Lords Sitting of 6 February 1985

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

Lord Chapple
Francis Joseph Chapple, Esquire, having been created Baron Chapple, of Hoxton in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Willis and the Baroness Seear, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Viscount Allenby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Students' Unions: Membership
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider sympathetically the proposals from the Federation of Conservative Students for the abolition of the present system of compulsory membership of students' unions and its replacement by a system of voluntary membership.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government have noted these proposals, which would require legislation to implement. They do not at present intend to introduce legislation for the purpose, although the question of student union activity is under review. The Government have sympathy with the aim underlying the FCS proposals of preventing a small and often unrepresentative group of students from determining student union policies and actions in the name of a whole student body. The Government will be consulting higher education interests about what action it might be appropriate to take on the issue, and in so doing will take these proposals into account.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, which is a little disappointing. Would he explain further the reasons for keeping a system going—his Answer notwithstanding—in which over £40 million of public money every year is given to student unions? Many thousands of pounds of that money are subsequently squandered on expenditure which has nothing whatever to do with education: for example, for the funding of buses and coaches for demonstrations, and for donations to political causes such as funds for striking miners.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government have much sympathy with the question of my noble friend. The present arrangements which give rise to
1060
automatic membership of student unions derive from the provisions of charters and statutes in the case of universities, and articles of government in that of public sector institutions. Provisions can only be amended at the initiative of the governing bodies of the institutions or by legislation.
I am sure that my noble friend will be glad to hear that the Government believe that reform is needed, but they have no wish to involve themselves directly in matters which have traditionally and rightly been regarded as the responsibility of universities, polytechnics and colleges. They therefore intend to consult the institutions themselves as to how reforms can be introduced to ensure that union policies and actions are properly representative of their membership. In the light of the outcome of these consultations, the Government will consider whether further action may be appropriate.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, when the Government are further considering this matter, will they bear in mind that the student unions perform many useful tasks for students, as well as making a nuisance of themselves on occasion? Would they also consider that many students are short of money, and they might prefer that this quite large grant out of public funds which is available to their unions was paid to them, and they could then make up their minds regarding what they want to do with it?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I agree largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said. Most student union expenditure is on the provision of welfare, sports and social services which need to be available within institutions and are rightly paid for from public funds. In so far as the Government might consider it appropriate to constrain expenditure by student unions, they will propose to transfer any savings that might arise into the grants made to individual students to enable them to choose individually whether or not to spend the money on excluded activities.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether there have been occasions when students have been expelled from their courses for not belonging to a union? If so, is not that an absolute scandal?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not know any details. I shall have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, will the noble Earl redeem his rather disappointing reply to the noble Baroness by throwing light on two quite specific questions? First is he able to confirm from his extensive briefing that the total cost to public funds of support for student unions is well in excess of £20 million? Secondly, can he tell us anything about the recent developments in Australia where there has been legislation against requiring students to subscribe and belong to unions against their wishes?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my ignorance of what happens in Australia is only matched by my ignorance of the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question. I shall have to write to him on both points.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that in the view of many of us the noble Baroness has grossly exaggerated such problem as there is? Will he also bear in mind that the income of students' unions from grants and from subscriptions is used to provide facilities for all students? It would be grossly unjust if some students were allowed to avoid paying their share.
The Earl of Swinton: No my Lords, I do not think that my noble friend has grossly exaggerated. She has put her case fairly and I hope that we are proceeding in the right way by consulting the institutions concerned.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not the case that the Federation of Conservative Students is a slight embarrassment to the Conservative Party? Have there not been two official complaints from the Young Conservatives and the Conservative Student Unionists to the party about the tactics used by the federation in disrupting conferences and preventing free debate? At the December Conference of the National Union of Students a guide was produced on how to disrupt; and by putting up eight to 10 candidates for each elected post at the Easter Conference are they not still further pursuing disruptive tactics?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I answer for the Government and not for the Conservative Party; but the federation certainly have not embarrassed me.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, is it right for the noble Earl to belittle such matters as the expulsion of students from their courses for refusing to join a students' union, as has happened in Bristol and Manchester, among other places? Is this not a deplorable restriction on access to higher education?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, if this is so, I think that it is.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is not inconceivable to assume that many students belong to political parties other than the Conservative Party? Before anything is done, ought not the views of those and the percentage who do not belong to any political party be heard as well as Tory Party views before the Conservative Government indulge in any action on behalf of one political section of the National Union of Students?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, obviously this is true. It is a good thing that politics do have a place among students, and that is healthy and right. Yes, my right honourable friend is always ready to consider the views of any student body.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that recently the Essex University Students' Union voted against a Motion condemning the Brighton bombing?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if they did so I think that they were probably mistaken.

Gas Appliances: Installation
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage those who use gas appliances to employ only trained and qualified personnel for their installation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 prohibit any person, paid or unpaid, from working with gas unless he is competent. The Health and Safety Executive will be publishing a leaflet aimed at householders and all who use gas, drawing attention to the main points of the regulations and stressing that only people with adequate technical knowledge and experience of the type of work may work with gas.
The British Gas Corporation's own publicity campaigns also emphasise that only competent people shall install or service appliances or systems. Their craftsmen are all trained.
The Confederation of Gas Installers maintains a register of over 10,000 installers, approved to its standards of competence. This scheme is widely publicised, including by the British Gas Corporation.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his helpful reply. The figures he has given are encouraging. Is he aware that, despite what he has said and despite the fact that installers are trained for the work they are supposed to carry out, there are a great number of people who not only instal their own appliances, but also change their appliances, thereby perhaps causing explosions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the new regulations have extended a specific statutory requirement of competence to personnel working on all types of gas fitting work. Previously a statutory requirement of competence existed only for work with the installation of pipes and appliances. I think that we need to see how the regulations now work out in practice.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his helpful reply, but may I ask him two questions? In regard to the application of the regulations, is it not a fact that it can be found out that they have been breached only after the event, when perhaps somebody has been killed? Is it still the Government's intention, as was made clear during the progress of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill through this House in 1982, to introduce a stringent and strict licensing scheme for gas installers, as is the case in the United States, Canada and many of our European neighbours? Is it still the Government's intention at some stage to bring in such a licensing system?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said, I think that the regulations are a step forward. They extend far more widely than the previous regulations and, notwith

1063
standing the noble Lord's comments, we must see how they work out in practice. In reply to his specific second question, I would say that licensing is one option for control; but as the 1984 regulations have come into effect only recently—indeed, part of them come into effect only during this month—we need to assess their effect before taking any further view on licensing.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, does the Minister accept that sometimes the safety aspect of this matter is carried just a little far? For example, this week in my own little flat I needed to have a small asbestos pad placed at the back of the gas fire. I went to the showroom to try to buy it and was told that I could not fit it myself but that it had to be fitted by a qualified gas engineer. He arrived a few days later. I got the bill this morning, which was for £1.15 for the little asbestos pad and £18 for five minutes' work by the qualified engineer. I think this is an aspect which should be looked into as well.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think nonetheless that the noble Lord would agree with probably all other noble Lords in the House that qualifications are desirable. So far as the bill which reached the noble Lord is concerned, I wish him the best of luck with that.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, are the gas industry running into some trouble? They seem to be digging up the streets all over London at the present moment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that that falls a little wide of the original Question.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what publicity will be given to the regulations which I understand are coming into force this month?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, they will be given wide publicity through the Department of Employment and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, could they not be asked to include that with the bill once or twice, so that everybody is aware of it in the easiest possible way?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Student Unions: "Sabbatical Officers"
3.2 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many "sabbatical officers" of student unions in universities and polytechnics are in receipt of grants and what is the total cost to public funds.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, student union officers on sabbatical leave are not eligible for mandatory grants. They are paid by their student unions out of public funds allocated to the unions by the institutions concerned. There are no official statistics about the number of sabbatical officers in receipt of such payments or about the amounts in question. Material published by the student unions indicates, however, that university student unions have an average of four sabbatical officers each.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is it not rather extraordinary that there are no precise figures for both universities and polytechnics? This question has been talked about for a number of years. Is it not the case that even if the money comes out of student union funds, it is still ultimately public money, which is reaching students who, by definition, are not engaged in study?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that there are a number of statistics which are not known and that is one of them.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is it not a fact that the major part of the activities of the student unions are concerned with the provision of welfare and social facilities, along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested in an earlier question? That being so, does it not mean that those officers on sabbatical leave are having the opportunity to develop very important business and managerial initiatives? Is that not to be welcomed by the Benches opposite?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would go some way, at least, towards agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has said. I think that the proper work of student unions is in organising student services and facilities, and that this may well require the attention of full-time officers. However, whether there is a need for so many officers as there appear to be in order to manage unions efficiently is a question which the Government will raise in their consultations with higher education interests, to which I referred in an earlier Question.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the figure of an average of four such officers per university gives the impression that there are not very many? Would he not agree that, in fact, the total number is about 300?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, these figures, I think, may not be very accurate, anyway, because they were collected by the Students' Association at Edinburgh University on behalf of the Student Union Senior Officials' Conference in 1979–80 and so they are slightly out of date. I understand that at the time the top end of the range—Manchester University (including UMIST)—had nine such officers in 1980, but 85 per cent. of universities had five or fewer and 60 per cent., four or fewer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Earl take account of what the noble Baroness behind me has said: that these students have not only to run their business end of the catering of the union

1065
and everything else, but also have to administer the funds for every form of society—athletic and otherwise—and this provides very valuable business experience? In Dundee University, of which I had the honour to be rector for three years, there were only two sabbaticals. They worked extraordinarily hard and, I am sure, were cheaper than employing salaried people from outside.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right and that the Scots, as always, show that they are fairly canny in these matters. I think that it is fair to say that some of these students on sabbatical gain very good experience. Some, perhaps, gain slightly less salubrious experience.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble Earl is agreeing that the original purpose in publicly funding student unions was so that students should learn democracy, does he really persist in his opinion that the failure to produce figures in regard to their accounts is unimportant?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand what my noble friend is getting at. Obviously, these accounts exist, but they are not collected
centrally.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether there is any student union or any student officers at the University College of Buckingham, with which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is closely associated?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that supplementary question. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that we have had enough of students for one afternoon. They are extremely important and the Questions are very important, indeed; but we have had two of them. I think that we should now pass on to the next Question.

Southern Lebanon: Peace-Keeping
3.6 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with the Lebanese Government's support and with our European Community partners, they will take urgent steps in the Security Council to make the United Nations responsible for keeping the peace in those parts of Southern Lebanon where that Government's writ does not run, as Israel withdraws her occupying forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we have emphasised to all the parties the need for agreed and effective security arrangements in areas to be vacated
1066
by Israeli forces. It is for the Lebanese Government to request further United Nations help on their territory.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is it not beyond doubt that Resolution 425 of the Security Council which the United States proposed, which was unanimous and which is mandatory, requires Israel's withdrawal from the whole of South Lebanon and also requires the United Nations, through UNIFIL, to give every assistance that it can to the Lebanese Government to restore its own effective authority? Is that not what the Lebanese Government wish to achieve and is it not understandable that they are nervous about an Israeli withdrawal only taking part so far as stage one is concerned, leaving the United Nations in a buffer zone which separates two halves of the Lebanon?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point to the effect of Resolution 425. That resolution also refers to the wishes of the Lebanese Government and we regard their wishes as paramount in this matter.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to explain what is meant by the United Nations keeping the peace? Does that mean that they are going to organise a force? If so, from where? And who is going to provide the finance for it? Or does it mean that we are going to listen again over a period of time, far too long, to a series of platitudinous resolutions which have no effect whatever? Would it not be far better to encourage the Israelis to get out of there and leave them to fight it out themselves, to kill each other—which is what they are determined to do? Would it not be far better to encourage the Israelis to get out? The Israelis should never have gone in.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government certainly made their views about the Israeli entry into the Lebanon clear at the time. We were very pleased to hear the announcement from the Israeli Cabinet (on, I think, the 14th January) that they intended to withdraw completely. I understand that the first phase is expected to be complete around 18th February. But, of course, there is already a United Nations force in Lebanon and we hope that they can be assisted to discharge their mandate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we hope for a successful conclusion to the Israeli withdrawal, is it not possible that violence of the type described by my noble friend Lord Shinwell may occur in South Lebanon? In these circumstances, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking within the United Nations to secure a peacekeeping force, and would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to contribute to such a force?
Further, does the noble Lord recall the initiative suggested by President Reagan; namely, that talks should take place between the Soviet Union and the United States about the Middle East? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that the position and the stability of the Lebanon should be part of such talks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must emphasise that the responsibility for security in areas of Lebanon to be vacated by Israel rests with the Lebanese army and the

1067
Lebanese police. If there is to be a request for further United Nations assistance, that must come from the Lebanese. As for the United Nations force, that, of course, already exists in the Lebanon, and, as the noble Lord will be aware, we provide substantial logistic support for that force.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the existing United Nations force, bearing in mind all the restrictions and difficulties, has succeeded in limiting the killing and disorder in southern Lebanon? Would he also agree that, while the strengthening of the United Nations force is urgently needed, it is important that its role should be extended to the southernmost part of Lebanon? Otherwise, it will remain as a kind of buffer betweeen the Lebanese army in the north and the Israeli-sponsored South Lebanon army in the south, and that would be disastrous.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the United Nations force in Lebanon has achieved important successes during the time it has been there, but I think it would have been able to achieve more had it been allowed to extend its area of operations. However, that is a matter for the Lebanese Government and not for the British Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while it is obviously right that any suggestion as to a UN force must come from the Lebanon, could the noble Lord not go so far as to say that, if it did come, we and the United Nations would agree to the reconstitution of a larger force; that we agree with present moves between the United States and the Soviet Union to talk to each other about the Middle East in general; and that we agree with the proposal for a United Nations conference on the future of the whole Near East?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we should certainly want to agree to any proposal that contributed to additional security and peace in the area in question. We in fact provide important support for the United Nations force, to which I have already referred. I do not think I can go further than that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I say that I do not think he should have a second innings today, and I think it would be reasonable if we brought these Questions to an end now. They have gone on for a considerable time.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on Gibraltar. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on RAF Molesworth. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Avon, who, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on local government practice and procedures.

Business of the House: Short Debates
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Henderson of Brompton and the Lord Hunter of Newington set down for 20th February shall be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Arrangement of Order Paper
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Trefgarne to be taken before the Second Reading of the Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.].—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Defence
3.14 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton rose to call attention to the duty of central Government and of local authorities to deal with peacetime emergencies, and to provide Civil Defence in case of conventional, biological, chemical or nuclear attack; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will realise from the light which is shed upon our proceedings this afternoon that it is a stroke of good fortune that this debate takes place so soon after the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, who has himself shed so much light on industrial relations in this country.
This is our first full debate on Civil Defence for five years, although there have been others. It is a matter which is vital to all our people, and it is therefore gratifying that so many of your Lordships have indicated an intention to take part, including four noble Baronesses. It is a big subject, and all that I can hope to do is to outline it in a relatively short speech; but a number of noble Lords have told me of their intention to deal with particular parts of the subject.
There are, I suggest, three reasons why peacetime emergencies should be in the forefront of a debate on Civil Defence. The first of these reasons is that peacetime disasters occur in this world with increasing severity in our modern industrial society, and we want to know what is going to be done about it. Secondly, those who have to cope with peacetime emergencies are also responsible for Civil Defence in wartime. Thirdly, I say that if people are properly trained, equipped and organised to deal with peacetime

1069
emergencies they will be well on the way to preparing for wartime if by some mischance it should come.
Let us consider first the peacetime risks. Of course, most of the ordinary ones are familiar to us—fire, floods, blizzards, railway accidents, pile-ups on motorways and aircraft crashes. But some of these are on a pretty big scale so that our splendid fire, ambulance and police services which have to deal with them are sometimes very hard pressed and need help from well organised volunteers. May I give an example? Three or four years ago there were the most appalling blizzards in the West Country and the South-West of England. In Devonshire there were 2,000 Devon emergency volunteers, and they had members in every village. Nearly all the villages were cut off, but those volunteers were trained and organised for Civil Defence and were therefore there to help with first-aid, rescue, the care of the sick and the elderly, and so on.
Mercifully, we have so far escaped massive industrial disasters in this country, but one must bear in mind that they have taken place. In Bhopal recently, where 2,000 people died and 100,000 people became ill, thousands were made homeless and had to leave their homes, all through the escape of a lethal gas from one chamber in what appeared to be a well-run chemical works.
Then there was an occurrence at Mississauga in Canada, a town of 240,000 people. There was a railway accident in which railway tankers carrying chlorine were turned over and burst open, and a huge cloud of chlorine gas hung over the town. The place had to be evacuated, and within 24 hours 218,000 people were moved out, including all the people in the hospitals and nursing homes in that city. Then your Lordships will remember Seveso, in Italy—a most deplorable affair, where dioxin gas escaped from a chemical plant, causing lung trouble to many people who will suffer increasingly from lung cancer as the years go on. In that particular case crops and animals were also badly affected.
In the United States there was the Three Mile Island case—a serious threat of nuclear radiation which was prevented from becoming a major catastrophe affecting millions of people with only a few minutes to spare. We have had less serious peacetime nuclear accidents here; and there is quite natural anxiety about the transport and disposal of nuclear waste. Our worst industrial accident so far was at Flixborough chemical works in Lincolnshire, where a lot of damage was done but where, mercifully, it was contained without affecting very many human beings.
On occasions like that, and with all the natural peacetime disasters on a big scale, we need the massive support of trained volunteers. We have altogether, in those counties which have gone about it, 17,000 volunteers. That sounds a lot, but if one really thinks it out, in order to cover England and Wales satisfactorily we need not 17,000 but 200,000—and I shall come to more of that anon. With science and industry groping their way continually into the unknown, to say that disasters like those I have mentioned will not happen here because of our industrial safety legislation, which is pretty elaborate, would literally be courting disaster and, if we had a
1070
disaster on the scale of Bhopal or Seveso, our present emergency services would be swamped, even with the valuable help of the WRVS, the Red Cross and the St. John's Ambulance.
It will be interesting to hear from my noble friend Lord Elton whether the Government and the local authorities would be able to deal with very large-scale peacetime disasters. It will also help to know what they intend to do to encourage the recruitment and training of many more volunteers. Thousands of people would surely welcome the chance to become emergency volunteers, and (dare I say it?) especially would many young unemployed people welcome that opportunity.
In the Conservative manifesto at the last general election we promised to amend the Civil Defence Act 1948 to enable Civil Defence funds to be used for peacetime emergencies as well as for warlike preparations. No such legislation has yet been introduced. The Government want it to be done by a Private Member's Bill in one House or another; but we all know the hazards of getting Private Members' Bills through both Houses, even those which are relatively non-controversial, and I therefore hope that the Government will think again about that. It really is leaving too much to chance in an important matter. Again, if I may make so bold, I think there is some legislation—some very lengthy, somewhat controversial legislation—which is being introduced and which is less important than that which I have mentioned.
So much for peacetime disaster: let us now consider the wartime risks. There are some misguided people who suggest that a nuclear holocaust is the only wartime risk that we need contemplate. They then say, "No lives could then be saved; Civil Defence would be completely ineffective". I suppose that the most extreme attitude on that matter is the one expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who I am so glad is to take part in this debate even though it rather looks from the list of speakers as if he may be a lone ranger.
We are accustomed to the noble Lord's quaint and somewhat endearing eccentricities, but I think that he excelled himself the other day when he swept away all thought of saving any lives if ever there were a nuclear attack and said that we should simply issue millions of suicide pills. Obviously, if there were a complete honeycomb attack covering the whole of the British Isles there would not be many survivors. I grant him that. But I say to him, and to those who think like him, that that is the least likely of the possible risks for which we should be providing. Consider the facts—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall of course deal later on with the point that he is making, but there is one thing that ought to be said now, in view of what he has just said. The Government's own assumption of the major risk is that there will be a major nuclear attack. It is not my assumption that he is attacking: it is his own Front Bench's assumption. I shall oppose him on that later.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I very much doubt whether the noble Lord's interpretation of the Government's views is correct, but we shall no doubt hear from my

