks at this matter one is tempted to interpret it in general terms as tending rather in a reverse direction from what those figures show. What conclusions one draws from them is much more difficult; and still more difficult is it to decide how to act upon any conclusions that one does draw. In some ways, a trend of that kind is perhaps something of a comfort; in other ways, it is a very disturbing one. That is another matter which would have to be borne very carefully in mind in deciding future action on this difficult problem.
That was all that I was proposing to say to your Lordships tonight. I would emphasise my gratitude, I am sure shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House, to the noble Earl for having raised this important matter.
4.19 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is no doubt that in this Unstarred Question the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, is raising a very important issue. The ravages of drugs misuse leave their mark worldwide and the figures published by the Home Office of the use of drugs in the United Kingdom in the year 1978—which are really the subject of the noble Earl's Unstarred Question—undoubtedly point to a pattern of misuse which is increasing. I join with my noble friend Lord Amory in saying that I must admit that before I went to work at the Home Office I was under exactly the same impression as he. I had understood that the incidence of drug misuse and, indeed, the amounts of drugs illegally brought into this country and recovered were reducing. I was wrong; and so, I say with respect, was my noble friend. I join with him in being grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, for raising this debate this evening.
My Lords, the cases of persons whom doctors suspect of being addicted to any one of 14 narcotic drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are, as noble Lords will know, notified to the chief medical officer at the Home Office. Between the end of 1977 and 1978 this

363
figure rose from about 2,000 to 2,400. There is reason to believe that a partial explanation for the increase of 400 last year lies in improved notification because the Home Office and the Department of Health took special steps during that year to remind doctors of their obligation to notify.
At the same time, my noble friend Lady Macleod is absolutely right to emphasise the limitations of these statistics. They do not include those whom doctors have failed to notify—the noble Earl certainly made that point as well—nor addicts receiving drugs wholly from illicit sources, nor addicts of non-notifiable drugs such as the barbiturates—again mentioned by the noble Earl—which are not yet controlled under the 1971 Act. The figure of 4,100 addicts, which certain reporters in the media seem to prefer to use, is an unofficial aggregate of the number of addicts known at the beginning of the year and those coming to notice during the year. Your Lordships may have seen this figure; that is how it is made up, as we understand it. This figure also has to be treated with some caution since we do not know the reason why 1,700 addicts apparently stopped receiving treatment during the year. We know that 60 of them died during 1978; of the rest, there is no ready means of knowing what proportion withdrew from treatment to maintain their addiction from illicit sources.
As the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, has made clear in his speech, the problem to which the notification statistics do not give us an answer is to quantify the number of persons who may be addicted but who manage to maintain their addiction by resort to the illicit market and who therefore do not come to the notice of the Home Office. This is something which has troubled all who have taken part in this short debate. Perhaps the most scientific indication that we have had of the possible size of this unknown grey area of narcotic addiction is contained in studies which were carried out by Dr. Hamid Ghodse into the drug problems dealt with by 62 London hospital casualty departments. The research of Dr. Ghodse suggests that possibly there are as many persons who are addicted to a narcotic drug and are not notified to the Home Office as there are notified. On that
364
basis, the Home Office figures should be doubled in order to arrive at a realistic figure of the total incidence of narcotic addiction.
My Lords, just to set it in context, that means even if we base our calculations on the much quoted figure of 4,100—which, as I have indicated, we do not regard as altogether valid—the total number of narcotic addicts falls considerably short of 10,000. None the less, it is a terrible figure. I am sorry, but I am afraid that worse is to come. We have to ask the question: How much smuggling of narcotics actually goes on? My noble friend Lady Macleod particularly put this point. We know that in 1976 the customs seized 16.65 kilogrammes of heroin; the figure was 58.40 kilogrammes in 1978, and so far in 1979 it is over 30 kilogrammes. That suggests a growing illicit market in this country. Incidentally, these figures are of seizures by customs officers only and do not include police seizures, which I am not including because police seizures of drugs may be seizures of drugs which have come from perfectly lawful storage within this country and do not affect drugs brought illicitly into the country.
Follow-up investigations by the customs have indicated that a great deal of heroin which has been smuggled in is intended for destinations elsewhere. It is an extraordinary figure, but it was reckoned by the customs that last year 90 per cent. of smuggled-in heroin was destined to be smuggled out again. The most significant factor this year is the substantial quantity of Iranian heroin seized between February and May which I am afraid to say we are sure was aimed almost exclusively at the United Kingdom. This of course has coincided with the period of abnormal unrest and instability in Iran.
I hope that I have not spoken for too long about narcotic addiction; but I have done so in order to show, I hope, the difficulty of assessing the threat from the illicit market. As the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, has said, the problem of drug abuse goes a great deal wider than that. Certain barbiturates, which noble Lords specifically mentioned, often in combination with other drugs and alcohol, seem to pose a numerically larger problem than that presented by heroin. There is no doubt that barbiturates are addictive and both misuse and withdrawal can be