1071
noble friend about that. I say that the right approach in assessing the wartime risks is the "all-hazards" approach. We should consider every possibility. There are some risks which are obviously less likely than others, and, to my mind, the least likely risk of all is that the deterrent will fail to deter.
Let us just consider what has happened in the last 40 years, since the end of World War II. Believe it or not, my Lords, during those 40 years there have been at least 30 major wars or civil wars in various parts of the world, and they have all been fought with conventional weapons. About 10 million people have died in those 30 wars and civil wars, mostly civilians. For example, in Vietnam 150,000 military deaths took place, but 3 million civilians died. Although the great powers, including ourselves, have been involved in some of those conflicts in the last 40 years—for example, we were involved in the Falklands—there has been no direct confrontation between the United States and Russia, no war in Europe, no World War III, and not one nuclear weapon has been used, though goodness knows!, there have been plenty about. I say that we should bear in mind that all those wars have been fought with conventional weapons, and so, surely, the most probable warlike risk for which we should prepare in this dangerous world is the risk of conventional attack.
Other countries have taken this matter very seriously, and perhaps it is significant that it is the neutral countries, like Switzerland, Sweden and so on, who are not likely to be any more involved in warlike activities in the future than they ever were in the past, who have taken the need for Civil Defence most seriously of all. Of course, we all hope that there will never be another war. We should like to, "Ring out the thousand wars of old. Ring in the thousand years of peace." But to say that there could never be another war in which we were involved would be the triumph of hope over experience.
So much for the wartime risks. We need not dwell on them any more. I hope, for the moment, but what should we do about them? Surely it is prudent for us to insure against the consequences of being involved, to pay a modest insurance premium by having an effective nationwide Civil Defence, as we had until 1968. If we had that, lives could be saved if we were attacked by conventional, biological or chemical weapons, or even, if it were not too massive an attack, a nuclear weapon.
In fairness I must say this. The Government have already done a good deal to improve Civil Defence since our debate five years ago. But there is still a good deal more to be done, as the Government themselves acknowledge. Spending on Civil Defence, which one might say is the amount of the insurance premium that we pay, during those five years has risen in real terms from £22 million a year to £70 million a year—these figures, by the way, exclude the cost of central administration in the Home Office and other departments—and the Government have already planned to increase the annual premium beyond £70 million during the next three years.
We have the best early warning system in the world, and in 1983 the Government asked Parliament to
1072
approve the new Civil Defence regulations—they were new then, anyway—which require local authorities to make effective Civil Defence plans and preparations. But some local authorities, instead of doing so, simply declared their areas to be nuclear-free zones. That, no doubt, caused a big laugh in the Kremlin, but it was not so funny for the people in those areas, for it meant that their elected councillors were in breach of their statutory duties. It meant also that they were ignoring their humanitarian duty to reduce casualties, even in a conventional conflict. Also, incidentally, it meant that they were missing the chance to recruit volunteers who could be of such great help with peacetime emergencies.
I am sorry to have to mention that the nuclear-free zones include the Greater London area, Wales, and metropolitan counties with socialist majorities. The GLC has so neglected its duties as to turn the war-time control room into a museum, and its unwillingness to prepare to help the citizens of this great city is, I find, deplorable. The joint authority proposed by the Government to deal with fire services and Civil Defence in the place of present arrangements when the GLC is finally abolished would, I think, be an improvement—it must be an improvement—on the present situation, which is a non-situation.
We were told recently by my noble friend Lord Elton—if I may have his attention—that no local authority had actually refused to carry out duties under the Civil Defence regulations, but it is clear that many local authorities have simply not carried out their duties; indeed, those to which I am referring have scarcely even paid lip service to doing so. Lack of finance is no excuse for local authorities because the Government are paying on average 85 per cent. of local authorities' costs of all Civil Defence expenditure. In addition, that expenditure will be exempt from rate capping and from cash penalties.
The recruitment and training of volunteers is, of course, vital to success in rebuilding Civil Defence. Already there are, as I say, 17,000 volunteers—2,000 in Devon, 2,500 in Wiltshire, 800 in Surrey, and about 600 in Cambridgeshire—but some large councils have none, because their Left-wing councillors do not want them. There is a generous grant for the training and equipping of them and so there is no financial excuse for not getting on with it.
When we last had a good Civil Defence organisation industrial Civil Defence played an important part; and I hope that it will do so again because industry can do so much to help with rescue services, transport, canteens and in many other ways. I trust that the Government will take full advantage of the skills and equipment that industry can provide. But some incentive is needed and so if firms spend money on Civil Defence preparations, it should be tax deductible, as it used to be. In addition, the Industrial Advisory Panel, representing both sides of industry, should be revived.
In conclusion, my Lords, I hope that I have said enough to convince you of the actual risks we face in peace and war and of what needs to be done to provide reasonable protecton for our people if, by mischance, the risks should materialise. The "all hazards" approach is the only safe and sensible one. Some people say, strangely enough, that even to take

1073
precautions would frighten people; but the British are not easily frightened and they would rather be reasonably prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House, possibly the nation, will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for bringing before us this afternoon the question of Civil Defence—a matter upon which there has been much debate, much discussion, and considerable misunderstanding. Let me say at the outset that any Government, any responsible Opposition, who do not take to themselves the need to protect their citizens and to do so reasonably and sensibly are not worthy of the name of either the Government of this country or the Opposition in this country. I say that especially in regard to the first two elements of this Motion.
I listened with great care to what the noble Lord had to say about the question of peacetime emergencies and to the way in which he developed his theme with regard to some of the disasters that have befallen countries other than ours—obviously, we have the greatest sympathy for those people who are affected by them—and, indeed, some of the, thank heavens, comparatively minor disasters which have occurred in the United Kingdom. I thought it right that we should be reminded of those matters. I thought that the noble Lord was going to say—certainly with regard to this country—how in relation to each of those disasters we had such reason to be proud of our police force, our fire brigades, our hospitals, our nurses and the Red Cross, who went in and who assisted so valuably. I say that because this has indeed been one of the great strengths with which we have managed to face such disasters. Obviously any sensible person would say that there is room here for volunteers, too. Any invitation that was accorded, and any extension of those who are already gallantly serving as volunteers, must be welcomed by every Member of your Lordships' House and by all the citizens of this country. There can be no difference between us with regard to that.
Past Governments of whatever complexion have had to face the difficulties of conventional warfare—this is a phrase that has come into use after the dreadful inventions which have taken place and which mean that we now talk in terms of nuclear war and conventional war. Before the last great war, we knew of only one type of war—although we equally feared the gas and the germ warfare that was mentioned but which, by the grace of God, did not occur in the last war.
Again, in regard to conventional war, one realises that there should be and must be some kind of organisation to deal with threats of that nature. In my view, there is no need for a long speech from me on this occasion in dealing with this Motion because, except for a certain portion of his speech, I found myself in agreement with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said.
Two questions arise. First, who are the proper people to deal with the threat of conventional war by way of Civil Defence? Secondly—and one cannot separate the organisation—who is to deal with the
1074
threat of a nuclear war? I found nothing in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, dealing with a national duty—except one, presumably, to bring forward public legislation instead of private legislation—other than concerning the supply of money.
It happens to be the case (and this is a little germane to our contemporary political scene in regard to local government) that generally speaking—and with only a few exceptions which I shall readily read out but I want to abbreviate my speech—there is a 75 per cent. subsidy to local government for Civil Defence purposes. Local government of whatever political hue must face the expenditure represented by that 25 per cent. of total expenditure, in the main, at a time when the Government have cut into the powers of local government in a way that has never been done before by any other Government of whatever complexion. The Government have done that at the expense of the care in peacetime—here and now—of old people, of children in schools, of the disabled, and of others who need help.
I am not debating this point on behalf of any particular local authority; but is it not extraordinary that in these times, with rate capping and all the rest, local authorities throughout the kingdom are being told, "You ought to spend money of quite a substantial nature on Civil Defence, when you cannot adequately and properly deal with the needs of your citizens, and the existing needs of your citizens. You have to set those considerations aside"—and I am not speaking here of emergencies—"because of the hypothetical and dreadful question of the possibility of war"?
I go on from the question of expenditure to the question of good organisation. The noble Lord—
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the subject of expenditure, I had hoped that I would make it clear—and I hope to be forgiven for not doing so—that expenditure on Civil Defence is exempt from rate capping and exempt from cash penalties.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I had appreciated that point, as the noble Lord would have expected me to; I spoke of an era of rate capping. I was not speaking in terms of this expenditure being counted for rate-capping purposes. I am talking about the whole atmosphere in which this expenditure has to be envisaged.
I do not limit my case to expenditure but now go on to organisation. As the noble Lord has said very fairly, there are certain authorities who rightly or wrongly—and I am not arguing the case for that—regard their responsibilities here as being either beyond their capability or that they are responsibilities which local authorities should not be called upon to undertake. It is one of the two; whatever may be the reasons, they do not want to undertake those responsibilities.
If one views that situation nationally, it means that there are authorities which are taking very seriously their tasks in respect of Civil Defence in the event of conventional war or nuclear war; there are those which are acting moderately seriously, and there are those which are doing nothing al all, in spite of the

1075
mandatory nature of the 1983 regulations. Is that good organisation? Is the alternative that of sending in a commissioner at the Government's instance and representing the Government to look after the region concerned? Is the Director of Civil Defence at the present moment seeing to it that local authorities are not overlapping in their work; and that there is proper planning as between neighbouring local authorities, quite apart from a local authority carrying out its organisational responsibilities in respect of civil defence? Or is he not?
The answer is this—and I say this with all due respect. The Government are evading their responsibility by carrying on this debate—which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has opened so adequately this afternoon—and are putting all the burden and blame onto local authorities. In this kind of atmosphere it is the Government who should take the responsibility for Civil Defence, and they should do that regionally. If that is thought to be an eccentric proposition, then I have this to say to the noble Lords, Lord Renton and the Minister.
We in this Chamber have heard debates about the abolition of local authorities. That has not yet been carried out by the will of Parliament but it has been debated in Parliament. The Government are content that fire brigades should go to regional authorities, as I understand it—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I must put the record straight. There is no such intention. The areas proposed for the fire brigades are no larger than those which now exist.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not talking about their size; I am talking about whether or not they will be democratically controlled by local authorities as they are at the moment. I shall give way immediately if the noble Lord the Minister will announce to the House and the nation that fire brigades will now be controlled throughout the kingdom—and that it is the planning of his Government—by democratically-elected representatives. I give way to enable the Minister to make that statement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the people who control the fire brigades will be democratically-elected representatives of the people. However, the noble Lord is referring to the organisation by which this will be done. That falls so wide of the Order Paper that I ask him not to stray in that direction but to restrict his attack to the Government's Civil Defence policy.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister makes his interventions with such courtesy that sometimes the subtlety of them is not appreciated by the House. The subtlety of that intervention is that the fire brigades will of course be indirectly controlled by people who are democratically elected—but not democratically elected to look after them.
This point is not wide of the Order Paper, and I am making it because the logical action to take if there is a problem with local authorities—but I would make the point even if there were not—is to ask this question. If the metropolitan authorities are to be abolished and there are regional authorities of the same size (covering the same territory, if one likes) to
1076
be put in their place, and they are going to look after emergency services, then what in heaven's name is the logical answer as to why they should not at the same time look after Civil Defence?
I now deal with the final point I intend to raise this afternoon. If I did not deal with it I should be shirking my responsibility. Indeed, I should not be open with the House, as I hope I always am. I refer to nuclear war. There is no doubt about it, there are some local authorities who say, "The Government have given us no plan upon which we can really work by way of estimates of the size of the problem, where in our area the danger is going to be, where we ought to have our buildings, and we say to the Government, perfectly frankly, 'We see no answer to the saving of life—and we wish we did—in the event of nuclear war' ".
There is a danger in this matter. The noble Lord paid tribute—it was right that he should do so and my noble friends and I do not differ from him in the slightest—to the courage of the British people. I should like to add to that tribute. You will not only find them courageous but you will find them answering to every challenge provided you are honest with them. That is the point. The fact is—and this is the danger—that the Government in their propaganda, differing from the BMA and other scientists, are letting it get abroad that there are answers to massive nuclear attack so that people, more than just the miserable few, could be saved.
In my concluding words I will tell your Lordships why that is dangerous. It is usually reckless to refer to the speeches that one has previously made in your Lordships' House, but I venture to do so on this occasion because I had the privilege of representing these Benches in the debate on the 1983 regulations. If I may be permitted this indulgence, I quote from what I said in this connection at cols. 528–529 of the Official Report for 1st November 1983:
"If the nations of the world realise, and if the peoples of the world realise, that not only in a nuclear war can there be no victory but there can be no survival except for the very few who may even suffer more than those who have been killed, the whole argument about the retention of nuclear weapons falls to the ground. We are not going to be part, as the Opposition, of pretending to the British people that regulations have come into existence, with duties cast upon local authorities, under which provision will in fact be made to deal in any practical form with a nuclear holocaust."
My Lords, I abide by those words as I sit down.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask one question? Does the noble Lord not agree that the relentless march of modern technology is going to make differentiation between so-called conventional weapons and nuclear weapons almost impossible, and finally quite impossible?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that that observation will mean that war at last will be abolished from the earth.

Gibraltar
3.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable

1077
and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the outcome of my meeting yesterday in Geneva with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr. Moran, about Gibraltar.
"As I foreshadowed in my Statement to the House on 28th November, our meeting marked the start of the restoration, after an interval of 15 years, of direct communications and the free movement of persons, vehicles and goods between Gibraltar and Spain. We have also started the negotiations which were envisaged by the Lisbon statement of April 1980. These are aimed at overcoming all the differences between us on Gibraltar, and at promoting co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain over a wide range of matters.
"In addition Spaniards in Gibraltar, and Gibraltarians in Spain, will enjoy European Community rights in advance of Spanish accession to the Community.
"Spanish, British and Gibraltarian officials will now be meeting to deal with a number of specific areas for practical co-operation. These include aviation, tourism and economic and cultural matters. The first such meetings begin this month. Sr. Moran specifically reaffirmed to me the undertaking set out in the Brussels communiqué that the Spanish Government will take the early actions necessary to allow safe and effective air communications in the region. Specific ideas for this are now under consideration.
"Sr. Moran raised the subject of sovereignty at our meeting. He was entitled to do so under the terms of the Lisbon and Brussels statements. He also outlined informally to me some ideas on this subject. He said that he will later make formal proposals. However, Sr. Moran also underlined the importance he attaches to the interests and feelings of the Gibraltar people when dealing with this issue. For my part, I made clear that the British Government's commitment to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarian people, which is plainly set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution, stands unchanged.
"Sir Joshua Hassan, who has led his people so resolutely over many years of difficulty, participated at my side yesterday as a member of the British delegation. He subsequently described the meeting in Geneva as positive and constructive in every way: and expressed himself fully satisfied that the results are good for Gibraltar. I have greatly valued his wise advice. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to his courage, steadfastness and statesmanship.
"The task ahead is to see that practical co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain develops in a way which will benefit both peoples and that Spain and the United Kingdom continue to manage our differences as befits friends and allies.
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make quite clear to the House that this result is good
1078
for Britain, good for Spain and, above all, good for the people of Gibraltar, whose wishes we are pledged to respect."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and we also welcome the accord and the agreement which has apparently been achieved between Britain, Spain and Gibraltar. We note especially the reference to the remarks of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, which are extremely important: namely, that the meeting was a positive and constructive one in every way.
We also noted that in another place yesterday—reported in col. 744 of Hansard—the Prime Minister said it was the Government's intention to maintain their commitment to the,
"freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar",
and that there would be no significant change without an Act of Parliament based on the,
"freely and democratically expressed wishes",
of the people of Gibraltar.
We noted those specific words. Can the noble Baroness say whether it is proposed that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar on this agreement and the implications of Spanish entry into the European Community are to be ascertained by a referendum among the people of Gibraltar? Is this not the only secure way of finding out their intentions? If not, how are their wishes to be made known?
On this point again, the noble Baroness will know that Gibraltar's 1969 Constitution contains a guarantee that there will be no change in sovereignty against the wishes of the population. Can she say what was the response of Sr. Moran at the Geneva talks to the question of the right of Gibraltarians to self-determination? I think it is very important to get this clear at an early stage, as sovereignty is beginning to mean different things in different parts of the world. Is it the case that Sr. Moran accepts that a transfer of sovereignty against the will of the people would not be in the interests of Spain?
Finally, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the economic implications of the new arrangements for Gibraltar? While it will obviously bring a tourist benefit, is there some danger that Spaniards, either unemployed or on a low wage, will swamp the labour market in Gibraltar? Again, can she say whether Spaniards will in future be permitted to buy land and other property in Gibraltar?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we join with the Labour Opposition in thanking the Government for repeating this Statement, and are of course, as satisfied with it as the Government must be themselves. So far, so good. We await with interest the answers to the questions raised by the Leader of the Labour Opposition.
Is it not the case that, while the Foreign Secretary's remarks about sovereignty were obviously very sensible indeed, the Spanish Foreign Minister's remarks about sovereignty were also a great deal more sensible than other remarks about sovereignty in other

1079
situations with a superficial resemblance to that of Gibraltar, and that others could learn well from them?
Lastly, will the Government say a word about the Community rights issue which is mentioned in the Statement—that the rights of Gibraltar citizens in Spain and Spaniards in Gibraltar under Community law and arrangements will be phased into effect? Which rights will be phased in, and when? Can the noble Baroness remind us how long the transitional period is for Spanish accession? This is another way of putting the question that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has just put, but what about the mutual right to work in each other's country? Does that come early in the accession period, or late, or what?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, for their reception of this Statement and for the welcome that they have given it. On the various questions that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked, perhaps I may start by reminding him about the Government's assurances to Gibraltar on the question of sovereignty. The noble Lord referred to the statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday. The relevant extract from the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution reads:
"Her Majesty's Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty's Government will never ever enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
The noble Lord went on to ask me about the possibility of a referendum on this matter. There is no bar to a referendum being held in Gibraltar if at some future stage it is felt that that is the best way to gauge Gibraltar opinion. But, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, it would be unsettling to hold referenda too frequently.
The noble Lord went on to ask about a referendum on the question of joining the Community, but, of course, Gibraltar is in fact already part of European Community territory by virtue of Article 227.4 as a country for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible.
On the question of self-determination and what has been the attitude of Sr. Moran, he said at a press conference last October:
"We accept the wishes of the people of Gibraltar to maintain their British nationality once the territory is re-integrated into Spain. If they gave me Gibraltar on a plate against the will of the Gibraltarians, it would not be a good deal for Spain".
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked me about various transitional arrangements. Of course we hope that tourism will be one industry to benefit by the opening of the frontier. On the question of workers, the Community is insisting on a seven-year transitional period and that a joint declaration on free movement of workers should be annexed to the Spanish Treaty of Accession, as it was for both former enlargements. In fact, no one can come to work in Gibraltar without a work permit. On the question of the sale of land, the fact is that there is a very limited property market in Gibraltar and the right to purchase
1080
is linked to a Spaniard being employed or self-employed or rendering a service.
I hope I have answered most of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised, too, but he asked me quite specifically about advanced Community rights. The arrangement for advance enjoyment of certain Community rights is an indication of the special dimension to the relations between Spain and Gibraltar. We agreed that Spaniards in Gibraltar should receive those Community rights that they would otherwise enjoy on the day of Spain's accession, and that Gibraltarians would at the same time receive corresponding rights in Spain. This arrangement has the full support of the Gibraltar Government. It does not of course affect the derogations and transitional periods agreed between Spain and the Community, which will be applicable to Gibraltar. The timing of these transitional periods will run from the day of Spain's accession.
On quite specific Community rights, the negotiations are well advanced on the main matters relevant to this arrangement. The rights of establishment chapter has been concluded, and we hope to see the social affairs chapter concluded very shortly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify one point in her most interesting and welcome Statement? Does the reopening of the land frontier with Spain also include the right to operate seaborne services across the bay between Gibraltar and Algeciras such as used to exist? Secondly, and on a different point, in the course of her right honourable and learned friend's discussions with Sr. Moran was any regret expressed on behalf of Spain for the damage done over 15 years by this wrongful act both to Gibraltar and to this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I may take first the second of my noble friend's two questions, I think I would be correct in saying that at the discussions in Geneva all parties were looking forwards rather than backwards. On the first of his questions, the answer is: yes, the seaborne routes will be open, as indeed will the frontier be for traffic.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give some indication, if at all possible, as to when the problem of flight paths and of air traffic will be solved? The present descent into Gibraltar is enough to put one off flying and to discourage tourism.
Baroness Young: My Lords, that will be one of the matters which will clearly be subject to future negotiations. We expect that experts will start to meet quite soon on a number of practical issues, of which aviation will be one.
Lord Somers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give some really strong assurance that Gibraltar will not be offered a half solution such as self-determination, but that we shall maintain our sovereignty since, apart from the fact that the Gibraltarians all want it, Gibraltar is a small area bordering directly upon Spain, which is only too anxious to obtain control of her, and Gibraltar needs our protection?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that what I said in answer to the first supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made absolutely plain the British Government's commitment to stand by the preamble to the 1969 Constitution.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what arrangements will be made for Moroccan workers who took the place of Spanish workers when they were not allowed to come in? Are they just going to go back to Morocco, will they be given redundancy payments, or what action will be taken?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as far as the future of the Moroccan workforce is concerned, I can tell my noble friend Lady Vickers that Sir Joshua Hassan has said that the public sector employers in Gibraltar are firmly committed not to discharge any Moroccan worker to make way for another worker from outside Gibraltar. There are approximately 1,700 Moroccans working in Gibraltar, and they make a valuable contribution. The arrangement agreed with Spain does not threaten those in paid employment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, notwithstanding this agreement between ourselves and the Spaniards for the future of Gibraltar, it would be extremely myopic if we did not acknowledge that at some time Spain is going to return with some vigour to the question of sovereignty? Does the noble Baroness agree that it might well be that there will be some activity emanating from Spain which would cause difficulties for the Gibraltarians? In that event, should that transpire, may we have an assurance that Britain will immediately give every assistance to the Government and the people of Gibraltar?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I have already given that assurance of the British Government's stand, in answer to two questions that I have been asked this afternoon. I would repeat it to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? Between now and when Spain joins the Community, is it proposed to erect Customs barriers between Gibraltar and Spain so that tariffs will have to be paid each way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that there will be completely free movement of goods and services, as pertained before the closing of the frontier. On the specific point about tariffs, I understand that under certain circumstances it might be that there will be some goods which will be subject to tariffs. However, perhaps I might write to my noble friend on this point.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, it could be very important in regard to whisky on one side and sherry on the other.