365
highly dangerous. On the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Government have decided that they should be brought within the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the appropriate measures to do so will be brought forward when we have resolved some difficulties concerning the capacity of the Forensic Science Service to play their part in these controls.
May I turn now to what, much more predictably, your Lordships felt was the important part of this debate—namely, the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. May I at once pay tribute to the work which is being done by the voluntary organisations in this field and, in particular, SCODA, of which the noble Earl is chairman, in co-ordinating that work. So far as the treatment of addicts is concerned, whatever criticisms of detail may be levelled at the present services, the basic policy of providing treatment through, and restricted to, drug treatment clinics has played an important part in at least retarding the rapid growth of narcotic addiction, particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will forgive me, I should not like to follow her up the road of discussing the prescription of drugs by the medical profession. That involves very serious issues of medical freedom, but I take the point of the noble Baroness—as I shall show—that this whole matter must be looked at on a very wide canvas.
The noble Earl has called for more research. One of the difficulties facing health and local authorities in planning services for drug misusers of all kinds is the lack of adequate information about the nature and extent of drugs misuse in their areas. A joint DHSS/NHS working party, which was set up to advise on this problem, has recommended the establishment of a network of communication at local level. The establishment of such a network would involve representatives of both statutory and voluntary organisations, including NHS and local authority officials. The aim would be to establish a system of gathering key information on local problems of drug misuse which would be of use to local authorities in deciding their priorities. However, information gathering can itself put quite a burden upon resources, so the Department is at present on the point of commissioning
366
research to look into the problems of simplifying local information gathering, the results of which it is hoped will minimise the task of the health and local authorities.
May I say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl that we must continue to try to seek ways of advancing in the fields of treatment and rehabilitation. In May of this year the Treatment and Rehabilitation Working Group sent a questionnaire to drug treatment centres throughout England and Wales requesting information about multiple drug users, treatment facilities available outside London, liaison with other treatment centres, treatment policy and the work of drug liaison committees. The replies are at this moment receiving consideration by the working group and I have no doubt that their report and recommendations will be presented to the Advisory Council as a basis for further advice to Ministers as soon as possible.
Finally, on the aspects of treatment and rehabilitation, the Government would acknowledge the initiatives of SCODA in establishing the crisis intervention centre known as Cityroads, to which the noble Earl referred, for the purposes of providing a 24-hour service to young drug misusers who are discovered in London suffering from the effects of drug misuse. This project, which is funded by the London Boroughs Associations and by the Department of Health and was opened in May 1978, is believed to be the first of its kind in Europe. Its work will be reviewed after three years to see if it should continue as part of the normal services. As the noble Earl knows better than I do, the Department of Health has also funded an independent research programme to evaluate the experiment through London University's Birkbeck College.
My noble friend Lady Macleod has called for more visible means of preventing the importation of drugs at ports and airports. Really this was what I had in mind when I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that I took her point that this must be looked at on a very broad canvas. May I say that the police and customs, acting together, have recently brought about some extremely large seizures of drugs and their joint efforts are continuing. In one recent operation, four and a half tons of cannabis and a quarter of a million pounds in cash were

367
seized and in another one and a half tons of cannabis. I suppose that the sum of human misery in those materials seized really hardly bears thinking about. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and courage of the young customs officer whose tragic death while carrying out one of the anti-drug-smuggling operations which I have been mentioning was reported recently.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord BELSTEAD: Without men like this, our drug problem would undoubtedly be very much worse. Customs staff at ports and airports are kept as well informed as possible of drug-smuggling trends and new methods of concealment. Mobile task forces and special baggage crews have been established now to add an element of unpredictability to the pattern of control and to enable efforts to be concentrated to meet particular needs.
My noble friend asked me about drug-sniffing dogs. Customs have substantially increased the numbers of heroin-trained drug-detector dogs in service at ports, and have enlarged and modernised their fleet of Revenue cutters to counter smuggling by small craft.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before the noble Lord makes his final statement, may I say that I have sat through this fascinating discussion and I should like to ask a question anent the misuse of drugs. If the Euthanasia Society are going to publish a document to show people how to commit—shall I call it?—felo-de-se, it may be a philosophical question for some and for others it may be a Christian question about doing away with one's life. This may encourage groups of people to say that drugs of certain potency should be available. I think it is worthwhile getting on the record a request for the Government to exercise their minds over this question. It is more than a philosophical question: it has to do with the basis of, I think, civilisation in our society.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he will realise from his experience in Government, I am in fact speaking for two Departments: for the Home Office and
368
for the Department of Health and Social Services. I will undertake to draw to the attention of both Secretaries of State what the noble Lord has said in his intervention at the end of this debate.
May I add one final point. If we are looking to try to keep drugs out as well as we can and if we are trying to support as well as we can the enormously good work done by people like the noble Lord and those working with him in this country, I do not think it is irrelevant to say that one has also to look at the whole problem in an international context. I think your Lordships would like me just to say that the United Kingdom is playing a very active part in the work of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, and contributes to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control, which is trying to tackle the narcotic problem at source by such methods as crop substitution programmes in the areas of what is known as the "golden triangle" in South-East Asia and other places where the plants producing these raw materials are grown. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to give really serious attention to the problem raised by the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, today. In particular, they will consider most carefully the recommendations received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.