RAF Molesworth
4.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): With your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the operation conducted last night at RAF Molesworth to clear the site of trespassers and to fence it. The Statement is as follows:
"The then Secretary of State for Defence announced on 17th June 1980 the Government's decision that Molesworth, a disused airfield in Cambridgeshire, had been selected as the second United Kingdom cruise missile base. The normal process of planning consultation was set in hand towards the end of last year against the requirement to begin major construction on the site this autumn if deployment by 1988 is to be achieved.
"As the House will be aware, RAF Molesworth is an unfenced and open site and has been the scene of continued trespass by individuals and groups opposed to its use as a cruise missile base. Their activities have given rise to much local anxiety. The anti-nuclear protest groups have made clear their intention to engage in a systematic programme of deliberate delay and disruption, not excluding unlawful means, in order to prevent this development. It would have been quite wrong to allow such a protest to build up on Ministry of Defence land and to accept that the serious inconvenience to local people would continue.
"I therefore directed that the necessary steps should be taken to end this as quickly as possible and with the least likelihood of danger to all concerned. To do so, it was necessary to act in secrecy and with speed in order to prevent the very serious problems which would have arisen from the reinforcement of the protesters that had been threatened. This could have led to a major confrontation, with all the risks that involved to both demonstrators and those responsible for the maintenance of law and order.
"This operation began shortly before midnight last night with the arrival of Ministry of Defence police to clear the site of trespassers and to take control of it. The civil police were responsible for policing outside the site itself. At the same time, 1,500 Royal Engineers began to fence off the whole site with dannert-type fencing. They are also providing observation platforms and perimeter lighting which will assist the Ministry of Defence police in their continuing task of guarding the site. In addition, members of the Property Services Agency and civil contractors moved heavy equipment onto the site to begin the construction of a permanent weldmesh fence for which planning agreement has already been given.
"Mr. Speaker, this House reaffirmed in October 1983 its support for the NATO twin-track decision on intermediate range nuclear forces. The Government very much hope that, now that the Soviet Union has returned to the negotiating table, it will be possible to make progress on the arms

1083
control element of that decision. But, until progress has been achieved which makes this unnecessary, we shall continue with preparations for the deployment of cruise missiles. That is a decision approved by Parliament. No responsible Secretary of State for Defence or Government could countenance such preparations being frustrated by a small, unrepresentative minority within our society.
"That is why the action I have described has been undertaken today. I have myself visited Molesworth this morning in order to pass on the Government's thanks to those concerned. The House will, I know, wish to join me in paying tribute to all those involved in ensuring that this major operation has proceeded so successfully".
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish first of all to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. But is he not aware that this is an extraordinary Statement? Is he aware that he has completely failed to justify the massive use of civilian and military police to deal with this situation? To use 1,500 military police and an unspecified number of civilian police to deal with 100 peaceful, unarmed civilians is surely overkill in the extreme. What in actual fact has been the estimated cost of this operation? In his Statement, the Minister made a number of remarks which I invite him to substantiate. He indicated that these actions have been taken because it was unacceptable to continue the serious inconvenience to local people. Does the Minister care to spell out what inconvenience to local people has occurred which merits such an extraordinary use of military and civilian police?
The Minister told us that the operation began shortly before midnight. Does he not realise that this will be construed by many as a most sinister method of carrying out this operation? Is he not aware that this smacks of the "knock on the door in the middle of the night", of the jackboot and of the secret police? Is he not aware that the Minister has, quite frankly, overreacted in the extreme?
The Minister talks in terms of the hopes of the Government now that the Soviet Union has returned to the negotiating table. Would he not agree that, at this time of all times, it might have been advisable just to pause and reflect on this particular point in order to demonstrate that we are looking for all other possibilities of reaching the maximum possible detente?
The Minister talks in terms of action to frustrate a small unrepresentative minority within our society. Is the Minister aware that by actions of this kind he is more likely to make the small minority into a larger minority, and perhaps eventually into a majority? Is he aware that the manner in which this operation has been carried out is likely to do more than anything else to make sure that CND's advertised marches at Molesworth at Easter will be a bigger success than they ever have been?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friends and I do not share the casual attitude to law-breaking of the Labour Party, nor their prejudice against the police and the armed forces?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Nonsense.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Rubbish.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, neverthless, will the Minister give this assurance to the House: that there will be no restrictions whatever on peaceful, lawful demonstrations at Molesworth by whoever wishes to conduct them? Will he make it perfectly clear that there will be no harassing? May I ask the Minister this? If the Government were going to take this action, would it not have been wiser to take it earlier, before these protesters had dug themselves in as they did? I should be grateful for clear answers to those two questions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their response to my Statement. I am sorry that the Statement did not please the noble Lord, Lord Graham. In conducting this operation, we were determined to ensure that we avoided some of the confrontational scenes that we have seen elsewhere in this country in recent months and years. I am happy to say that that has been achieved. The temporary fence that we have constructed has now been virtually completed without the confrontation that we have seen, for example, at Greenham Common in recent months. I do not therefore agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we have conducted some form of overkill.
As for local inconvenience, there was very considerable local inconvenience. There had been a significant rise in petty crime locally, for example, which many people put down to the presence of these people in the area. If the noble Lord has any doubt on that point, I invite him to visit the local people. Only yesterday, as it happens, quite fortuitously, a petition had been submitted to the local council, signed by, I believe, no less than 90 per cent. or so of the local population and complaining about the presence of the so-called "peace campers" there. They are really nothing of the sort because the activities which they choose to pursue make no contribution to peace whatever.
The noble Lord referred to the Geneva negotiations which are to take place before long. Whatever the noble Lord may think about the prospects of those negotiations, the fact is that, while we have been conducting our comparatively slow modernisaton of INF forces, the Soviet Union has been increasing its INF forces at an alarming rate. The number of SS20 warheads now pointed at us is something approaching 1,000, a figure with which the noble Lord will be familiar.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked me for an assurance that peaceful and lawful protesting would not be interfered with. Of course I readily give him that assurance.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord withdraw any aspersion that he may have made inadvertently in the course of his remarks suggesting that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is not a body wholly devoted to protest within the law? It is

1085
true, of course, that when anything of this sort takes place, it is bound to upset and to offend local people in some degree. Nevertheless, having regard to that and having regard to what was made clear on the radio this morning by Bruce Kent, I should like to make clear on my own behalf that, so far as the CND is concerned, it is not its intention to upset or incommode local people. May I ask the noble Lord one question? Will he say what is the cost of erecting this enormous fence around Molesworth?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to hear from the noble Lord that the CND has no plans for any unlawful activity. That would hardly square with some of the things that it has been doing in the past. Indeed, the very presence of members of the CND, if that is who they were, at the so-called peace camp at Molesworth was in itself unlawful because they were trespassing on Ministry of Defence land. However, the noble Lord perhaps regards that as of no account.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I have an answer to my question about the cost of the fencing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering that question. The cost of the materials, at any event, for constructing the fence around Molesworth is about £1 million.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of those engaged in this peaceful protest are members of the Religious Society of Friends, who have a long record of peaceful protest spread over 300 years? To suggest that these individuals were involved in increased local crime is hardly justified and is not likely to ensure an acceptance of the Government's case.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord disagrees with that assertion, but it is unhappily the case. I am happy to hear that they intend to be peaceful. However, if it was they who were at Greenham Common in recent months, they hardly lived up to that aspiration. As for being lawful, a number of breaches of the law have occurred at Greenham Common recently—not only breaches of the civil law of trespass but also breaches of the criminal law. I hope that we shall see an end to that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that besides 1,500 military personnel inside the perimeter there were civilian police outside. I asked him whether he could say how many civilian police were involved in the operation. I assume that he will be able to tell me that now.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have the numbers of the civilian police who were involved. That is, of course, a matter for the local police. We left it to them to provide whatever forces were necessary.

Civil Defence
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for introducing this debate and for doing so in such a thoughtful and unideological manner. Over past years, in this country, the subject of Civil Defence has attracted a wholly inappropriate amount of political controversy to itself. At the beginning, the blame was on the Government. Civil Defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, showed us, is basically a humanitarian concept aimed at reducing suffering over a wide range of possible catastrophes. But, when the Government made their start, after coming to office, and decided rightly to increase Civil Defence capacity, they made the mistake of linking Civil Defence with their defence policy, even arguing that Civil Defence would increase the credibility of the independent nuclear deterrent and stressing that Civil Defence could make a contribution to saving life even in a nuclear holocaust.
Predictably, the reaction of CND and elements of the Labour Party was equally divisive and equally polarised. We had a situation typical of our confrontation politics. On the one hand, on the Left, we had non-co-operation, obstruction, rhetoric and hysteria, and on the Right, frustration, anger and attempts at coercion. Today, we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Mishcon, a wholly different tone of voice and a wholly different substance in their speeches. I have no doubt that when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replies he will say a great deal that will be generally acceptable on both sides of the House. If only Ministers had spoken in that tone and in that language from the beginning, Civil Defence might now enjoy solid and non-partisan support throughout the country which, by its very nature, it particularly needs and particularly deserves.
However, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is nothing very non-partisan about the attitude to Civil Defence of the GLC, of Manchester, of Sheffield and of some other socialist councils, which was not fully explained by the Labour spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Those of us who are citizens of London live today in a nuclear-free zone as, during the war, did the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No doubt, there are Londoners who feel safer and who feel grateful to Mr. Livingstone and his fellow defence experts at County Hall.
On these Benches, we share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the antics of some of these extreme Left councils. However, I am bound to say, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, that we question the right of the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to complain about the antics of these councils. After all, it is they and their party who are responsible for them being there. It is they who have insisted on local authorities being elected by a system that enables them to be taken over by these small groups of crackpot Marxists. No other electoral system in the world could have produced councils against which noble Lords opposite so often flail.

1087
Of course, they will defend themselves. They will claim in extenuation that the same system enables their party to get a very large number of parliamentary seats with a very small vote. That will be their defence and a very strong argument from their point of view. But they must learn to take the rough with the smooth. An electoral system which produces twisted results in favour of the Right will also produce twisted results in favour of the Left, and they must take their medicine a little better than they have done so far.
My noble friends and I certainly deplore the attitude of certain councils to Civil Defence. Their indiscriminate attacks on anything to do with nuclear deterrence leads them to undermine essential elements of Civil Defence. I should like to quote to noble Lords a rather symbolic illustration of this point, reported in the Guardian yesterday. It is headed:
"CND men set fire to wrong radio mast".
It says:
"Three peace campaigners were yesterday gaoled for starting a fire at what they believed to be part of the Fylingdales nuclear early warning centre.
"The former military radio mast was in fact an important communications link for the civil emergency services across two counties.
"The night attack on the installation … succeeded in knocking out eight radio channels used by fire and police forces and caused over £228,000 worth of damage.
"The secretary of the Pocklington branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament … was gaoled for three years".
I think this picturesque tale illustrates quite well some of the characteristics of CND: blind fanaticism, disregard for law and order, and breathtaking incompetence.
However, it would be a mistake to think that opposition to Civil Defence from the extreme Left arises only from opposition to nuclear weapons. There are deeper reasons, too. For example, in the current journal of CND, called Sanity, there is an appeal to members to campaign against the latest Civil Defence exercise, called Wintex. It is in these terms:
"The systems which already exist for use in a 'civil emergency' were developed during the 1970s in response to industrial disputes; the Regional Emergency Committees … were first set up during the `winter of discontent' in 1978 to deal with the road haulage strike. The most recent example is the development of Police Support Units … at the moment being used in the miners' strike".
There is no mention at all anywhere in this article, this appeal for campaigning, of nuclear questions. Opposition to nuclear deterrence is one reason for CND's obstruction of Civil Defence, but support for strikes is another reason, as one would expect in an organisation which is so vulnerable to manipulation by the hard Left.
I now turn to the question as to whether the scale of the Government's proposals is sufficient. We shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say, but, if I can make a prediction, it will be this. He will list a very large number of possible contingencies which he wishes Civil Defence to try to meet. He will list a very large, wide scale of duties imposed upon Civil Defence; and when he comes to the amount of money the Government are going to produce for these the amount that he names will bear no relation whatever to the tasks he has laid upon Civil Defence. I make this prediction. I do not know what
1088
the noble Lord the Minister is going to say, but he had better alter his speech quickly if he is not to make a very poor impression on the House for under-budgeting the tasks he is going to lay down for Civil Defence.
Of course, the Government must be given credit for increasing the scale of Civil Defence since they took over. From 1974 to 1978 the Labour Government actually halved, in real terms, the amount of resources devoted to Civil Defence in this country. When the present Government came in, of course they were right to see that a major increase was necessary. I agree entirely that it is difficult to estimate how much is needed in the way of resources. It is very true about Civil Defence that it is impossible to do nothing, and it is impossible to do as much as is necessary. That is the truth, unfortunately, about Civil Defence, but my judgment is that the £80 million or so we are going to have talked about by the Minister will be nothing like enough for the tasks which he sets himself.
Finally, I think I must pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Frankly, while we wholly endorse the broad approach of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—the broad approach which says there is a large range of civil emergencies which we must be prepared to try to cope with; and also conventional war—I think my noble friends and myself would like it to be made clear that there is also a need to look at the nuclear side of Civil Defence. Obviously, in the case of a nuclear holocaust the effectiveness of Civil Defence will be vastly limited; nobody can doubt that at all.
But—I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular—suppose, much less improbably, we had a single nuclear bomb fall on this country, either by accident or by demonstration. Then an effective Civil Defence organisation could be immensely important in terms of limiting suffering: it must be so. I am sure that in those circumstances many people in areas which had not been hit would want to do everything they could to reduce the suffering of those on the fringe areas and to take the advice of Civil Defence organisations. I am sure that is so. What is more, I am sure that among those people who would want to help would be many members of CND and of the Labour Party—I am almost sure of that. But of course the tragedy is that nothing they did then could make up for the damage they would have done to Civil Defence before the emergency arose.
Civil Defence is essentially a humanitarian concept and it can be conscientiously supported by those who oppose as well as those who support the Government's defence policy. In my view, it is time the Conservative and Labour Parties took this point fully aboard and gave CD the unreserved, all-party support which it needs and deserves.
4.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, we are indeed all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for introducing this very important subject in which he has himself such stature for debate in your Lordships' House. When he tabled his Motion, I was already committed later this evening to an engagement which in conscience I could not break. I felt, nevertheless, that I should take this

1089
opportunity of explaining in this House the Government's Civil Defence policy. I hope your Lordships will understand my difficulty. I assure your Lordships that I shall study with the greatest care all that is said in as much of the later stages of this debate as circumstances may compel me, regretfully, to miss.
The first thing that needs to be established in this debate, and to be understood without a shadow of doubt, is that Civil Defence is something which this country does need and must have. People put up a lot of clever and sophisticated arguments to try to prove the opposite. I do not expect your Lordships to be convinced by them because your Lordships will see through them to the stark and simple facts as they are; but there are others whom they seek to persuade, and they, too, should know the facts.
We do not in any way think a war is probable, let alone imminent, but the first fact is that no government—not this Government, not a government made up by the Labour Party, not a government made up by an alliance or two separate splinters of the Social and Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, not even a national government made up of all the parties—can guarantee that this country will never be at war. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked me to be honest with the British people, and the honest facts are these. You can guarantee not to attack other people, but even a child knows that that does not guarantee that others will never attack us.
This is not a military debate. I shall not talk about our military defences, except to say this. We trust in a balance of deterrence in Europe to keep the peace, and so far it has worked. But no matter what system you trust in, even if it is unilateral disarmament or total pacifism—whatever your system—the honest fact is that you cannot be certain that it will always work. There are various ways of fighting wars these days, though basically all of them fall into either the conventional or the nuclear class. But let me assure your Lordships again that, whatever clever and sophisticated people may argue to the contrary, we cannot control—no British Government could control—which sort of war a hostile government might choose to fight in Europe.
Next, there are some people who honestly believe that even if the system broke down and a European war did break out, we have only to say that we would take no part in it to make us absolutely safe. We are sitting on an island of unique strategic importance; but these people believe that the world would respect our neutrality.
For two reasons neutrality offers us no defence at all. I ask your Lordships which European country has the longest and most honourable tradition of unbroken neutrality stretching back through two world wars and beyond?—Switzerland. And which European country has the most elaborate and effective system of Civil Defence? Switzerland. And I could say very much the same things of Sweden. Switzerland and Sweden know that neutrality is no defence. It is a desperately uncertain and unsafe defence in conventional war. In a nuclear war it would be no defence whatever. You do not have to be under a bomb to be at risk; you have to be only down wind of it. It would not take even an
1090
accidental strike on this country to put us at risk; it would take only a change in the weather.
Therefore, one thing cannot, and must not, escape us. The risk is there. It is, thank God, remote, but it will not go away. We must insure against it. My noble friend is right: it is an insurance that we are talking about. Investing in Civil Defence policy does not make it more likely that there will be a war, any more than investing in a fire insurance policy makes it more likely that your house will burn down.
If we do not provide elementary precautions for the British people—and I am being honest with them—we take an astoundingly foolish gamble at the expense of every future generation. These precautions depend largely upon local agencies, local planning and local organisation. That is why Parliament has placed upon local authorities the duty of providing them. That duty is no less than the duty of taking simple precautionary steps to save the lives of the people who elect those authorities to power.
The nature of the precautions is of course determined by the nature of the threat, and your Lordships must at once recognise that it can take a very wide variety of forms. Some people say that we can predict it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, thinks that we claim that we can predict it—I put together with his earlier intervention the Question that he asked me last week. We certainly do no such thing. The paper to which the noble Lord then referred was, as I then said and as I now repeat, not a document for planning policy; it was a document to illustrate a possibility. It was an example, not a criterion. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to dilute the attention of this House further into what is, in fact, an illusion.
As I say, the nature of the precautions is determined by the nature of the threat. We do not predict, but some people say that they can predict that it will be on a scale which, even if it does not involve this country, will extinguish all human life in it. Unlike them, we do not have superhuman powers. We cannot predict the future. All we know is that we do not intend to be the attackers, and that therefore it would not be for us to choose what form an attack should take.
Certainly we acknowledge what is generally called the "nuclear winter theory". This is one of a series of theories that has come forward over the years, and your Lordships can be sure that we are paying close attention to the evaluation that is now being made of it. Scientific opinion is at present honestly divided on it. We shall take a view when more is known, and particularly when we have the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions.
The future for which we must prepare presents us with many alternatives. There is, first of all, the whole range of emergencies that can arise from conventional war, and with most of them we are familiar. Those of us in middle age and above have actually had to face many of them in the past. Beyond those trials are the emergencies that could arise as a result of a nuclear war. In neither case can we know exactly what would happen. We would not choose what sort of weapons were used against us. Nobody would ask us how big they should be or how many targets they should be aimed at; nor can we even be sure that their owners,

1091
having chosen targets, would succeed in hitting them and would not accidentally hit something else altogether.
Therefore, the area affected by single nuclear weapons can now be so large and the unknown variable factors are so large that it is no longer possible to say that this or that part of the country will be safe, and move into it people from other areas that are thought to be less safe. We keep these matters under continous review. But as things stand at present, it is clear that no satisfactory system of mass evacuation is possible.
But other precautions are possible and are effective—not only in conventional attack, but under nuclear attack as well. The life of the country depends upon a complex network of essential supplies and services which would have to be repaired at the points at which they were broken; and before that, even, in a nuclear attack, very many lives would depend upon simple actions and arrangements that can be rendered infinitely more effective by planning them in advance.
That planning has to be flexible because, as I keep on saying, it has to prepare for what is not yet known. As your Lordships know—and as my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed out—Civil Defence provision is at present limited to provision against wartime emergencies. I shall return in a moment to what we are doing and what we intend to do in that regard.
But before I do may I take up my noble friend's extremely important point about peacetime emergencies. We have nothing but the highest praise for the regular emergency services, which we have recently seen so effectively at work. Having on the television screen seen their work so efficiently, so courageously and so compassionately carried out, your Lordships will readily agree that what we already have deals remarkably well with even pretty large and horrible emergencies. I readily acknowledge the efforts of the Devonshire Volunteers, to whom my noble friend, referred. Indeed, 1 must register our great admiration for, and real gratitude to, all the voluntary organisations, including the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the St. John's Ambulance service and the Red Cross, which are forever on call. I do not suggest, nor does my noble friend, that the problems which local authorities have in planning to deal with peacetime emergencies are of exactly the same nature as those involved in planning to alleviate the effects of war.
My noble friend produced a number of very relevant examples and I agree that, for instance, those of Bhopal, Seveso, the west country blizzards and even the east coast floods in this country in 1953 all suggested that the two things have many aspects in common. That is why we put into our election manifesto a commitment to introduce legislation to make resources available for Civil Defence purposes to local authorities to safeguard against peacetime emergencies.
The expertise of the emergency planning teams and the industrial emergency services officers, the emergency plans for such things as emergency feeding and housing and other forms of care, the county and
1092
district emergency centres with their widespread communications links, the well-established liaison arrangements with the police, fire and ambulance services, and the involvement of volunteers already trained to act in grave emergencies, ought also to be available in time of peace, and we remain absolutely committed to legislation. I shall not follow my noble friend into the route by which we achieve it, but we are committed.
We first took office in 1979, 11 years after the old Civil Defence Corps had been stood down and Civil Defence generally was put on a care and maintenance basis. One of our first priorities was to see what needed to be done in order to make effective plans for the country's protection. Following our review, we made more money available for Civil Defence for both central and local government. At that stage, in 1980, we intended expenditure to rise by 60 per cent. over four years, but in fact it has now risen by 100 per cent. in real terms. Today we are spending twice as much in real terms as we spent in 1980—some £77 million. In 1984–85 the amount of grant that we have made available to local authorities has risen to £12·8 million, compared with £10 million in 1983–84.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is looking at me with an expression which will shortly become smug as he realises that I have to some extent fulfilled his prediction. But I can tell him that even this money is not all being taken up. I assure the House that we intend to maintain the planned provision for Civil Defence over the next three years. The Government look to local authorities to take full advantage of these available resources.
As my noble friend has said, additional expenditure on Civil Defence will be disregarded for the purposes of grant abatement. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might have gone further in what was generally and overall a restrained speech for one sitting on his Bench. He could well have recognised not only that but the range of Civil Defence provision that does now rate for 100 per cent. grant as well. If he did, I give him credit for it, and I have used the opportunity to put it on the record again.
When we took over, things were at a low ebb. This growth of expenditure marks a considerable advance. We would make swifter progress if the money we have made available was all being used. But in spite of our encouragement the response has been less than wholehearted and local authorities have often been slow to pick up the funds lying waiting for them on the table.
The Civil Defence regulations require local authorities to make plans for the protection of the civilian population in the event of war. Last May in order to find out how much effective planning had been done and what remained to be done, we issued a questionnaire to the authorities. It asked for detailed information on the state of their planning. A report by the Home Office Civil Defence Adviser analysing the returns to these questionnaires is in the Library of your Lordships' House. It shows that there are wide differences in what has been done by the authorities both in planning and in providing resources. Some authorities have full plans and have done much to implement them by providing emergency headquar

1093
ters, by setting up the necessary communications and other equipment and by training volunteers. Others have made varying degrees of effort but their arrangements cannot be described as satisfactory.
As the next step we have therefore written to each local authority requiring it to have completed its plans by the end of the year. The Civil Defence Adviser will visit individual authorities to discuss their planning with them, and we shall monitor progress extremely closely. When we see what is being done we shall consider carefully whether any further action is needed from central government to increase the pace.
As my noble friend has pointed out, an essential duty required of local authorities is that of organising, training and exercising Civil Defence volunteers. The role of volunteers is crucial. It is also traditional in Civil Defence. Indeed, it is traditional in this country. I mentioned some of those traditions a moment ago. It is vital that in Civil Defence the volunteers should be well-informed, properly trained and fully effective.
As a first step we have set up a Home Office Working Party which includes experienced county emergency planning officers. It has developed a training syllabus for volunteers and we shall issue it to local authorities shortly. It is now going on to work up in the next year or so a complete set of training material for the instruction of volunteers. Not only will the resources of the Civil Defence College remain available for developing volunteer training, but also by combining the post of Co-ordinator of Volunteer Effort in Civil Defence with that of Principal of the college we plan to give a new impetus to volunteer work.
If this country ever was to come under attack a warning of that attack, even if it was very short, could make a very considerable difference indeed to the number of survivors. It is for that reason that we have the United Kingdom Early Warning and Monitoring Organisation. It is largely volunteers who man that organisation through the Royal Observer Corps and the warning teams—over 11,000 people in all. They are a dedicated and efficient force, and I congratulate them and those full-timers who are responsible for organising the system.
The organisation exists to give public warning of an attack and in the event of a nuclear attack they would also give warning of the approach of radioactive fallout and subsequently monitor the intensity of fall-out radiation. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are well on our way to completion of our programme of improvements to the organisation, and I welcome my noble friend's recognition of the strides in this direction. It is now probably at a better state of readiness than that of any other NATO country, and we are now considering how it could be adapted to give warning of conventional and chemical attacks as well.
If this country did suffer a nuclear attack on any scale, then disruption to communications would be very considerable. Just when we needed the most effective direction of co-ordination of effort they would be at their weakest. For a time it would therefore be either difficult or impossible to sustain central control of essential functions. Plans for the wartime decentralisation of the Government are therefore a necessary part of our policy. We have
1094
recently overhauled and improved them. We are therefore also improving the wartime broadcasting service which would be established to ensure the continuation of public broacasting facilities even after large-scale attack.
Beyond the emergency services themselves it involves arrangements for fuel and emergency supplies, housing and other environmental matters, health care, food supplies, and agriculture and so on. Virtually every major Government department therefore has an interest. In the past things have tended to develop piecemeal with emergency plannng representing merely part of what each department does. We have taken two important initiatives here. At the centre we have recently decided to develop a fully co-ordinated central plan embracing all government departments. The first step towards this will be the co-ordination of the Civil Defence expenditure of all government departments, and this will fall to the Home Office. Your Lordships will wish to hear that we shall put these arrangements into effect for the financial year beginning 1986.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out that overlap is wasteful and gaps in provision are dangerous. Our second initiative is therefore at the regional level, and a pilot study in the North-West Region over the next 18 months or two years will explore the scope for improving regional coordination of Civil Defence planning.
A debate like this is useful because it informs your Lordships what is going on. But that is not enough. It is essential that full information is much more widely available. We have now therefore consolidated all the existing guidance on emergency planning to local authorities and will issue it shortly. It will be kept up to date as knowledge and experience develop.
In addition to this consolidated guidance, we intend to put out a number of other documents. These will include general information about Civil Defence, information about weapon effects, information and guidance about protective measures. This series of documents will be backed up by a film on which we are now working. The aim of the film will be to explain just what goes into planning for wartime emergencies, the professional and voluntary effort and skills involved, and the purpose behind them. The information process is a two-way one, and it is essential to involve, as we are doing, the emergency planning officers and the chief executives of local authorities who would have an important function in wartime. Only with their views will ours be complete.
I referred earlier to the 1983 Civil Defence Regulations. Parliament has now required local authorities to make effective defence plans and the Government have recently issued revised guidance. I have sought to show what should need no explanation, that Civil Defence consists simply of planning to save lives and assist survivors. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, accurately pointed that out, and that is only if in spite of the best efforts of this Government and any future government a war should break out.
Therefore, those who opt out of it are opting out of a humanitarian cause directed at helping British men and women and children. Those who do so because they do not like nuclear weapons are like people opting

1095
out of wearing safety belts because they do not like motor-cars. If the population of a borough which has preened itself on doing the minimum gets projected through the windscreen, who will then congratulate the councillors of the day for declaring a nuclear-free zone? It is one thing to play politics with the rules. It is another thing altogether to play politics with lives.
So I conclude that they would have achieved a terrible responsibility by declaring a nuclear-free zone and offering no protection to their citizens whatever. Let me make it clear that. whatever the attitude of individual local authorities, the Government are determined that those responsibilities which have been laid by Parliament on local authorities for emergency planning and provision of resources to protect and care for their people shall be carried out.
As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in an address on 28th November to the annual general meeting of the Society of Industrial Emergency Services Officers—a body of which my noble friend Lord Renton is so appropriately the president—
"We seek no angry arguments or confrontations. We shall set about our task in an orderly, measured way. But we cannot accept that any of our cities or counties should be without the plans and the trained staff which would be necessary for their protection in time of war."
That is our policy and I urge your Lordships to support it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister courteously informed the House that he might not be available for the rest of the debate. May I, I hope with equal courtesy, say that I have a long-standing appointment at seven o'clock which means that I shall have to leave the House at that time? I apologise to your Lordships in advance and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.

Local Government Practices and Procedures
5.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, with the leave and indulgence of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the other place on setting up an inquiry into local government practices and procedures.
The Statement is as follows:
"In the Debate on the Address on 7th November, I said I intended to set up an inquiry into various practices and procedures in local government. Following discussions with the Opposition parties and the local authority associations, I am now in a position to give further information to the House.
"The terms of reference for the Inquiry will be as follows:
To inquire into practices and procedures governing the conduct of local authority business in Great Britain, with particular reference to:
the rights and responsibilities of elected members;
the respective roles of elected members and officers; and
1096
the need to clarify the limits and conditions governing discretionary spending by local authorities,
and to make any necessary recommendations for strengthening the democratic process.
"Within those terms of reference, I am inviting the Committee to pay particular attention to the following issues:

—ensuring proper accountability for decision-taking to elected members and to the electorate generally; and examining possible ways of strengthening local democrary within the existing structure of local government;

—clarifying the status and role of party groups in decision-taking;

—ensuring the proper participation and accountability of individual elected members in the decision-taking process;

—examining any problems of propriety which may arise from members' conflicts of interest, particularly where officers of one council serve as councillors of another;

—considering the merits of the development of full-time councillors; and the related issues of the use of members' allowances and the remuneration of councillors generally;

—reviewing the system of co-option of nonelected members;

—studying officers' relationships, particularly in view of their legal and professional obligations, with elected members and political groups;

—clarifying the limits and conditions governing discretionary spending, including the use of Sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 (and Sections 83 and 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973), for political purposes in local government, or in relation to bodies set up, and largely financed, by local authorities.

"Local government franchise, finance and structure will be outside the terms of reference.
"In view of the growing public concern about the use made by some local authorities of their discretionary powers to engage in overt political campaigning at public expense, I am asking the committee to submit an early interim report on this question. As far as the report as a whole is concerned, I am asking the committee to aim to report within a year.
"It is essential that the inquiry should be both impartial and effective in dealing with these difficult issues. The best way to achieve this is to establish a small committee of people of judgment and ability, headed by a chairman of known integrity. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I therefore propose to appoint a committee of four or five members chosen for the personal contribution which each can make to the wide-ranging subject matter of the inquiry. I am glad to inform the House that Mr. David Widdicombe, QC, has indicated to me that he would be prepared to accept appointment as Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry. Further appointments to the committee, of

1097
which I shall advise the House, will be made shortly".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and say that we on this side of the House feel that it is an important Statement and also a timely one? There has not been a full inquiry into local government, or even a semi-inquiry, since Redcliffe-Maud. Councillors and officers have an increasing burden to bear today which gets more difficult all the time.
The terms of reference are wide-ranging and generally constructive. But there are one or two points on which I should like to comment and questions I should like to ask. Among the terms of reference is:
"the need to clarify the limits and conditions governing discretionary spending by local authorities".
I hope the Minister can assure me that this will not exclude the inquiry from recommending the widening of powers in some areas if that is felt desirable. When discretionary powers under Sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act have been challenged up to now, the courts have always decided in favour of councils. I hope that that will be kept in mind by the committee of inquiry.
When we come to the issues, one of the issues particularly pointed out by the Minister's right honourable friend is:
"examining any problems of propriety which may arise from members' conflicts of interest, particularly where officers of one council serve as councillors of another".
I hope it will be generally recognised that this is a practice which has been going on for a considerable time and is nothing new. Indeed councillors could have conflicts of interest because of the work they do in their own professions. They could be estate agents, builders, farmers—a whole range of people. It is not the case that conflicts could arise only within the council.
It is a great pity that finance has been ruled out, because this is one of the most critical areas—the critical area—of local government. Many of the problems that this Statement sets out to deal with stem from the way local government is financed. We on this side, together with the Alliance, tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Government to agree to an inquiry into finance in local government when the rate-capping Act was going through and also during proceedings on the paving Act.
We are also concerned that the Committee has to concentrate on the issue of political campaigning at public expense so that it can submit an interim report on this. If the committee is to report on the whole inquiry within a year I fear that the political campaigning—an issue which is tied up with a very much wider problem—will have taken up too much of its time. It is rather a pity, although I know the reason, that it was pulled out in this way rather than being dealt with in the general terms of reference with other issues. If this is so, surely consideration should be given to allowing the committee to take another six months if its needs it, so that it can do a proper job. I am in
1098
favour of not allowing committees of inquiry to go on endlessly; but, at the same time, a committee of this sort must be able to do a thorough job and, if it needs another few months, that should be allowed.
The importance of this inquiry to local government—if it is to be, as stated, impartial and effective and, I hope, unbiased—could be very great. If its recommendations are generally accepted and welcomed by local authorities all over England, Scotland and Wales—as it is essential it should be—there could be an improvement in relations between local and central government for which there is a tremendous need today. Relations between central and local government are extremely bad. The problems with local government and central government have created an unfortunate climate of conflict and abrasiveness. If this inquiry is carried on along these lines and can also carry all parties with it, then the contribution to local government could be very valuable. The way in which the committee of inquiry goes about its job and the time and the flexibility that it is allowed are very important.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we would broadly welcome the setting up of the inquiry, and I hope that all local authorities and their associations will play a proper part in it and will give their full co-operation. Like the noble Baroness, my only regret is that the request made so often from the Benches on this side of the House for a proper inquiry into the function, structure and finance of local government was not quite so readily accepted as this present one.
On the rights and responsibilities of elected members and the need for their proper participation and accountability as individual elected members in the decision-making, will this inquiry be able to cover the rights of all members, irrespective of party, to have representation on committees and to have access to all the committee documents with no opportunities for any majority party to lock them out of information and access that is necessary to enable them to do the job for which they were elected? Will the committee be looking, for example, at matters like the Hackney Council case as a possible precedent on which to work?
I believe that it is essential that we have a proper definition of the rights and duties of elected members to make policy and of the responsibility of the officers to ensure that those decisions are fully implemented. It is very important that local authority officers do not become the pawns of any majority party, because their political neutrality over the years has been one of the very great strengths of local government. Will the committee be asked to take a view on the need for political advisers, as such, in local government and how they should be paid? Will it also look at allegations that we have seen from time to time about blatantly political appointments being made in the officer structure?
I am glad that the committee is going to look at discretionary spending. Some of us have felt that some of the grants that have been made have been, to say the least, questionable; and we on these Benches have shown our concern over what we have considered to be gross abuses of power in some authorities. Will the

1099
inquiry be expected to come out with clear, unequivocal guidelines and proposals, perhaps, for limiting the range of discretionary spending?
On the question of co-option, I think we would remain open to persuasion if the committee makes a good case for it. We may not be averse to limited co-option of non-members for their specific expertise and for a limited time; but we should not want to see any means of co-option being used or abused to alter or strengthen the political control of elected councils.
My Lords, will evidence be invited from other people and other bodies and be taken by this committee of inquiry? The noble Lord has said that the report as a whole is to be completed in one year and that the question of discretionary spending is to be the subject of an interim report. Is that the only matter to be included in the interim report? Or are other items in this inquiry expected to be covered? And when may we expect to have the interim report if the full report is expected within one year? Has the Minister any idea at this time when the Government would be likely to be introducing any necessary legislation following receipt of the full report?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their support and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for saying that the inquiry was both an important and timely contribution. To answer some of their specific questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked about paragraph (c) which covers:
"the need to clarify the limits and conditions governing discretionary spending by local authorities".
I think that my best answer to that is to say that I will certainly bring the inquiry's attention to her remarks so that they can have a look at that particular point. While there is nothing new, perhaps in the conflict of interest between an officer serving as a councillor on another council, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this has increased of late, which has put a slightly different emphasis on it.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the financial side of the matter and whether this could not be included. While questions of accountability and the respective roles of members and officers in financial matters will fall well within the scope of the inquiry, it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between the committee's primary concern with the practices and procedures of local government and the local government finance studies which are now being undertaken within the department. While I have no doubt that the committee will wish to keep in touch with the progress of these studies in so far as they are relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, the manner in which this is done must be a matter for the committee itself.
Both noble Baronesses drew attention to the paragraph about the interim report. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I am sure that the committee, if they can produce a report in a shorter time than one year will do so and, similarly, I am sure that, if they find that they cannot do it within a year, they will come and say that they need another month or two. But the year is a guideline which I believe is about the right time. In this interim report the
1100
"discretionary powers to engage in overt political campaigning at public expense"
is the sentence from the Statement which shows what the committee has been asked to look into.
The noble Baroness Lady Stedman asked a series of questions. Certainly on the first one, about rights, the answer is, yes. To the political adverser allegations, the answer is, yes; to clear guidelines, yes. All this I think would be a, "yes". but I do not want to lead the committee into giving attention to things when it may not want to do so. I believe that we all in this House look foward to an impartial and effective inquiry which will he a real benefit to local government.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether this committee of inquiry will receive evidence from other bodies?
The Earl of Avon: I think that the answer is to that is that it certainly may, rather than will.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this Statement. Would he agree that this is the inquiry which is already known as the "abuses inquiry" and will continue to be known as that because it is the abuses that now prevail alas! in a very small number of authorities which have brought this about? Would he agree that this is, indeed, a tragic situation? Would he also agree that, as the noble Baroness opposite said, important as this inquiry is, the radical inquiry into local government finance which his right honourable friend has at last set on foot is even more important and that we shall want to hear about that before very long?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his welcome and also for his support in agreeing that the inquiry is necessary. I agree with him that unfortunately a small number of abuses in a small number of places have led to this rather sizeable inquiry. So far as local government finance is concerned, I can confirm that the studies on this are progressing. In fact, I attended a seminar on it only last weekend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, on that point, I wonder whether I may say that the Minister would of course acknowledge that there is a difference between the internal inquiry into finance which is going on at the moment and the broader and external inquiry into finance in local government to which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman and I were referring.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when I replied to the noble Baroness I very carefully read out the actual wording here so that I should not get it wrong. I hope that she will read Hansard and be happy with it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thoroughly support everything that my noble friend has said from the Alliance Benches. There is one specific area with which I should like the Minister to deal, if he can. That is the question of the local government ombudsman. The noble Lord sitting behind quite rightly said that there were a small number of authorities who abused their powers. One of them was referred to in your Lordships' House some time ago: that is Beverley. The

1101
case of Beverley Minster was debated some time ago on a Motion introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as your Lordships will recall. In that case, the findings of the ombudsman had been ignored on two occasions by that council. Can we have an assurance that this inquiry will look into the role of the Local Government Ombudsman, with the possibility of perhaps giving him rather more teeth to act in those cases where his findings have been totally ignored?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I certainly would not preclude the possibility that the inquiry might wish to consider the role of the ombudsman in the checking of abuses, but I think we should leave that actually to the committee to decide.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question concerning Scotland? May I, first of all, say how much I agree with what has been said about the lack of any inquiry into the finance of local authorities. In the absence of that, I feel that this inquiry will be largely frustrated. May I ask the Minister whether it will be within the powers of the inquiry to inquire into the number of tiers of local government in Scotland? As he will be aware, there has been considerable criticism of the two-tier system in Scotland, not least from his own party. Do I take it therefore that it will be outwith the remit of the inquiry? If not, are they entitled to inquire into it and also into the relationship of the various local authorities in Scotland?
The noble Earl will also be aware that there has recently been a report by the Montgomery Committee regarding the powers of the local authorities and the islands councils. Presumably—may I have this confirmed?—the islands councils will be entitled to make representations to the inquiry on any matters which fall within its remit.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it specifically says in the Statement that the structure will be outside the terms of reference.

Civil Defence
5.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on introducing a debate on this most important subject, and also thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for taking us through the Government's existing policy on Civil Defence. I am not entirely convinced that that policy is yet vigorous or comprehensive enough, especially in the context of whatever action needs to be taken to ensure that local authorities discharge their statutory obligations in the context of Civil Defence.
I shall be brief, as the debate is running late. I want to deal with two points only: they are the two points, I think, which lie at the heart of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. First of all, there is the need for an intelligent and adequate Civil Defence
1102
policy, especially in the context of defence against military attack, including nuclear attack. I am going to concentrate on that rather than on the important question of peacetime disasters. Secondly, there is the role and responsibility of central Government in all matters affecting national security and the relevance of the attitudes of local authorities to this special problem.
First of all, on the need for an adequate home defence policy, I think that some of the doubt for the need for this springs from the famous period of confrontation which was known by some as "mutual assured destruction"—that is to say, the balance of terror—in which both sides believed that they could destroy the other. Out of that came the somewhat curious theory that to provide, in that context, protection for your civilian population was an act of provocation and might destabilise the balance of terror. I never regarded that as a specially convincing or intelligent argument; but that is less important than the fact that the Soviet Union never believed in the balance of terror anyway.
The Soviet Union has always believed, and has said in every strategic work that has been published in the Soviet Union, that nuclear weapons would be used in war. They have pursued in their nuclear strategy a war-fighting doctrine. They have built up throughout the 1970s a massive force of nuclear weapons, a force which is regarded by some experts in this field as giving them the capacity, if they should wish to exercise it, to launch a first nuclear strike against the United States of America and the West.
Whether the first-strike theory is valid or not, the fact remains that in the face of the build-up of Soviet nuclear forces in the 1970s there was an underlined and increased need for the West to maintain a deterrent against such an attack. Deterrence, as your Lordships will be well aware, is nothing new: deterrence is as old as military force. It requires the country which feels itself threatened to pose a credible defence against possible attack in the hope and the belief that that itself will deter a potential enemy from attacking. And an essential component of any deterrent posture is effective defence. That means not only conventional military defence but home defence as well; and no deterrent posture, whatever one's views may be about the validity of nuclear deterrence itself, makes sense unless it contains provisions for protecting the civilian population of your country.
If there is anyone who is still in doubt about that in this country, I can assure your Lordships that there is no one in doubt about it in the Soviet Union, because at the time the Soviet Union was building up its offensive forces in the 1970s it was also engaged in a quite remarkable programme of improvements in its Civil Defence arrangements. In 1972 when General Altunin assumed the responsibilities of Civil Defence in the Soviet Union from Marshal Chuikov, he immediately set about revolutionising the Civil Defence arrangements of the Soviet Union. Between 1972 and today there has been a very systematic and effective programme of Civil Defence in the Soviet Union which has involved plans for the evacuation of essential personnel, the hardening—that is to say, the protection—of important and strategic factory sites, the provision of emergency headquarters, not only for

1103
the central government but in the regions as well, and the provision of population shelters. And anyone who has travelled on that magnificent underground railway system in Moscow will have been impressed by the size and nature of the steel doors that are provided there. Furthermore, there has been behind all that a programme of intensive training of the great mass of the Soviet population in what to do and how to react in time of attack.
Perhaps, with the indulgence of the House, I might simply quote one brief statement from General Altunin, made as recently as 1978. After he had been engaged for five or six years on this programme, he said in a speech in February 1978:
"The main purpose of our Civil Defence is, together with the armed forces, to ensure the population's defence against mass destruction weapons and other means of attack from a likely opponent".
He goes on:
"Nothing, no heartrending cries from idealogists of imperialism, no fabrications of the bourgeois propagandists, can distract us from solving this important task of State and of the whole people".
Whatever may be our failings in this respect in the West, the Soviet Union understands the realities and the uses of military power; and if we in this country, and indeed in the United States of America, tend—as I think we do—to take our responsibilities for the protection of our civilian population too lightly, the Soviet Union does not.
I come now to the second point, which is the role of central Government in all matters affecting national security. Since the early 17th century when Thomas Hobbes wrote his monumental work The Leviathan, it has been a matter of accepted doctrine that the principal role of the sovereign state is to protect and ensure the security of its citizens. It is the primary role of Government. Beside it all else is secondary. Her Majesty's Government are, I think quite rightly, deeply concerned with the problems of national security, and when they have made their arrangements for ensuring our security they have usually made them in the classic centralised way. We have armies, we have navies, we have air forces, we have a central budget, we have now nuclear strike forces, and they are financed and controlled entirely by the central Government.
But I think that the Government have been right in the case of Civil Defence, home defence, to accept that the best way of arranging our Civil Defence is to decentralise it; to make it, for all kinds of administrative and other reasons, the responsibility of local authorities. But this is very largely where the Civil Defence arrangements of this country have broken down, because, as has already been said in this debate, many local authorities have simply refused to discharge their statutory duties in this respect, whereas we have already heard that the 1983 regulations set out, and set out very clearly and in great detail, what local authorities are required to do in the field of Civil Defence, not only in the field of planning but in the field of actual preparation as well.
Many local authorities, as we know, have simply declined to carry out their statutory duties. Many have implemented this lunatic concept of the nuclear-free zone. This has already been referred to and I shall not spend too much time on it, except to say that of course
1104
these local authorities are not nuclear-free zones, except in the sense that those who run them have abdicated the responsibility of providing a defence for the people of their authorities against any form of nuclear or conventional attack.
Local authorities, it seems to me—whatever else they may wish to do with their money or with their people—should not have foreign and defence policies of their own. These are the responsibility of central Government and if these polices and attitudes lead, as they may well do, to a miscalculation by a potential enemy, if a potential enemy believes that we are so ill-advised, ill-informed and ill-intentioned that we will not provide ourselves with a defence against attack, the possibility that they might attack by miscalculation is measurably increased.
I should like to know what these people are going to say when, if our deterrence fails because of weakness and lack of resolution, the bombs begin to fall on Greater London or on some of the municipalities of Wales. Are they going to emerge and say. "I am terribly sorry. There seems to have been some mistake. This is supposed to be a nuclear-free zone"? It will be somewhat late in the day then.
At this stage, perhaps I could just take a moment to refer to something which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I am not quite sure whether he was reflecting his own opinion or quoting from someone else, or even from himself, but I seem to think that he was reflecting a view that, in certain circumstances of all-out nuclear exchange, any attempt to provide a Civil Defence, a home defence capacity, was not only useless but probably misleading and immoral. If he was saying that, I must take the gravest issue with this.
There may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said, many contingencies, many scenarios, ranging from the demonstration attack with a nuclear weapon, through conventional attack, through a limited nuclear exchange; and in certain circumstances, in certain scenarios, it has been calculated by people who have studied this matter with great care and closeness that the difference in the number of casualties in this country, even in the face of a substantial nuclear attack, if we have an effective defence system as against if we do not, may be as high as 16 million.
It seems to me that the insurance policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred is a premium well worth paying if it meant, in the tragic circumstance that our deterrence and our defence policies had failed and we were attacked, that we had taken precautions that would result in the lives of 16 million people being saved. It seems to me that to take that view—I am not suggesting that the noble Lord takes that view himself, but there are those who do—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord has very courteously allowed me to intervene. The point that I was trying to make was this. If it be a fact, as I believe it to be, and as others more knowledgeable than I am believe it to be, that a nuclear holocaust means, quite literally, the extermination of nations of peoples, then the sooner the truth be known and uttered by responsible statesmen the more chance we have of a sensible world seeing that nuclear weapons are destroyed.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I return to my earlier point, that no one knows what would be the result of this or that nuclear scenario. I think it would be foolish if we simply assumed that there was only one scenario, which was universal holocaust and annihilation, and therefore took no action to deal with what might be lesser catastrophes.
That leads me to perhaps the one criticism that I would advance about the Government's attitude to these matters. Once the democratically elected Government of this country have made their views and their policies known about Civil Defence, there must be no argument from local authorities, and if there is argument about it then I believe that the Government have to be firm, resolute and even, if necessary, draconian. There can be no question of compromising with this issue. We cannot leave the defence of this country in time of war to people whose hearts and minds have become so enfeebled that they cannot see the need for protecting the citizens of their country when they are attacked by a hostile state.
Therefore, I think the least that we now have the right to expect from the Government is a clear and coherent policy in which there is the closest cooperation between central and local government in peacetime—not when the war starts, but now. In the contemporary strategic climate which I have described very briefly, it is no good assuming that there will be a comparatively leisurely pre-attack period, in which all the stoical qualities of the British people will be brought into play and we shall have plenty of time to prepare for the worst. There may not be that time, faced with the present Soviet military apparatus.
What we must now have in peacetime are comprehensive plans, centrally formulated and known to local authorities, for all matters such as control of movement, feeding, billeting, shelter, security and emergency powers and these plans have to be communicated clearly and unambiguously to the public. I hope, in passing, that in the information programme which the noble Lord outlined, we shall come out with something better than the pamphlet, Protect and Survive.
The important thing is that local authorities have a vital role to play. They cannot be expected to do so without guidance, but once they have had that guidance they must get on with the job. If they do not get on with the job, then whatever residual powers the Government have to do it for themselves must be exercised; and I suggest that there may even be more drastic measures to be taken against people who, for political ends of their own, are prepared to put at risk the lives of millions of people in this country.
Charles Bohlen, an American diplomat, once said, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there". I hope now that the Government do know where they are going on Civil Defence; we have had no Civil Defence worth the name since 1968. I hope the Government know where they are going; I hope they will make sure that other people know where they are going; and I hope they know that, if they do not go there, they may be in quite serious trouble.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, it is five years all but one month since I first took part in a debate on Civil Defence in your Lordships' House and, in fact, Civil Defence was on that occasion the subject of my maiden speech. I think that we are all deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for bringing hack before our eyes and ears again this very important subject. I am also very grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Elton, for the comprehensive review which he has given us.
In terms of history, when one thinks back to 1968 and the question of putting Civil Defence on a "care and maintenance" basis, one feels that at that time it was probably a sensible thing to do in as much as there seemed to be some possibility of a nuclear balance of power. From that arose what I understand was called the concept of mutually assured destruction—an unpleasant phrase, and, when abbreviated to the word MAD, even more alarming. But I am not arguing that such a military assessment was wrong at that time; my concern is that such little thought was then given to the fact that the military balance could swing away from nuclear parity, as in fact I fear it has done over the past five years.
Time has gone by, but the fundamental decision as to how best to protect the civil population in the event of war is one that has to be squarely faced. Moreover, weapon technology continues to advance and the time may soon be here when in fact there is little difference in destructive power between the nuclear weapon and the so-called conventional weapon. The obvious factor in this equation is the astronomical cost of providing fully comprehensive protection to face a contingency which might never arise. It is attractive to think that it will not; but, my Lords, is it wise to think so?
The present compromise reached is best described in the pamphlet Protect and Survive, which was produced in May 1980 and which remains the standard work on the subject. It can best be summarised as "Stay put, and build an improvised fall-out room and inner refuge in your own home". Such a policy, as has already been stated, does not compare well with the long-term action taken to protect their populations by the two neutral countries of Switzerland and Sweden. We are told that the Swiss already have underground public and private shelters to contain four-fifths of the 6·5 million population and that by the year 2000 all will be covered, even allowing for an expanded population of more than seven million.
The Swedes have been building shelters since the end of the last war. There are what are called "shelter obligation authorities"—a good name which we might well accept—which cover 70 per cent. of the population. Denmark has had a shelter programme since 1950 for both private and public use, and the latter alone are said to be planned to cater for 25 per cent. of the people.
Lest it should be thought to be provocative to a potential aggressor should this country embark on a shelter programme, please let it be remembered that Russia has not ignored the problem of Civil Defence. I need say no more about this because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has covered the matter most

1107
adequately and extremely well. May it suffice to say that I understand that in Russia compulsory annual training in Civil Defence involves some 50 million adults and young people. The disturbing fact is that as successive governments have adopted what I shall call, without I hope being offensive, a "softly, softly" approach to this very difficult problem, all the running has, I fear been left to those whose views at best confuse the public and at worst are very much more dangerous and are destructive of national morale.
I am thinking in this connection of the CND movement which now has, I understand, a membership of more than 100,000. It is a manifestation in political terms which may be mostly noisy and tiresome, but which may nevertheless harbour among its idealists and pacifists forces much more sinister.
What is one to make—this is some time back, and things might have improved—of the policy of an inner London borough whose deputy leader, when asked how many of the borough's staff were engaged on home defence planning, replied, "One". When asked how much his borough spent on home defence, he said, "Between £250 and £300 annually". He then volunteered the information that in his borough people were more interested in social security and new roads than in any bomb. He personally was for peace. At what price, my Lords? Any price?
The most fatuous of all exhortations which I have seen—again, it has been referred to tonight—is that conceived by the GLC, on all of whose vehicles is the message, "Make London nuclear free". That attitude of mind would make the proverbial ostrich jealous for his position as the most stupid of all created beings, if only he could read the message.
Regretfully I have to say that the present Government must take a higher profile over this important matter and also take a firmer line with any recalcitrant local authorities. I was much encouraged to hear my noble friend the Minister say that this indeed was to be the case.
The 1983 Civil Defence regulations contain powers for directing local authorities to prepare evacuation plans. I think that we should look back to 1938 when the assumptions at that time by the Home Office about the behaviour of the population under direct attack proved to be totally inaccurate when war came; and there are very many in your Lordships' House who were witness to the calm courage and the orderliness that was then displayed.
If hostilities were to occur, would not the most likely course be, at least in the early stages of a European war, that our ports and centres of communication would come under attack from conventional weapons? Most of us know from practical experience that limited evacuation in an orderly manner from target areas is quite feasible, and indeed such plans existed until 1968. I wonder in fact what plans there are at the present time.
And, my Lords, Civil Defence is not only concerned with war. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pointed out, there have been civil disasters—one in Canada, one in Bophal, and one in Italy. Nearest in our memories is the frightful tragedy last year in
1108
Bophal, where I understand 100,000 survivors had to be evacuated. So please let us not turn our backs on the possibility that, for one reason or another, evacuation might be appropriate in an emergency in this country. Let us have positive contingency planning of evacuation and reception areas.
I well know that the financial restraints of the past two decades have put into the background any thought of a comprehensive shelter policy. It is, however, little short of tragic in my view that, with so much commercial re-development taking place, successive British Governments have not followed the example of the Swiss and Swedish governments in whose countries it has been obligatory upon the owner of a new industrial or commercial building to provide a shelter at a cost shared between the owner and the state. For public shelters in Switzerland the local authorities pay 70 per cent. and central government the balance. I understand that rather similar powers were taken by Denmark in 1950.
I am not suggesting that there should suddenly be in the United Kingdom an enormous capital programme of public expenditure on bomb-proof shelters. Were I to suggest such a thing, I should be put to scorn and would probably be in severe trouble with my own party. Just to illustrate my point, to date the Swiss have spent £1.8 billion on shelters and still expend some £140 million annually. On the other hand, there is much that could be done and now should be done. The Government have the power to ask local authorities to identify buildings which could be used as public shelters, but I am told there has been some vagueness about specification and the numbers required. I hope my information is wrong, and shall be pleased to hear if that is so.
There should be earmarking of all underground transport systems, car parks, disused tunnels and basements of modem buildings for the protection of highway users. In residential areas, those houses which have cellars should also be earmarked. These planning precautions, so far as they are practicable, should not be confined to major urban areas but ought to include all localities, even in the countryside, which are perceived to be in a zone in danger from nuclear fallout. All these matters could be easily accomplished within the manpower establishment of local authorities as it exists at present, and I would suggest at comparatively small cost.
For the future, there should be a much more positive approach to the problem. I should like to see legislation which would require all new public buildings, factories, shops and blocks of residential flats to incorporate a shelter at a cost of not more than 5 per cent. of the total building, excluding the price of the land. If there cannot be a proportionate outright grant from the state towards the cost, then let there he at least an interest-free loan or a tax concession offered. It is sad to think that this opportunity was missed those 20 years ago.
The hard fact is that the official calculation on the basis of family units staying put in their homes with improvised shelters in a nuclear attack would be in the order of a 40 per cent. casualty figure overall. If, however, we have properly constructed bomb-proof shelters, the casualty figure would fall to 20 per cent.

1109
overall. Nobody can be certain about anything in such grim circumstances, but the general public will never have much faith in any policy which does not do all that is feasible to protect the individual.
I will end with a most solemn thought and question. If a nation has an adequate and efficient home defence in all its aspects, does not this knowledge, at a time of grave crisis, reinforce the will of a Government and enable them to take courageous, as opposed to appeasing, political decisions? As a nation we do not lack courage, but the quotation comes to mind:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
5.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for introducing this important debate. He has drawn attention to the fact that, as at present conceived, Civil Defence in this country is an absurdity. The chaos stems from total confusion about the purposes of Civil Defence. At the beginning there was a pretence that Civil Defence could make a real contribution in protecting the population against the consequences of nuclear war. The purpose of that pretence was to persuade the population to accept Britain's participation in the nuclear war game. It was successful. Successive governments accepted—sometimes secretly, before they were discovered in one form or another—the hydrogen bomb, Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and the establishment of American nuclear bases in this country. So, as has been said, we have become an unsinkable aircraft-carrier attached to the United States of America and her military forces.
Those policies could not have been followed had it been widely appreciated at the time that there was no real defence against the weapons with which this country was arming itself; in particular, that there was no defence in a small country of our size and of our geographical position. It was only later, when we were thoroughly launched into the nuclear age and totally committed to it, that fatalism began to set in. People began to feel, "We are in it now, and there's nothing we can do".
Nearly 30 years ago I stood for election to the old London County Council for Stoke Newington and Hackney North. My election address contained a promise to get rid of the Civil Defence Corps (as it then was) on the grounds that it was part of the pretence to persuade people that nuclear war could be survived. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be interested to know—because we agree about this—that in the following LCC debate that I initiated I suggested in the wording of the motion itself, that the corps, instead of being abolished, should be converted into a civil emergency corps. I believe that proposal is precisely in accordance with at least one aspect of the noble Lord's remarks. That particular advice was not followed. I must say that that was not the only time in my career that my advice was not followed. Generally, those who have failed to follow my advice have been wrong, but there it is: in a democracy people have a right to be wrong as well as a right to be right.
Subsequently, Civil Defence was abolished in London. Later, after I entered the House of Commons
1110
in 1964, the Civil Defence Corps was abolished nationally. The actual words were "stood down", but it seemed to me to be pretty near abolition as far as I could judge. Certainly the corps was left no functions and no personnel—and that made it virtually nonexistent. But there was left behind a Civil Defence framework. Although it no longer had any manpower, it became almost a propaganda body; an organisation for officers without troops which had little function beyond pretending that it could carry out duties it had no means of fulfilling. It was this which helped to bring about the rebellion among local authorities.
Local authorities found themselves charged with the duty of pretending to provide protection which they had no means of providing; of erecting a framework without any substance and without any reality. It seemed to them—and I believe they were right—that they were employed and engaged to be part of a propaganda machine to keep the public quiet. But the removal of its own rank and file from Civil Defence was not followed by the banning of the bomb, as I freely admit I hoped it would be and advocated that it should be. Then we found ourselves in the present absurd situation, in which we are wholly committed to a weapon and are up to our eyebrows in a weapon which, on the other hand, we admit we cannot possibly survive if it is used against us.
Since the regional organisation of Civil Defence remained, however, they naturally began to search for some justification for their existence. People cannot be paid salaries for too long without beginning to wonder why they are getting that money. When the Conservatives returned to power in 1970, they strengthened the framework under the name of Home Defence and recreated a volunteer body of people to warn the rest of us of our nuclear fate—to give us advance warning, as it is called, though precisely what the purpose is of that advance warning is not entirely clear. Althouth we may be warned, it seems that there will be little if anything we can do, after we have received that warning, to escape almost inevitable doom.
Presumably, it is still hoped that there may be some people capable of being enthused about the bomb instead of the sad aceptance of forthcoming extinction, which is now becoming so widespread. I regret this widespread pessimism—to which I may have contributed to some degree, as much as anyone does—because I should like to see that pessimism directed towards an absolute determination for a tremendous growth of the CND and an absolute determination to rid this country, and eventually the world as a whole, of the threat of nuclear weapons. It is that direction in which we should move, as has been made abundantly clear from our own Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
Deprived of reality, the home defence assumptions have now turned upon themselves. Protection is out; it is no longer suggested that much is possible in that direction. Evacuation is out; it may well exist in the large spaces of the Soviet Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested, but certainly no one is suggesting that bulk evacuation is possible here. But what is in are two words which are continually being used—"repression" and "mitigation". It is assumed that any attack will almost certainly be nuclear,

1111
although greater emphasis is placed on the need to plan for other eventualities. But the staff college assumptions—the assumptions of Sir Leslie Mayor—are nuclear assumptions. The other possibilities, in his mind, at any rate, are entirely secondary. Therefore, the staff college assumption is for a nuclear attack and, furthermore, a major nuclear attack. That is precisely the kind of attack which we can do very little about.
That is the nature of our dilemma. It is not an easy one. Substantial sums of money have been spent on creating an alternative subterranean government machine at all levels. There is an alternative government ready to take over in all parts of the country at national, regional and sub-regional levels. The emphasis is on penalty and punishment; on keeping the civil population—which is assumed to be in panic, and no doubt will be—under some form of effective control. I think that is understandable because, for example, the doctors have made it clear that healing will be impossible. Therefore, if one can do little to preserve the population, one must try to keep the remnants of it under some degree of control. The burial of the dead figures very substantially in the Home Office defence arrangements for the post-nuclear situation. Nothing much is said about the living or about the wounded, the injured. The concentration appears to be upon the dead.
The Royal Observer Corps (of which I was once a member when it was the Observer Corps before it became Royal) performed a most valuable task in the last war without which the Battle of Britain could not have been won. However, it is now mainly a warning service. If anyone wants to survive a nuclear attack and linger a little longer in the appalling conditions that would follow a major nuclear attack, I advise him to join the Royal Observer Corps because if he is in one of their units which are spread around the country, he will be able to survive underground in a bunker for a little longer. Personally. I would not envy him. I would not want to join the Royal Observer Corps today, even if I were young enough to do so.
In short, Civil Defence—home defence—can do little in a nuclear war. Those local authorities which are refusing to take part in what they regard as a farce are right. Let me say it again, and finally: our concentration should be on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, not on pretending that nuclear war is survivable.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find I can agree—and it is a pleasant experience—with at least one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in his speech. It is that not only the House, but also the country owes a great deal to my noble friend Lord Renton for raising this immensely important subject this afternoon. I add also that, as some of us know, my noble friend's concern with Civil Defence goes back many years. He did tremendous work, when he was a Home Office Minister, in trying to get that not always dynamic department—I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying that—a little more active in these matters. Over the years he has done much good work in drawing public attention to the needs of this very important topic.
1112
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is no longer here because I wanted to cast a bouquet at him. I was delighted at the adroitness with which he dragged into a debate on Civil Defence his wonderful King Charles's head of proportional representation. I confess that I am running a book with one of my noble friends on the number of occasions when Liberal spokesmen introduce PR in circumstances that are wholly irrelevant. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has put me one point up this afternoon.
I come at once to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who I have known, of course, for many years; not least when we represented, in different interests, adjoining constituencies to the south-west of London. He will no doubt recall how good Conservative workers from my constituency time and again made tremendous invasions into his constituency, with a view to eliminating him, while workers from his constituency made comparable efforts to oust me; but both groups of workers were unsuccessful.
However, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say that his speech really reveals the nakedness of the line he has been taking with enormous persistency at Question Time. It is—and his argument has been perfectly simple—that because in a full-scale nuclear attack there would be enormous casualties, which nobody in this House wants, it is useless to have Civil Defence for any purpose whatever. That is his argument. Indeed, he went on to say—I took down what he said—that Civil Defence was introduced merely as a pretence, to persuade people to accept Britain's participation in nuclear war.
Let us analyse that. How does the noble Lord think that the provision of Civil Defence here is going to affect the Russian decision whether to use the massive armoury of nuclear weapons which, at enormous expense and at great cost to the standard of life of the population, the Russians have been accumulating?
What the noble Lord means, of course, is that he wishes to see—he used his famous expression "Banning the bomb"—the British nuclear weapon eliminated. He knows perfectly well that gestures of the kind he means will not for one moment affect the Russian decision to build up an enormous armoury of these weapons and to use it if it suits their purpose. I see the noble Lord wishes to intervene and I shall give way to him in a moment, but perhaps he will allow me to finish this line of thought, which will no doubt facilitate his intervention.
If Britain strips itself deliberately of any means of mitigating, however modestly, the effect of a nuclear attack upon it, is that not much more an encouragement to an aggressor to use it than a deterrent? Does it not indeed go further? If we in this country are seen, and manifestly seen, not to be preparing any means of defence against a nuclear exchange, will not even the simplest of the old gentlemen who govern in the Kremlin come to the conclusion that we would be soft: we would never in fact, however provoked, however attacked, retaliate in kind? Surely that is the important consideration here. If the noble Lord wants to intervene I am at his disposal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think that I shall

1113
take up the time of the House by dealing with any of the points that he has made, except just to make one point. He is entitled to say what I said, but when he tells me what I mean by what I said, what he is really saying is what he thinks I mean by what I said. None of the things that he thinks that I mean by what I said are those things which I personally mean by what I said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is the most beautiful crossword, but it does not get the noble Lord off the hook. I have quoted what he said. I have tried to the best of my ability to see whether there is any logic in it at all. I think that the House on the whole is inclined to take the view that there is not; that this is really arrant nonsense. The motive that actuates the noble Lord in putting this forward is a matter for him. But the idea that by stripping this country of any means of mitigating the effect of a nuclear attack we are in some mysterious way discouraging, rather than encouraging, a possible aggressor who has many of those weapons from using them really seems to pass from the realms of human logic into at least the outskirts of insanity.
The same applies to these famous nuclear-free zones. There is the wonderful self-delusion, the childish, "Let's pretend". Let us pretend that there is not a nuclear bomb. Let us pretend that it could never be dropped on us. That is what declaring an area (a borough) a nuclear-free zone involves. Let us try to visualise the scenario in the minds of those who say that which they think takes place in the Kremlin. There in the operations room are gathered the chiefs of staffs of the Russian forces, men who control enormous armies, an enormous air force, submarines and nuclear weapons, missiles of every sort—intercontinental, shorter range, and so on. They see them gathered round a map of the United Kingdom, saying—this is apparently the illusion—"Oh, well, you see, we can't bomb Sheffield because Councillor Blunkett has declared it a nuclear-free zone"!
Is that really realistic? Does the noble Lord—does anybody outside Colney Hatch asylum, or even inside—think that the Russian mentality is like that? It is sheer self-deceit, and it is very dangerous self-deceit. It is designed by some people who no doubt have the wish—if I may slightly alter the quotation—
"Travailler pour le Roi de Russie."
It is designed to appeal to people who are genuinely, as we all are, horrified by the prospect of nuclear bombardment and make them think that in some way it can be put into non-being, into non-existence, by declaring Sheffield, Cleveland or the Greater London Council area a nuclear-free zone. That is absolute nonsense. In my view, people who adopt that line are unfit for any measure of public responsibility. Even if the noble Lord is right that an all-out nuclear attack would leave very little surviving—and even that is far from proven—there are so many other contingencies for which Civil Defence is required that to concentrate on this is irrelevant.
It is the whole of the noble Lord's attitude that struck a reminiscent chord in my mind. We have seen all this attitude before, We saw it in the 1930s with the
1114
Peace Pledge Union—with the people who said that the bomber would always get through, we could not resist, it was useless to arm; we saw it with a Labour Party which as late as April 1939 voted against compulsory National Service, with the Hitler menace looming ever larger over Europe. I thought that I should get the noble Lord up on his feet—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord is endeavouring to state history to the House, will he kindly remember his colleagues who were appeasing in 1939 in regard to the very Herr Hitler he has just mentioned?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that that is a travesty of the facts, and he knows that the fact that we had just sufficient arms to bring us through to ultimate victory was due to the Government of the day—still the National Government of the day, with Conservatives and, I am happy to say, many Liberals in it. Every measure that they put forward to increase the Air Force and to introduce, as I have said, compulsory military service only a few months before the outbreak of war, was opposed by those who then led the Labour Party—continually opposed. If they had had their way, we should either not have gone into the war then and been mopped up later on without difficulty by Hitler, or, alternatively, we should have gone in and been beaten. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would wait a moment, I am dealing with his noble friend on the Front Bench. The less that members of the Labour Party decide to reminisce about their behaviour in the years preceding the war, or about anybody else's behaviour, the better for them, I think. Does the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, want to say something? No, he does not.
Lord Mishcon: But I do, my Lords. We must not continue this for too long. I only wish—and possibly it is a dream—that Sir Winston Churchill had been a Member of this House and at this time could echo his voice in the Chamber. He would not have been very happy, bearing in mind his attempts to convince his colleagues of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been saying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am happy to hear any tribute to the greatest man I ever met, and, I am proud to say, served under, even from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But the fact remains that Mr. Churchill, as he then was, rightly pressed the Government of the day to go far further in the matter of national defence. I am happy and proud to say that my father, as a Member of another place, supported him in that—a fact which has given me pride all through. The Labour Party hampered the admittedly less than adequate efforts that the Government of that day were making—and I am no defender of Mr. Neville Chamberlain and his activities. I think he made many mistakes. But at least he did something to provide us with just enough by way of defence, and the Labour Party did its best to stop him—
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I promised to give way to the noble Lord, but I am not going to again—
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord should not harp on this then.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we have before been through the experience of those who say it is useless to provide for defence. Those of us who have lived through that before and seen the troubles that it brought on this country, do not, I think, want to see it repeated.
The provision of Civil Defence is to cope with every sort of possibility. There is the all-out nuclear defence attack that we have been talking about. Then there is the single nuclear bomb. Your Lordships will recall that the only time the bomb has been used in war was in Japan, when only two bombs were put down. If two bombs were put on this country, Civil Defence could do an immense amount to save life. Alternatively, it may be—and this is a rather horrifying thought, but your Lordships, I think, have to face it—that one day one of the international terrorist organisation, whether based in Russia, Libya, Cuba or wherever it may be, may place a nuclear weapon in some area in this country. If that were to happen, could not tremendous value be achieved by an effective Civil Defence service?
What about a chemical attack on this country—chemical warfare? It is well known that although we are not, as I understand it, making any preparations to undertake such a war, the Russians have spent a great deal of money on it. They might well use it, instead of a nuclear attack, in the hope that they would thereby avoid nuclear retaliation. Civil Defence could do a great deal in that contingency.
Or there is so-called conventional war. Some people in this country are apt to shrug off conventional war as if it were just an agreeable outdoor sport. Those of us who have lived through one—and there are one or two people in this House, including my noble friend Lord Stockton, who have lived through two—know that it is a very terrible thing and that great damage can be caused, as was caused in this country by ordinary bombing with high explosives by the Germans between 1940, when they started bombing, and the end of the war. In all these situations an effective Civil Defence organisation would be of priceless value.
Then we come to the final point, which I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Renton pressed, of making sure that the Civil Defence organisation is slotted into our preparation for general civil emergencies of whatever kind may arise. On this, I have a slight bone to pick with my noble friend and the Government. It was in our party's election manifesto at the last election that legislation would be introduced to amend the 1948 Act to enable the full apparatus of Civil Defence and the money spent on it to be used to deal with a civil emergency. With a subject of that importance, and now nearly two years into a Parliament. it really is not good enough to say, "Oh, well, if a Private Member's Bill comes forward, that would be a very nice way of doing it". The Government really must take responsibility for that legislation. As my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, if there is pressure on Parliamentary time there are other measures now before us which are of considerably less significance and importance. If my noble friend wants an example, if he were to dump the
1116
Insolvency Bill, at any rate for this Session, I think he would probably bring about a great deal of relief in many quarters of the House and that would give ample time for this legislation, which is a measure of very great importance.
The only other thing I want to do is to echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in that absolutely magnificent speech of his, and it is this. We are dealing here with issues of national defence and with the protection of the lives, in certain contingencies, of millions of our fellow countrymen. If any public authority, any local authority, defies the law of Parliament, laid down by Parliament, as to its duties to make provision there, it becomes, I suggest to your Lordships. the duty of the Government to use every means and their fullest authority to ensure that that work is done. Even if it involved suspending that local authority and sending in a commissioner, I hope the Government would not hesitate. Parliament has placed this duty—and it is a major duty—upon the public authorities, but it is the duty of the Government and of nobody else to ensure that that duty is carried out, if not by those on whom it is imposed in the first place then by somebody else who will do it.
I hope that my noble friend, when she replies—and I know from experience that her replies are never lacking in vigour and precision—will indicate, first, that the Government are clear that a local authority which does not do its duty in this respect will be appropriately dealt with; and, secondly, that the Government will be introducing legislation to clear up the problem I mentioned as to the 1948 Act. We are discussing what in certain contingencies (not, I hope, likely, but no one can say they are impossible) could perhaps be the most important subject of all. Your Lordships' House, with its varied experience, speaks with very considerable authority, and I hope that the effect of this debate may be that something really effective will be done, and done quickly.
6.24 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, it is by no means as a matter of form or as a matter of course that I wish to add my congratulations and expression of appreciation on the achievement of my noble friend Lord Renton in introducing this debate. I wish to say something else about that, and it is this. If I did not know him to be a man of almost infinite patience and good nature, I should suspect him of resentment at the introduction into this debate of three totally unnecessary Statements.
Practically everything that I had it in mind to say has been said, and said a great deal better than I should have said it. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat it. It has been said very largely by my noble friend who has just sat down, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It has also been said by almost everybody else, though not quite.
At the risk of seeming to introduce a slightly harsh note into what is meant to be (so far, anyway) a benign discourse, may I strike a very slight note of disappointment at the word used at the conclusion of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? The noble Lord speaks always with the greatest of courtesy and, the greatest of fluency. He very often argues with

1117
a considerable closeness, and totally unable to be misunderstood. He does not (to use a phrase that he himself used about the speech of another noble Lord who spoke earlier in the debate) lack certain subtlety at times. No doubt he knows the value of having the last word—the tag, the pay-off. I cannot imagine any competent barrister who is not aware of this. not least one like the noble Lord himself. It seems to me a pity that the last word he used in his speech this afternoon was "holocaust". It is a pity that he should leave in some minds, I think, a suspicion that he regarded the ultimate fate of this country, if war should break out, as a nuclear holocaust. It is a pity because, if I may say so without impertinence, preceding this there was so much to be admired in the course of his speech.
I think it is a pity also because his noble friend who was sitting quite close beside him—I seem to recollect that there was a noble Lord sitting there—may have picked up this word and have heard nothing else. I do not think that noble Lord is here any more. I mean the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. He has managed to get through this debate without apparently listening to a single speech. That is a very unusual feat. Apart from that, the noble Lord does not appear to have read the terms of the debate as written on the Order Paper. I need hardly read those words out to your Lordships. They refer to,
"the duty of central Government and of local authorities to deal with peacetime emergencies, and to provide Civil Defence in case of conventional, biological, chemical or nuclear attack",
and so on. The noble Lord did not notice any of that. He spoke of nothing but full-scale nuclear attack, which, according to him, is what the Government actually expect (and expect nothing else) and is what we are proposing to defend ourselves against.
What the Government have said recently in their latest emergency services note from the Home Office is:
"The United Kingdom must be prepared for a period of conventional war in Europe, but a war of this kind would probably last only a matter of weeks at most. It would not necessarily escalate into nuclear exchange because efforts to bring it to an end might be successful at the conventional stage",
and so on. The next paragraph begins with the words:
"It is expected that the main threat to the United Kingdom would be from conventional air attacks".
That is quite a long way from the total holocaust envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and by his noble friend Lord Mishcon.
I do not know from where the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, got this idea, but he also said that there is no defence against the weapons with which this country is arming itself—the bomb, the machine gun and the main battle-tank. I join my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in wondering what on earth one can say about such a man as the noble Lord. To be quite candid, I think that my noble friend was a little hard on the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. There was my noble friend standing up and, in his beautifully-delivered manner, trying to find logic in what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, had said. We have known the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for a long time now, and nobody seriously expects to find any logic at all in anything he says; it is unreasonable. Above all, it is unreasonable when it comes to what my noble friend (or I think it
1118
may have been the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont) described as the "lunatic concept of the nuclear-free zone".
I saw the words "Nuclear-Free Zone" not long ago in London written on the side of a railway bridge under which I was driving. They appeared to have been written by a man hanging by his ankles from the parapet, using a brush dipped in tar and held between his teeth. I wondered for a minute what the words "nuclear-free zone" were intended to mean. Had they been written perhaps by the mayor of the borough in an off-duty moment after dinner? I pondered upon what was the point of this curious graffito. What was it supposed to mean? I pulled myself up and realised, of course, that it means and is meant to mean nothing. It indicates an attitude of mind. I cannot help feeling that an attitude of mind that can express itself in this curious scrawl of meaningless words tends to verge upon the woolly.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not here. I shall, however, say these things whether he is here or not. That is his fault, not mine. We should not take seriously anything that people of his persuasion say. But, my Lords. such remarks are taken seriously. They are, in fact, dangerous. It is all very well for us to sit here and laugh because we can see what is funny, silly and stupid. But there is a great danger. Many people actually take such remarks seriously. It is quite wrong for anyone to get up and talk in this manner. Whatever I might say in a rather frivolous manner, the fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, knows perfectly well what he is talking about and he has no right to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, took exception to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter which I cannot repeat verbatim. It was to do with what he thought he had said or what was going on in his mind when he said it and that kind of thing. I recall some remarks that he made on 31st January in this Chamber. In a supplementary question addressed to my noble friend Lord Elton, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked:
"My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, having been to Leningrad, I found that they had made no preparations whatsoever for Civil Defence, taking the view that no civil defence was possible in the nuclear age?"
I shall not say what I think the noble Lord meant in saying that. I prefer not to do so. It is very disagreeable. Does the noble Lord mean us to suppose that there is no civil defence to be found in Leningrad, which has the reputation of having the most advanced civil defence on earth? Is he telling us that he walked round Leningrad with his head in the air and happened not to notice it? Does he really believe that it is not there? Or is he simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that things are not as they are? I ask the questions. I leave them floating in the air. I should also like to quote, for the guidance of noble Lords who wish to work it out, the next sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. He asked:
"Would it not be better if the noble Lord were to take a similar view?"—[Official Report, 31/1/85; col. 741.]
The noble Lord is using the argument that he did not see any civil defence arrangements in Leningrad in order to persuade the Government not to have them here. That is enough of that!

1119
I heartily applaud, as did my noble friend just now, the expressed intention of the Government of legislating to bring the provisions of the Civil Defence Act into a wider field so that the provisions contained in the Act can be used for the protection of the country and its people in times of peace. I am a little worried about the timescale envisaged in the circular issued by the Home Office, which states that plans must be capable of being implemented at seven days' notice. I should like to know from my noble friend Lady Trumpington when she replies what is the biggest and most elaborate plan that can be put into effect in that time. Can you organise, for instance, an entire auxiliary fire service? This short-time scale is a little disquieting. If services are to be provided at seven days' notice, those involved must be trained, organised and actually in being, ready to go into practice.
With that question and that proviso, I hope that the debate will be an encouragement to the Government to produce legislation of their own and to forget any idea of leaving it to private Members. Private Members depend on the Government for their safety and protection, and I hope that the Government will not be backward.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for bringing forward this important subject. I should like to say a few words on the subject of food and agriculture in relation to Civil Defence. Although my waistcoat is not of such a gallant hue as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I incline to agree with him that, probably, one of these days, the human race will blow itself to bits. All traditional cosmology tends to this view. Indeed, it may be a fitting end to the selfish and greedy society we live in. If, in the immortal words of that poet and philosopher Tom Lehrer, "We all go together when we go", there is no problem. But Civil Defence is, I think, concerned with a different scenario. The object of Civil Defence is to minimise human suffering and to save lives in a lesser disaster.
In the case of agriculture, localised disasters, even on the scale of the accident at Bhopal, are not very significant because activity in agriculture is so widespread. Similarly, disasters which are limited in time are not likely to affect agriculture too seriously. They might have a serious effect on intensive livestock units and dairies where the failure of electricity supplies could have an immediate effect, but in any case many such organisations have standby generators. It is, however, perhaps worth noting that even a short-term disaster could affect urban food supplies if there was no fuel for transport.
A shortage of electric power, fuel or transport would begin to hit agriculture within a week or two. Farming today uses an immense amount of power as well as many other inputs such as fertilisers and agrochemicals which come from outside the farm. Farmers need to think ahead and to be guided as to what they could do under circumstances of the cut-off of supplies from the outside world for a matter of weeks or even months. Dairy units would be particularly hard hit. A shortage of fuel at some critical
1120
seeding time or harvest might be very serious for the arable farmer.
The real problem would arise if food were to begin to run out in the cities, if the water supplies were to become polluted or if an epidemic disease were to break out among the urban population. Then, Civil Defence plans would become of paramount importance. Unless people were evacuated in an orderly fashion, they would just pour out into the countryside. Not only would they need to be evacuated but also they would have to be taught to survive in the countryside without destroying its capacity to produce food.
In any emergency situation where food could not be produced for a period of time, food stocks become critical. In contrast to some continental countries, a large proportion of the crops produced on British farms are stored on the farm. And since United Kingdom farms now meet over 60 per cent. of domestic food consumption, very active measures would have to be taken at short notice to identify foodstocks on farms, to protect them from pollution, looting, pilfering and profiteering, and to requisition and distribute them.
Professor Mellanby has shown us that Britain can feed herself but only if we turn over to a more or less vegetarian diet. In the context of any serious disaster in this country, supplies of food grain and other staple foods would be needed for human consumption and all livestock except those which feed off grass and fodder crops, and perhaps a breeding nucleus, would have to be slaughtered. Arrangements would have to be made for these slaughtered animals to be eaten as food or to be disposed of for hygiene reasons. If the nation's food supplies stored on farms are looted or polluted, then terrible and unnecessary starvation could follow. There would also be a need for dissemination of information and training for farmers and others as to how to produce food under conditions of limited or non-existent fuel and other inputs. Seed stocks must be preserved, and so must a nucleus of livestock for breeding.
A limited nuclear disaster would give rise to these kinds of conditions, but in a more extreme form. Inputs of power, fuel, fertilisers and agro-chemicals would probably be cut off for an indefinite period. There would be no transport or communications. Risk of pollution to food stocks on farms would be greatly increased because of the radiation hazard. Above all, the length of period during which people and nucleus livestock would have to be supplied from existing food stocks would be much longer. It has been suggested that two or three weeks in a fall-out shelter might be followed by a nuclear winter of up to three months or more; and after that there would be the time required to grow the next crop.
To make provision for these conditions is infinitely more difficult than to do so for a more limited disaster. Some effort ought to be made to provide a series of nuclear "Noah's Arks" for breeding stock and seed, and, above all, for instruction to farmers on what to do and how to grow crops without any of the inputs to which they are accustomed in modern farming. In my view, we in your Lordships' House have an obligation to satisfy ourselves that the Government have made adequate contingency plans

1121
to cope with these and other possible disaster situations.
What do we know of the present position? Responsibility for food and agriculture rests with the Ministry of Agriculture. Its most recent booklet on the subject, entitled, Home Defence and the Farmer, was published in 1958 and is out of print. A new booklet, entitled, Civil Defence and the Farmer, has been waiting in the wings for almost four years. It was on the brink of publication last year but has now been withdrawn again for further consideration. This scarcely inspires confidence. Are the Government for some reason afraid to publish it?
There are some hints of intended action in a Home Office draft consolidated circular to local authorities on emergency planning, dated last year. This circular is in the Library. It refers mainly to what will be done at some unspecified future date. How soon may we expect action? Plans outlined in this document envisage a centralised organisation and largely ignore the need to train people now at grass-roots level. Let us remember the Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared".
It appears that the plans include the appointment of farm wardens in each region to organise farmers, but it is envisaged that these wardens would only be appointed when the disaster starts. This is patently absurd. Wardens ought to be appointed immediately and trained so that there will be available a nucleus of people who know what they are talking about and what they are expected to do in an emergency. I submit that at the present time the Government's plans for Civil Defence in respect of food and agriculture lack credibility. I should like to ask the Government to make a clear statement of policy and to give a timetable for action. If this information is considered to be too sensitive for publication then surely a Select Committee should be appointed to look into the matter and to report back to your Lordships.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House would of course wish to pay tribute to the courage, efficiency and dedication of the regular emergency services and the voluntary organisations. All noble Lords who have spoken—with an important qualification raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney; I am glad to see the noble Lord in his place—have welcomed the firm declaration of intent by the Government: Civil Defence is what we need and Civil Defence is what we must have.
But that is not the question arising in this debate. The questions arising in this debate concern the means of implementation of that declaration of intent. In that context, do we not have to ask ourselves: having regard to the scale of the problem, are these services adequate? Ought further immediate appointments in various spheres to be made? Ought there to be an overriding system of direct co-ordination and control which lies within the exclusive province of central Government? Is the existing system adequate or effective to ensure first of all that local authorities have adequate funds, and, secondly, that when they have them they use them for the purposes for which they are intended? Ought the Government to devise and maintain a new structure for the effective organisation
1122
of Civil Defence on a regional basis, and is the dissemination of information to the public about Civil Defence adequate?
Such were the matters which I should have raised at the outset, but, having heard speeches from your Lordships—in particular the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—it would be not only otiose but tedious to detain your Lordships in regard to such matters, however important they may be, and I do not propose to do so. However, it is plain (is it not?) that we cannot just continue as we are and say, "Some local authorities have done very little or nothing. Some local authorities are not taking their grant. Some further action may be required by central Government if the local authorities fail to take appropriate action". We cannot go on like that, can we? The Government must take an urgent initiative to direct, to co-ordinate and to fund. On this railway there is no next train that calls at the station. We owe this urgent initiative, in the name of humanity, to the next generation, and even (dare one say it?) perhaps to our own.
The Motion which my noble friend Lord Renton has moved has, I am sure, done the Government a signal service. It is well conceived. It is particularly well conceived because it recognises a fact which seldom seems to have been recognised: that the emergency against which we have to prepare may arise as a result of armed conflict in the public international law sense, as a result of a domestic catastrophe, or as a result of the intrusion of a weapon by mistake, without any hostile intent at all.
As we debate tonight, there are now, whatever they have been before, no neat categories of emergency such as enabled the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—I am afraid he has gone now, but I shall refer to him in his absence—to mock the Government policy as an absurdity. Both central Government and local authorities, each within their own respective sphere, have to direct, plan, co-ordinate and organise on the basis that there is no longer a division of category of emergency. Why?—because in the aftermath of such an emergency communities may well be isolated for three weeks or more without any police presence or without any system of criminal justice. Therefore, I, as a lawyer, shall select the aspect of law and order and confine my speech to it.
However, I listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the aspect affecting agriculture. In one's own small way one has to look at the problems which one understands, and to anticipate them. It is not enough for Her Majesty's Government to say, as they have been saying, that law and order are the responsibility of Government and the police, and shall remain so. The question is: how shall short-term, temporary delegation of such responsibility operate in such circumstances?
What sort of structure shall the Government devise and maintain to preserve law and order in one or more of the stricken isolated communities? How shall the temporary and lawful delegation of authority be achieved? What sort of direction and co-ordination will be given by the Government? What will be the role of the local authorities? What steps will be taken by Government to ensure, within the province of Government, adequate training, instruction, field

1123
exercises, training in police duties and training in the administration of justice? What provision will be made as to identification of the lawful authority to carry out such duties?
We understand that when the Civil Defence Regulations 1983 are fully implemented there will be about 200,000 Civil Defence volunteers. But will that be sufficient? How will they be disposed? Will they be sufficient at all events to man the main cities as well as the country areas? One asks these questions because one does not know the answers. But the point surely is that we should all know the answers and fully understand how this emergency system will work. Hence the importance of this debate as an exercise in public relations between the Government and the people.
The fact that Her Majesty's Government have only signed, but not yet ratified, the two additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention, which was opened for signature in December 1977, concerning Civil Defence workers is perhaps neither here nor there in view of the situation which we face today. Those provisions strictly relate to armed conflict as defined in public international law, and, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, we cannot preclude war.
The prospect of perfect or near-perfect defences is negligibly low. Some warheads will always get through, whether by accident or design, and any warhead would cause immeasurable damage. There can be no effective defence of our cities as we move into a new dimension far more dangerous than nuclear deterrence.
As to the warning system, to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred, with the leave of the House perhaps I may quote from the marvellous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, last week on the debate on the Strategic Defence Initiative. On 30th January, at col. 697, the noble Lord said:
"The stand-off environment of mutual nuclear deterrence is infinitely safer than what would happen if we entrusted our security to an automatically-operating imperfect complex of artificial satellites, lasers and computers, in which there was neither place nor time for the exercise of human judgment".
Can there be little doubt that we are about to enter this new dimension? Is this not the reason why the USSR has returned to the negotiating table? If that is so, does not this call for an urgent and comprehensive reappraisal of the type of structure that we must both devise and maintain to cope with, at all events, the maintenance of law and order in isolated and stricken communities?
In conclusion, may I say that although, of course, this is not the occasion on which to seek to condescend to any form of detail—only to deal with matters of broad principle—I would wish to use any occasion to try to help the unemployed. Let us think of those 1.2 million long-term unemployed, 60 per cent. of whom have no manual skills. I wonder whether some of these people could be employed on Civil Defence to cope with all categories of emergency in context with the maintenance of law and order until normal procedures could be restored. Could they be employed on terms and conditions of service which include not only instruction and training, but also practical field exercises in all three types of emergency? Perhaps we
1124
should think again; perhaps all Civil Defence volunteers should be put on an employment basis—full-time or part-time—until the age of 60.
All too soon the "hot line" will become an irrelevance for there shall be, to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman:
"neither place nor time for the exercise of human judgment".
I support the suggestion made by other noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government should introduce their own legislation.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, because he has said that we should each look at the problems that we understand. I shall attempt to do that. As a general practitioner I have a special responsibility, not only to treat my patients to the best of my ability should they be involved in a disaster, but also to scrutinise plans for medical care following disasters and to try to make constructive comments on them.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is a great humanitarian, for calling attention to the need for planning for emergencies. Although I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate, I have read the noble Lord's useful introductory speech. He referred, as did several other noble Lords, to the Bhopal disaster. It reminds us of the potential for disaster which is a risk which we bear as a price for industrial development. In spite of greater attention being paid to safety, we certainly bear some risks in this country. Less than 30 miles from here is the biggest complex in Europe of oil refineries and liquid storage tanks of highly toxic substances, such as hydrogen fluoride and ammonium nitrate. This complex is on Canvey Island. An explosion of ammonium nitrate caused 550 deaths in Texas in 1947: and the Health and Safety Executive's second report on Canvey Island realistically estimated risk up to a level of 18,000 casualties, about half of which would be deaths and half injuries.
The accident and emergency units of even the best equipped hospitals in the country—in any country—are stretched to the limit by an accident which causes only 40 to 50 serious injuries. If any noble Lord or noble Baroness doubts this, he or she should ask to see the major accident plan which any hospital with a consultant casualty surgeon must draw up, and that is what will be found. Our preparations for major accidents are woefully inadequate for an industrial nation in an age of rapid transport and of terrorism. One constructive recommendation made by the Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services of the BMA was that the DHSS should fund training and practice for the public in major accident procedures.
There is also a need for improved quality of care even in the case of less severe emergencies. At present our hard-pressed casualty surgeons and nurses attend almost exclusively to the injured person. The more dire his state the less time will there be for the distraught spouse, parents or children. Planned care for close relatives at such crises can prevent later nervous disorder. It is a growing practice in the United States to have one specially trained nurse allocated to the relatives, yet to my knowledge this is only provided

1125
to any significant degree at one hospital in this country, the Leeds General Infirmary.
At the terrorist bombing in Regents Park in 1982 children saw bandsmen of the Royal Green Jackets literally blown to pieces, and those children received no trained help. The benefit, for children especially, of skilled help at the right time can be enormous, but with present stringencies on the NHS children who lose parents or witness carnage will forgo this.
Turning to the need to protect the population from conventional high explosives in time of war, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is surely right to emphasise the duty of central Government and of local authorities to provide this, bearing in mind that with evacuation from major target areas it was so successful in the last war; but with the speed that events move now, is evacuation feasible? Present day conventional military weapons are more lethal than they were, but we must be mindful of the steady rise in the ratio of civilian to military casualties in this century from one civilian to 20 soldiers killed in World War I to one to one—that is, equality—in the last war and 20 to one in the Vietnam war, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pointed out. Any failure of Government not only to plan but also to provide a realistic shelter programme against conventional high explosives would be either a dereliction of duty or a tacit assumption that any conventional war would rapidly lead to nuclear war, an assumption with which many military experts agree.
Do we see here a change in Government policy rather than mere backsliding? If so, the Government should state it. Ministers have the benefit of scientific studies on the limitation of casualties, and it would not be reprehensible should they decide that the policy of 40 years ago could not work today. At present, the Government really only pay lip service to Civil Defence. If, on the basis of expert advice, they assess that Civil Defence measures would afford a significant degree of protection to the population, they should put their money where their mouths are.
Plans cost little, but they also protect little. A realistic shelter policy would be enormously expensive, but it might be worthwhile. The Swiss seem to think so. However, in my view adequate major accident provision for civil disasters, which we still do not have, comes first. We get a measure of probable military casualty figures from the United States construction and plans for construction of 15 contingency military hospitals in Britain, with a total of some 8,000 beds, as well as many other hospitals in NATO countries. Many people are unaware of these plans, but I have seen the United States congressional record in which the plans for them are discussed.
These hospitals are being built on the assessment that military casualties would build up faster than they could be evacuated to the United States. The first of these hospitals is already equipped to receive patients. Some of these hospitals might well survive a limited strike against Britain. Will planners know the conditions under which these beds might be available for injured British servicemen, or even injured civilians?
I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I
1126
was going to ask this question, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness who has to reply to the debate says in answer to it. Many people find it highly disturbing that these hospitals are to be built here. They might feel a little easier in their minds if they felt that British casualties might be helped by their presence in time of war.
In the last few years, with the growing public concern about nuclear war, doctors have often declared themselves sceptical of Government Civil Defence planning. They have equally often been berated for indulging in politics. A doctor's duty, we are told, is to care for his patients, not to reason why. But is it not within the ambit of their professional duty to their patients that many doctors have turned their endeavours to the reduction of risks which could lead to a nuclear war?
The British Medical Association's Board of Science and Education, after taking evidence from the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and many specialists, delivered its report on the medical effects of nuclear war, which was endorsed by the association in 1983, nearly two years ago. The report found serious errors in the Home Office's estimates of injuries and fatalities from nuclear explosions due to confusion between the effects of conventional and nuclear explosions, and, believe it or not, a failure to include burn injuries in the estimates. The report recommended that the health service requirements for conventional war be separated from those for nuclear war and that planning for nuclear war should concentrate on problem-solving skills since the massive number of casualties would rapidly exhaust the largest stockpiles of drugs and equipment.
After studying this report, and a shorter, simpler one prepared by the Royal College of Nursing (which reached similar conclusions), the Department of Health and Social Services issued a revised circular for consultation with the BMA and the RCN. This circular separates conventional from nuclear war. However, both the BMA and the RCN recognised serious inadequacies in the circular and the Home Office strategic assumptions which accompany it. In particular, it does not give any assessment of likely numbers and types of casualties which would follow a nuclear attack, and it does not give advice on what resources should be provided by health authorities.
The circular justifies planning for nuclear casualties on the presumption that a "demonstration" bomb might be used, or some areas of the country might escape devastation. Clearly this may well occur, and planning for these eventualities is desirable; but health authorities need to know the likely scale of casualties and what resources should be devoted to contingency plans.
In a recent issue of the Health and Social Services Journal emergency planning officers are quoted as implying that they are not expected to plan anything which would involve substantial expenditure. No wonder Civil Defence planning is, to say the least, in a state of some confusion. I believe that the British Medical Association is presently discussing the new draft circular with the DHSS, and I hope that a clear, rational document will soon be produced.
Since the draft circular was written the nuclear winter hypothesis has been shown to have a real basis

1127
by the committee of investigation of the American National Academy of Sciences. The possibility of a nuclear winter should be assimilated into advice on the consequences of a major nuclear war, since health authorities would need to know the likely duration of the extreme Siberian cold. Nuclear winter makes it vital that, while nobody claims to be able to disinvent nuclear weapons, we at least try to return to deterrence at levels of explosive yield below those which would have such a catastrophic effect.
In trying to comprehend the devastating effects of nuclear weapons we are stopped far short of reality by the limits of the human mind. Either we envisage explosions comparable merely to those of World War Two or we brandish numbers for explosive yield which rapidly become too large to comprehend.
T. S. Eliot once wrote:
"Human kind cannot bear very much reality".
Our ex-servicemen who witnessed the tests in Australia and the South Pacific have no such difficulty. Some were at close quarters to 23 nuclear explosions, increasing from the kilotonne to the megatonne range and coming in rapid succession as the atmospheric test ban treaty approached. These men, like Hiroshima survivors, have difficulty not in imagining destruction but in imagining survival.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Renton on introducing for debate this subject which raises to many issues of vital national importance and is timely to the point of urgency. Such urgency is illustrated by this headline, which appeared not long ago in a Lancashire evening newspaper. I quote:
"Bolton Town Council last night decided to take no action over the fact that its one nuclear fall-out shelter had been destroyed by vandals".
It is because of attitudes and decisions such as these that my brief contribution to this debate will join those of other members of your Lordships' House in offering wholehearted support to the Government in promoting and developing policies for the Civil Defence of the nation in the event of war.
While also supporting very strongly any policy which provides for peacetime emergencies, my concern will be with Civil Defence, because there is a serious danger that members of the public may be influenced by the negative attitudes of many vociferous pressure groups and even by those of some of the teachers in our schools. Also, to the extent that local authorities are defaulting in their obligations, Civil Defence should become the responsibility of national government, because it is an essential part of the moral basis of the Western strategic position.
NATO is built on the twin premises of defence and deterrence. Civil Defence is, as its name implies, essentially defensive. There is nothing offensive about it. It is also a crucial counterpart to military defence, especially in a conventional war, for, however good and well-equipped the armed forces may be, their effectiveness is drastically reduced by a civilian population which is defenceless.
Effective civilian defence is also an important ingredient in deterrence. Although one approach to
1128
deterrence in the past may have favoured mutual vulnerability of populations as essential ingredients of the balance of terror, that argument has now been superseded by the fact that other nations are taking Civil Defence seriously. If Britain leaves herself asymmetrically vulnerable, this diminishes the policy of effective deterrence.
Therefore in maintaining our NATO philosophy of defence and deterrence it is crucial to consider what other nations are doing by way of Civil Defence. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already made clear, the Soviet Union has well-established policies starting with the training of every school pupil from the age of eight in Civil Defence matters. Every factory, hospital, institute and farm has to have a Civil Defence programme. There is also systematic training for industrial workers, with well-established techniques for ensuring that factories can start producing goods again very soon after a nuclear explosion, except, of course, in the case of a direct hit.
This quotation from the official in charge of Civil Defence in the town of Lvov contrasts starkly with the attitude of Bolton City Council that I quoted earlier. Speaking on Lvov radio in December 1981, he said that in 1982 the emphasis in the town of Lvov would be on:
"the practical training of the population in ways to protect themselves against weapons of mass destruction … there should not be a single installation in Lvov without a Civil Defence Training point".
Given such developments in the Soviet Union, it is surely irrational and dangerous to fail to develop a national policy for a coherent system of Civil Defence in this country.
Such an argument ought to appeal even to those who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament. CND campaigners often accept retention of conventional arms as an alternative to nuclear weaponry. They should, therefore, be prepared to support appropriate Civil Defence measures. But instead and all too often they are prominent in decrying Civil Defence as pointless because they argue that if war occurs it will inevitably be nuclear and will result in all-out destruction.
That argument is fallacious on at least two grounds: first, because it is arrogantly confident in its prediction of the form which any war will take, and, secondly, because it fails to consider any contingency other than total annihilation.
The first argument which assumes that any future war will inevitably see the use of nuclear weapons is mere assertion and ignores the fact—which has already been mentioned in the debate—that although all the major powers which possess nuclear weapons have been involved in military conflicts since 1945 not one has used those weapons. History is littered with examples of people who were convinced that impending war could take only one form. For example, prior to the First World War military commentators were almost at one in failing to predict that the war would consist of a static war of attrition. The dread of a war involving aerial bombardment, which haunted so many writers in the 1930s, proved to be more accurate although not the whole story. Their dire predictions resemble much current writing about

1129
the likely effects of a nuclear holocaust. There were these words of Bertrand Russell:
"London for several days will be one vast raving bedlam, the hospitals will be stormed, traffic will cease, the homeless will shriek for help, the city will be a pandemonium".
Without in any way devaluing the horrors of the London blitz and while recognising that a nuclear war would be horror of a different order of magnitude, the points need to be made that war does not necessarily lead to total destruction; that it is possible to envisage warfare below the all-out strategic nuclear level; that societies may be more resilient than could be imagined and that such forecasts of horror in no way exonerate a Government from doing their utmost to prepare as effectively as possible for all eventualities; and to try to ensure some protection against any kind of attack which might be envisaged and some means of succour and support for those who may survive.
This leads to my conclusion, based upon a constructive example—in contrast to the negativism and irresponsibility of policies often associated with so-called nuclear-free zones. I refer to a publication of the Royal College of Nursing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already referred. It is entitled Nuclear War Civil Defence Planning: The Implications for Nursing. It is sober reading. Critical of the current under-provision of Civil Defence facilities, it offers as a case study an analysis of the effects on health care provisions of a one megatonne airburst over Bristol. But it is exemplary in its willingness to confront possibilities, in the practical information it provides concerning the conditions and requirements of survivors, and in the challenge it poses for government to give a lead in developing a comprehensive policy of Civil Defence.
So I finish by adding my own support to this position but not as a counsel of despair, rather as the only rational and responsible way forward in a world in which we are inevitably set within a sea of troubles. By opposing we may not end them, but we can at least minimise them.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for giving us this opportunity to debate the most interesting and very undervalued subject of Civil Defence and the responsibilities of central and local authorities for it. I shall concentrate my contribution mainly on Civil Defence in London with only general reference elsewhere. I wish to illustrate how, in spite of the law, the hard Left has successfully thwarted the intentions of Parliament for nearly four years and is continuing to do so.
First, let us have a look at the GLC Left-wing tactics. The story of the GLC and its irresponsible attitude towards Civil Defence is an object lesson of how a politically motivated and obstructive local authority can drag its feet if it wants to do so. Following the May 1981 GLC election, and within 24 hours of their coming to power, the socialists stopped all Civil Defence planning. They claimed a mandate from the electorate, but by no stretch of the imagination could this irresponsible action be claimed to have the endorsement of Londoners. It did not appear in the
1130
general public manifesto at all. They also had an internal, only technically public document manifesto, their Plan for Action, and in that the GLC socialist intentions towards Civil Defence were a mere 12 words out of 1½ million words. And they were concealed not under the heading of "Public Safety" but under the heading of "Finance".
Within three months of the election three senior Lef-wing GLC members were staging a well publicised visitation to the Minister of State at the Home Office, putting the case for removing the GLC's statutory obligations for Civil Defence. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, earlier said that some local authorities did not feel that they wanted to undertake things. This is not a question of whether you felt that you wanted to undertake it; this was a statutory obligation; and those same authorities that did not feel that they wished to undertake the statutory obligations undertook all sorts of things that had no relevance at all to their duties and responsibilities.
Now, when the GLC is facing abolition, the whole story of Civil Defence is changing. They are now claiming that it is a very important, strategic, local government function. In fact, it is being used as one of the reasons why the GLC should continue. When they got a dusty answer from the Minister they changed their tactics. They appointed a Civil Defence adviser, Mr. Duncan Campbell, a journalist with the New Statesman, who had been convicted at the Old Bailey in 1978 for an offence under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. At the time of his appointment he was just completing five years' research for his 500-page anti-Civil Defence book called, War Plan, U.K.
His appointment as a GLC Civil Defence adviser was compared at the time by some of the more popular dailies with making the "Yorkshire Ripper" resident warden at the Chiswick Refuge for Battered Wives. No one was surprised about the effect of Mr. Campbell's advice. From the day he was appointed—and I might add that he is a co-opted member of the General Services and Fire Brigade Committee, with full voting rights—the GLC carried out no Civil Defence planning whatsoever. The GLC socialists were pleased that their cynical obstruction and so-called creative interpretation of the 1974 regulations defeated the whole purpose of those regulations and brought Civil Defence in London to a halt. Indeed, the Government had to produce new regulations in 1983 and they became law in December 1983. Here we are now, 14 months on, and what has the GLC done in the way of defence? Nothing at all.
This is no reflection upon the officers of the GLC in the emergency planning division, who under very difficult circumstances have continued doing their best for Londoners within the constraints imposed upon them. While protesting, of course, that they have every intention of obeying the law, the GLC then told the Government that unfortunately they could do nothing because the planning assumptions issued by the Home Office were not sufficiently clear. They would, therefore, commission their own study, at a cost of over £400,000 to London ratepayers. This, indeed, was one of those elements of expenditure that they rushed through in great haste to prevent it from being cut. It was a wasteful expenditure. I say "wasteful" because this whole study is an entirely bogus exercise

1131
designed to ensure that Civil Defence inactivity continues. As the leading light of this commission, the GLC found a retired US Navy admiral, Noel Gaylor. He is quoted in the October 1983 issue of the American Journal of Civil Defence as saying that civil defence is bad policy, has no military utility and is wasteful.
Since 1981 this charade has been orchestrated only one mile from the Home Office, the responsible department of state, and only 500 yards from this Parliament whose intentions are being so blatantly thwarted. What can be going on in the other Civil Defence planning authorities more remotely situated and less visible to us? I would say the short answer is, not a lot. I have before me here a very recent Home Office survey dated 21st January 1985 conducted to see what is happening nationwide as a result of the 1983 regulations. Of the 54 local authorities concerned, plans of some kind exist in 45; only four local authorities say they have, or shortly will have Civil Defence plans in accordance with the 1982 regulations; 41 authorities have old plans based on the obsolete 1974 regulations, and, of these, 24 claim that they are updating them. My calculations make this 17 local authorities say they have, or shortly will have, Civil Defence plans in accordance with the 1982 total is 26 authorities who are defaulting on their responsibilities. That is almost half. My noble friend Lord Elton was technically correct when he said here today (and also earlier in answer to a Question in this House on 25th January) that no authority is refusing to carry out its Civil Defence duties. In this case, refusal means nothing. These 26 authorities have not formally refused but the effect is exactly the same. By sheer inactivity there is no need to refuse.
But this Motion is not only to draw attention to the duties of local authorities. It is also to bring up the matter of the duties of central Government. There is clearly more that the Government can do. I believe that there should be an inspectorate of Civil Defence. I was interested in the Minister's statement earlier that they were to have a Civil Defence adviser, but I would go further and suggest an inspectorate similar to that under Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, so that someone would actually go round and see what is being done.
While this would stop backsliding, it would not go to the root of the reasons for the hostility with which the socialist local authorities view Civil Defence. They have done great damage by misleading and confusing genuine people—even exploiting them. People have real concern over nuclear issues and this has been exploited. I was amused at the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, mentioning how confused were people. Confusion of the public, he mentioned; and I think that he has done so much to help it.
The Government's defence strategy rests on the principle of deterrence and the effectiveness of that deterrence rests, in turn, upon its credibility. No potential aggressor would believe in our own response to attack if our own actions show that we do not even believe in the possibility of attack. The problem for those of us who want to see an effective Civil Defence is how to encourage support for this activity while rebutting the argument that Civil Defence is in some
1132
way provocative. It is not provocative, and the facts speak for themselves.
We have heard mentioned in this debate the massive programmes in the Soviet Union. True, there have been massive programmes organised in the United States after the 1950 Federal Civil Defence Act and flowing from the United States national shelter plan commenced after the 1961 Berlin crisis. But these acts of Civil Defence have not been considered provocative by the Soviet Union; nor has Civil Defence in the Soviet Union been considered provocative by the United States.
Peace movements, of whatever period and for whatever motives, have always had an over-developed conception of what constitutes "provocation". The late Lord Noel-Baker—well known, of course, to Members of this House as a leading pacifist—wrote in the 1930s:
"the existence of the Royal Air Force obviously creates the danger which they are supposed to guard against; if it did not exist the danger would be non-existent".
The best definition of Civil Defence that I have read comes from my noble friend Lord Elton in a speech he made to your Lordships' House on 23rd June 1982 at col. 1099. It bears repeating. He said:
"Civil Defence is an entirely peaceable activity designed solely to save lives and make those lives liveable under extremely difficult conditions It is conducted without weapons and without malice, and by many it is conducted without any reward … It is a pre-arranged organisation of unarmed, non-combatant civilians to rescue, succour and protect our unarmed, non-combatant compatriots".
This is the message we have to get across. We have to change attitudes, so that people will appreciate that Civil Defence is not provocative, but is very practical and essential. I believe that this, together with further regulations to introduce an inspectorate, would do much to improve the positon.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I may say that we have just listened to two very powerful speeches from two noble Baronesses, and before I begin my speech I should like to congratulate them. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton on raising this subject. I think that it is high time it was raised. The last time I took part in a debate on Civil Defence was in 1968; and I shall come to that later.
My sole qualification for speaking on this subject is that for three years prior to 1968 I was involved in Civil Defence and I was trained, if that is the right word, as a member of a headquarters section in the town of Castle Douglas, in south-west Scotland. What follows is a cautionary tale. There were about six of us and we assembled every Wednesday evening during winter in the town hall. We were in the town hall because there was no headquarters building, though we were continually assured that such a building would shortly be provided. There was a large and genial gentleman who, from memory, was dressed in a sort of boiler suit—the kind that your Lordships will recall, if you were in the Army, were worn by sergeant majors in the PT Corps, who used to lecture us for about two hours on fall-out situation reports and other things connected with Civil Defence. We then received our pay from Her Majesty's Government, which was a cup of tea and three biscuits.

1133
As I said, we were being trained to become a headquarters section. After a while I realised, to my terror and consternation, that I was, for some reason possibly connected with my Membership of your Lordships' House, being singled out to assume the office of controller. We even held an exercise on Sunday when, for the purposes of the exercise, I was the controller. I do not remember a great deal about it, which is probably just as well. For a considerable part of the day I was rushed about by some very cheerful young men from the Territorial Army, who communicated by intercom with other cheerful young men in the Territorial Army. It seemed to me very efficient, but I do not think it can have been, because we drove right through the centre of Annan, which was supposed to have received a direct hit, and I think that had that been reality we would probably all have been dead.
We ended the day in the county town of Kirkcudbright. My principal memory of that was of the WRVS who were very busy dealing with refugees from Glasgow. They were actually feeding some people, although I do not know who they were; I think they were probably locals who had heard that a free meal was available. In Kirkcudbright I received a rather rude but probably perfectly justified note from the head of the WRVS, asking me—if I remember rightly—what on earth I thought I was doing. My Lords, I did not know, and I do not remember my answer. But the WRVS did know what they were doing, and in that they were alone. I have always had a very high opinion of them ever since.
In 1968 the Labour Government got rid of Civil Defence and there was a debate in your Lordships' House in which I took part, on 27th March, when we were told that the international situation no longer warranted maintaining such an organisation. The theory was that the Soviet Union would be good enough to give us at least three months' warning. That, we were informed, gave plenty of time to organise. Apparently, NATO ministers had agreed in 1967 to the following: that we should receive timely, and possibly prolonged, warning of any change in the political situation that might make a war in Europe more likely.
I hope that the present Government are still not acting on that absurdly complacent assumption. I do not myself know how long it would take for the Soviet Union to mobilise and launch an all-out attack on this country or on the West, but by no stretch of the imagination can I think it would be as long as three months; and from what I have read and heard, and from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, today, the USSR is in a highly organised state of readiness and could attack with very little notice.
I do not think, in relation to Civil Defence, that Her Majesty's Government should plan on the assumption that the possibility of war in Europe is remote, because that is not what Civil Defence is about. It seems to me that the whole basis of Civil Defence ought to be, first, that such a war is possible; secondly, that the warning may be very short indeed; and, thirdly, that the Civil Defence organisation, as a consequence, ought to be in a high state of readiness at all times.
1134
So I would ask Her Majesty's Government the following questions. As it is probable that most inner-city areas would be devastated by an all-out attack, are there any plans to have some organisation in place in remote and rural areas to deal with refugees? My noble friend Lord Elton said there was no such place, but I cannot believe that there can be no remote area in the whole of the United Kingdom which could not be prepared for this.
Also, are there plans for fall-out shelters in those areas? Are there emergency stocks of food and, if so, does anyone know where they are? At this point I cannot help but refer to a pamphlet I obtained from the Printed Paper Office, entitled Civil Defence and Why We Need It. I quote:
"Most senior Ministers, Government officials and Service chiefs would have to remain at their desks and take their chance like anyone else".
My Lords, I was going to say that if their desks were here or in Whitehall, they would be of even less use to everyone than they are already. That would be unkind; but they would be likely to be dead, and someone else would have to know where the stocks of food and so on were.
I have read this pamphlet and I can only say that I find it very depressing. It is like some of the things that one got in the Army a long time ago. We are told that to revive the old Civil Defence Corps would be too costly. Can my noble friend give an estimate of how much it would cost? The old corps was manned mostly by volunteers, who were not paid. All I got, as I have told your Lordships, for the undistinguished part that I played was a cup of tea and three biscuits per session; and, as in your Lordships' House, I had to turn up to collect that. It cannot have cost the Government very much, compared to its value.
I do not see that we would need all that many full-time people. I tried to discover how much the Government saved in 1968 by getting rid of the Civil Defence Corps. I cannot find a definite figure, but it does not seem to have been much more than £3 or £4 million, and that does not seem too much to pay for a centrally organised corps with the authority and drive which is needed to ensure that an efficient and coordinated Civil Defence is operational in all areas of the United Kingdom.
It seems to me that the present plans which we have heard of here are too muddled, too theoretical and too much based on the a priori assumption that they will not be needed anyway. Everyone hopes that he will not be needed, but the whole point of making any plans at all is that we ought to act on the assumption that people will be needed. If the time comes for action, it will be far too late for post mortems about why we had backed the wrong horse.
It also seems to me—and other noble Lords have taken up this point—that far too much emphasis is being placed on local government co-operation. We know quite well that there are local authorities which have no intention of co-operating. Some authorities, including the GLC, seem to imagine that when a nuclear rocket is about to land it will observe a notice saying "Nuclear-free zone" and will change course and devastate a Tory area instead. Government wrangling with Labour local authorities—and I do not mean to blame the Government in saying this, because

1135
in my view the fault is that of the local authorities—should not be allowed to obstruct the essential task of organising Civil Defence. This is a very good reason for reconstituting the old Civil Defence Corps. Finally, it is my view that successive Governments have been grossly negligent in their Civil Defence preparations and organisation, and I hope that this Government will break out of this complacency as effectively in this area as they have in others.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I join in this debate to give full support to my noble friend Lord Renton. Also I speak as someone who has had Civil Defence experience. I want to mention a part of that service which I hope the Government will be able to revive before long and which I hope has not been forgotten, even though it has not been mentioned.
I am very disappointed by the attitude that is taken by the GLC, because for 20 years I was an employee of theirs and of the former LCC at County Hall, and a little over 20 years ago their attitude was not only different but quite exemplary. During my early years of service in County Hall, notices went around the departments asking for volunteers for the County Hall unit of the Industrial Civil Defence Service. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned what industry could do, and that service or corps was a subsidiary of the Civil Defence Corps.
The service enabled offices and factories to have their own units, so that they had men and women trained and ready for any national emergency. A certain time each week was allowed to the volunteers, of whom I became one, for training sessions which were both theoretical and practical. From time to time, there would be a practical exercise. One site for this was in Esher, where a series of buildings was constructed to look like part of a town damaged in an air raid. I was assigned to the rescue squad and the lessons that I had there were infinitely valuable because, in addition to the theory of what to do in the case of a nuclear attack, the work of rescuing people was such that it could be applied to any accident.
I went through various stages, getting up to what is known as heavy rescue, where I had fun learning how to work an acetylene cutter. All this experience has made me regret the discontinuance of Civil Defence training. I learned a lot and I should have liked to go on refresher courses, because although I can remember much of what I was taught I might find my knowledge somewhat rusty if I were now suddenly involved in helping at an accident. Our training gave us great help and encouragement because we were taught a lot about nuclear warfare, particularly how to combat the fear of it and how to relieve people's worries about what might happen. For example, I found it extremely interesting to learn how much shelter from radiation could be got from the ordinary person's house, particularly if the house had a basement.
We also learned about the co-operation of another service which has not been mentioned—except by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I am very grateful that he mentioned it—the Royal Observer Corps, which could supply information about the degree of
1136
radiation in each area. I was an airman in the war with the ground staff of the Royal Air Force and I learned a lot about the Royal Observer Corps because I married a lady who was a member of it then. If the Royal Observer Corps could also be encouraged into reactivation, the community would enjoy it.
As regards the protection of buildings, it is a pity that the building in which your Lordships' House is enclosed is probably so near a direct target. But when I was down below trying to find the shooting gallery, I noticed the thickness of the walls and cellars and how much protection a building like this could provide. Critics of our Civil Defence say that the devastation would be so terrible that the service would be useless, but the service could prepare. You never know where a bomb will hit. Preparation would be no good if there was a direct hit from a bullet, a shell or a bomb. But it is vital to establish a controlling authority where the survivors are, which can try to get people well again so that they can lead a totally useful life.
Ever since men began fighting each other, the fear of war has lurked in people's minds. Today it is fear of what will happen to a whole city if it is hit. Way back, it was fear of what would happen in the area where a battle might be fought. The peasant living where a battle was fought knew that, whichever side won, he would be the loser. Again, whichever city is hit the survivors know that they will have to struggle hard to get back to any form of normality.
As regards the possibility of employment in Civil Defence, so many people who are unemployed, particularly young people, could be encouraged to volunteer so as to do something useful, learn how to tackle the job and have an interest. I remember a clerihew: the chief difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys. We men have our interests of hobbies which we jump into with childish delight. Perhaps Civil Defence will have a very ardent recruit if a man can be taught how to help his community through his hobby and interest.
For example, there is the kind of person who is often referred to in a rather sneering way, but who could be immensely useful in restoring civilisation—the radio ham. The radio ham probably has his own supply of electricity. Communication will be vital and a man or a woman with a battery and a portable radio set which could communicate would be of extreme value. I hope that the Government will be able to show how such people could be helped to be prepared. I fully support my noble friends Lord Elton and Lady Trumpington and I have intimated my readiness to play my part. Any action taken by Government or Parliament to get Civil Defence out of the hole of abeyance into which it has, unfortunately, had to creep will get my full support.
7.49 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for initiating this debate. Last Saturday, I found myself in an extreme situation; a two megatonne bomb had just exploded over Napton and had destroyed the city. It had destroyed a large part of the county of Naptonshire. I was actually at the Civil Defence College at Easingwold and with me were some 80 elected representatives of local authorities. We were trying to deal with this nightmare,

1137
which was fortunately hypothetical. They came from all over the country; from Warwick, Dover, Manchester and Merseyside. They came from nuclear-free zones. They were of every political persuasion and they were all pulling together. This was a point made very well earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—when it comes to the crunch everyone, even CND, is going to get out and try to save lives.
Indeed, the aims of the Civil Defence College are simply spelt out; first, to maximise the number of people surviving an attack, whatever that attack might be; and, secondly, to enhance the chances of their continued survival in the long term. There are no politics at Easingwold; there is just a sense of duty and compassion. During the question time period at the college the issue of the nuclear winter arose. I learnt to my surprise that, after a really horrendous attack, a nuclear winter is by no means certain and that there could equally be a nuclear greenhouse effect. Both, of course, would be quite awful but it would be quite foolish of the Civil Defence College to make any contingency planning for a fall in temperature when there could indeed be a rise in temperature. Either would be catastrophic, but the whole point of Civil Defence is to minimise the catastrophe; and even in the worst catastrophe imaginable, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, Civil Defence could save perhaps 15 million people.
As for life not being worth living after the bomb, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney stated, that is fine for him; that is an individual decision; but it is not fine for a councillor to decide that on behalf of his electorate. It is not fine for him to say, "I know that after the bomb has dropped life will not be worth living. Therefore you will not live."
At the college in Napton we were in real Armageddon territory. They put you into that very catastrophic situation because they argue that if you are prepared for a very major disaster you can also equally well deal with the second worst type of attack, the third worst, the fourth worst and so on—down through a spectrum of nuclear attack, through chemical attack, conventional attack and even to a civil disaster such as Flixborough.
I must confess that I was rather heartened by what I found at the Civil Defence College. We are better prepared than I had thought. I did not know, for instance, that we had a good British Telecom emergency network. I did not know anything about the wartime broadcasting service with its 80 modules. I did not know anything about the food stockpiles.
The principal of the college is Mr. Bettridge. He is pleased that the numbers attending his courses have risen from about 1,300 a year in 1974 to 3,200 a year today. Despite the fact that he has three times as many courses on now as then, there is still a waiting list. But there is no room for complacency. There used to be four Civil Defence Colleges, not just one. The courses used to run for a month; now they run for two and a half days. I believe there are 30,000 people in this country who have had some training on how to deal with a national disaster—that is about one in 1,500 of us. I noticed, however, that my noble friend Lord Renton put the figure even lower, at, I think, 17,000.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what I said was that there are now 17,000 volunteers. That is in addition to those who are more fully involved.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has given way, perhaps he would not mind sitting down for a moment longer while I ask him this question. How many bombs fell on Napton on the day he was on duty?
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, the scenario was a two megatonne bomb and it was an air burst.
Lord Parry: My Lords, were any other bombs falling on Britain on that day?
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I feel that I shall go over time if we get into this.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has not been here.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am here now.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, the thinking was regional. The country is broken down into regions in the event of the ultimate catastrophe—a massive nuclear war. Our concern was to do the best we could for Naptonshire. That is very much what is envisaged in a massive catastrophe—each region trying to do the best it can for that region.
I mentioned the figure of 30,000 trained people in the country, which I thought was too few. If I were to suggest to the Government that they should reopen some of the Civil Defence Colleges—perhaps the one at Sunningdale—that might be a little extreme, but I do have some practical suggestions which would greatly increase the effectiveness of Easingwold, because Easingwold has been criticised.
It is said for, instance, that the Easingwold tutors are too dogmatic; that they are "all mouth and no ears"; and that this stems from their military origins. The pay at Easingwold is not very good and it seems to me almost essential to have another source of income. That accounts for the high proportion of retired servicemen who, of course, have military pensions. So if the Government want to attract tutors from all walks of life they should increase the salaries at Easingwold.
It is also said that the tutors are insular; that they would benefit from secondment to local authorities to see how they really work. For that, you need a surplus of tutors. At the moment they are three men short at the college. They cannot spare one man away for a single day. Therefore I say that Easingwold needs more tutors.
A further benefit to Easingwold would be secondment the other way round—firemen, policemen and military men seconded to the college. Above all, there is need for the secondment of Home Office scientists with knowledge of radioactive fall-out. That would cost little or nothing, and surely the Government could do something about that.
The reason that there is need for so much expertise among tutors is that the people attending the courses from all walks of life are bright and ask expert

1139
questions. The principal, Mr. Bettridge, listed for me the many fields in which each tutor has to be expert. There are nine such fields, the workings of local government; other Ministries and what they are doing; emergency planning; stress; transition to war; effects of nuclear weapons; effects of chemical weapons; effects of conventional weapons including fire storms; and effects of speznaz troops. Therefore my suggestion to Government is that there should be a larger, better qualified, better paid, tutorial staff at Easingwold. There is money to do this, I suppose, from the shortfall in expenditure by some local authorities, which stands at £2 million. My information is—and I hope the Government will correct me here—that a cut of 5 per cent. is proposed at Easingwold.
When I went to Easingwold I thought that the whole issue was rather political. I honestly think that the debate in this House has been a shade too political and not humanitarian enough. I certainly left finding the issue compassionate. In Civil Defence, compassion means co-ordination; that is, co-ordination between the military, the fire service, the police and ambulancemen. One example quoted to me of bad co-ordination—this rather worried me—was the Aberfan disaster where, I was told, there had been no proper co-ordination for the first seven hours. Civil Defence is certainly just as much about collapsing spoil heaps as it is about H bombs. Surely government do have a duty to increase expenditure at the one training college we have left and not to cut it. I hope that I shall be proved wrong, so to speak, about that cut. My information is that the Government are proposing a cut of 5 per cent. I would say to noble Lords in all parts of the House, and hope they agree, that whatever one's views on defence policy may be, the argument for an effective Civil Defence policy is morally overwhelming.
8 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Renton on both initiating this debate and getting a pretty good statement out of my noble friend the Minister. Some of us may consider that the Minister could have said a little more in some respects, but on the whole he made a very good and comprehensive statement. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend also on the tremendous pressure he has been keeping up on the Government for the whole of the past five years, to persuade them to think seriously about Civil Defence. The fact that we reached the 1983 regulation was in large part due to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Renton.
I must add that I am concerned about a point which many noble Lords have raised: that so many well-meaning people, such as local councillors, doctors and possibly even the majority of supporters of CND—perhaps even including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into thinking that Civil Defence is synonymous with full scale thermonuclear attack. They have been hoodwinked also into thinking that to encourage reasonable preparations for peacetime emergencies and for Civil Defence in war somehow condones the use of nuclear weapons by our side.
1140
I believe that such hoodwinking has been cleverly initiated by the Soviets and by their fellow travellers in this country. I shall not say any more about that point at this stage because I hope that we will be debating it in the not too distant future. However, if any noble Lord had doubts about this aspect, he had only to listen to what my noble friend Lady Gardner had to say about the activities of the present Administration of the Greater London Council. Suffice it to say now that the provision of plans and trained volunteers for civil emergencies in peace and war are necessary, whether or not a full-scale nuclear war is ever fought. As has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lord Renton, but also by others, such a war is far and away the most unlikely disaster to which mankind might be subjected.
I propose to concentrate my remarks on the need for trained volunteers to be available at all times to supplement the skills of the police forces, fire brigades, ambulance services, the medical services of the NHS, and the full-time staff of the county emergency planning officers. After the Munich crisis in 1938, when the Government initiated the enrolment of ARP volunteers—and I must mention in passing that some 1middot;4 million people were enrolled, which gives some idea of the number which ideally might be required—they were able to draw on a large number of men and women who only 20 years before had been accustomed to wartime discipline and training.
In 1968 when, most regrettably, the Civil Defence Corps was stood down, for reasons of economy, the Government of the day could even then feel that in the 10 years or so ahead of them, if their forecast of emergencies was proved to be wrong, they, too, could call upon at least a hard core of people who had experience of discipline and training in wartime or in National Service. The vital problem now is that such persons are dwindling to an unacceptable minimum; certainly, such persons as are physically active and able to do some of the heavy jobs—not to mention those who can think more quickly than perhaps can many of us in your Lordships' House.
I believe it to be vital to recreate a strong backbone of volunteers in all parts of the country before the necessary expertise is lost. By expertise, I do not mean just having expert skills, but also being accustomed to discipline and training. If one has not been used to such discipline and training—and this I have noticed in my own children—it is something that one does not understand. This is a very important aspect.
In 1968, former Civil Defence Corps workers in some local authority areas banded together to form independent volunteer units. As we have heard from several noble Lords, more recently and in total contradistinction, there are now local authorities which have gone completely the other way and have endeavoured to stamp out, as far as one can see, all vestige of Civil Defence volunteers. They have even adopted the ridiculous stance of declaring their areas to be nuclear-free zones. I shall not enlarge on why that is so ridiculous, because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already explained it very clearly.
As was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Renton and the Minister, a particularly good model of how best to organise emergency volunteers is to be found in

1141
that practised in Devon. The adoption of their practices by other local authorities has been encouraged positively by the Government appointed co-ordinator of volunteer effort in Civil Defence. It has that blessing as well. In Devon the emergency volunteers have a constitution giving them the right to elect their own officers and to administer themselves. The county council retains overall and training control, appoints certain key persons, and accepts responsibility for funding and insurance. That arrangement has been wholly successful. The Devon emergency volunteers have regained their enthusiasm and pride, and the council has gained a remarkably cost-effective Civil Defence capability. Above all, the experience of training and discipline necessary in a volunteer emergency force has not been lost by default.
In 1983 the Government issued regulations requiring local authorities, among other things, to recruit, organise and train Civil Defence volunteers. As my noble friend the Minister has indicated, response has been very patchy. I had some figures to quote to indicate just how patchy, but my noble friend Lady Gardner produced even better figures in that they were more accurate and more up to date. Suffice it to say that it is quite appalling the number of local authorities which are just thinking about those requirements. I do not mean only those local authorities which are taking the rather extraordinary action of declaring nuclear-free zones and which have been hoodwinked into believing that Civil Defence is a wrong thing to do; there are others as well. It is very important that this particular requirement should continue to be pressed for by the Government. I shall say more about that in a moment.
I should mention at this point that it was suggested by my noble friend Lady Cox and by another Member of your Lordships' House that it may be a good thing if Civil Defence at local level was all centralised and run from the centre. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I do not agree with that, certainly in relation to the volunteer force; it must be a county affair. Perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend; perhaps she was talking about other matters—
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. I was making the point that where local authorities have defaulted the responsibility for making sure that they do not continue to default should be with national Government—not that Civil Defence should be centrally co-ordinated.
Lord Mottistone: When they are defaulting, my Lords, yes; but the Government might appoint a special person to do that, though at local level.
Baroness Cox: Precisely, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, my Lords, that is important.
As has been explained by many noble Lords, especially by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Elton, there is a whole range of emergencies in peace and in various possible types of war, with full-scale nuclear attack being the least likely, to which the local authority voters may be subjected. Under most
1142
emergencies some people will be killed and others gravely wounded, but many will survive. The recent chemical disaster at Bhopal in India, which has been mentioned, is a good example. Another example is Hiroshima, which I visited in February 1946 and where I was able to see what had happened.
As has been said clearly by many noble Lords, the very least the local authority can do for its citizens is to have in being a trained and disciplined force ready and willing to take emergency action and to give guidance to helpless survivors. All local authorities must, without delay, respond to this need and stop fussing about whether or not it has any bearing on the likelihood of a full-scale nuclear war, which it will not. I welcome the Government's determination in this respect and trust that they have the will and the enthusiasm to give effect to that determination.
I agree with those noble Lords who said that there comes a point at which it is not fair to the citizens, the voters, people in local authority areas, to be left without this potential help in the event of a disaster, which may occur in peace or war, just because they have a blinkered administration running them locally. The Government must step in at an appropriate time. If they are in doubt as to the appropriate time I would say it is not later than the autumn of 1985. Thus I implore all local authorities to take the necessary action to implement the regulations which they have been charged to put into effect and which (as a final point that was in fact made earlier) are heavily grant-aided by central Government. They are in some respects 100 per cent. grant-aided, so these local authorities have no excuse on financial grounds for not doing their duty by the country in the way that we all expect.
8.13 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I must start by apologising for not being able to be present at the start of this debate. I therefore failed to hear the opening speech by my noble friend Lord Renton and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I must also say how grateful we are to my noble friend Lord Renton for giving us this opportunity to debate this sometimes overlooked and often misunderstood subject of Civil Defence.
A great deal of what I had intended to say has been admirably said by many other speakers, and it is getting late, but I am particularly glad that the Motion we are debating so clearly includes peacetime emergencies. Living, as we do, in a temperate climate we are inclined to assume that a national disaster, when our normal public services might be overwhelmed or exhausted, will never happen to us here. Many noble Lords have already referred to the frightful disaster of Bhopal, and the point has been made that the unexpected can happen. It is common sense to make sound plans and preparations.
It is unfortunate that Civil Defence has been given a bad name by the CND, which, in its natural horror of nuclear warfare (a horror which, of course, we all share with it), argues that since the use of nuclear weapons will eventually lead to the total destruction of mankind—the holocaust argument—it is no good wasting time or money in trying to survive. If the horror of war ever came back to these islands it could

1143
take many different forms, as my noble friend the Minister said in his opening speech. But whatever form it takes the resultant suffering among the civilian population could be alleviated by sound preparations and training.
In particular, one must emphasise the fearful suffering which would occur if these islands were ever subjected to a chemical and biological attack. These fearful weapons, which we do not possess but which are manufactured and stockpiled by the Soviets, while resulting in no damage to property would inflict untold horror on our civilian population and, of course, on our armed forces. However, we are not discussing how to prevent war occurring but how to protect ourselves in the event of war. Civil Defence would not prevent chaos and casualties, but with proper planning and training much of the suffering could be reduced and many lives saved.
In the rest of my speech I want to emphasise two aspects in particular: the co-ordination of Civil Defence planning, and training. First, the coordination of Civil Defence planning at central Government is made much more difficult by the enormous number of agencies and Government departments involved. Therefore, it was particularly good to hear my noble friend the Minister say that a central planning committee is being set up designed to embrace all Government departments and to coordinate all details into a centralised strategy. I fancy that this new committee will be replacing the former Cabinet Committee, which met only spasmodically and then only to deal with particular issues.
It was good also to hear that not only will this central strategy be disseminated down but that it will also be monitored to ensure that proper action is being taken at all levels. Besides the large number of Government departments involved there is also a very large number of agencies. They have been named by so many noble Lords that I shall not go into them—the police, fire services, transport, food supplies, ambulance services, and so on. None of those agencies can expect to do its task in a severe emergency or war without a very considerable backup of volunteers. At present it seems to me that, with a certain few exceptions, these agencies are attempting to produce their own plans within their own scope and without sufficient coordination. Almost certainly there is a need for a level of group co-ordination between central Government and the local authorities. The Home Office's pilot scheme for a level of regional co-ordination is to be greatly welcomed. I believe that we shall hear the result of that at the end of this year.
I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, or my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the Government were right to decentralise Civil Defence planning and action to local authorities. I feel that up till now over-decentralisation down to local authority areas, without adequate guidance, has been a cause of much of the trouble and doubt that has occurred at the lower levels. I feel that if Civil Defence strategy is fully implemented at Whitehall level, to be co-ordinated by this Civil Defence planning at regional level, if it is to be put into effect, it will give a much greater encouragement and guidance to the local authorities.
1144
This leads me to the important subject of training. I was particularly glad, again, to hear my noble friend the Minister stress the importance which the Government attach to the training and exercising of volunteers and the new impetus they intend to put into that training of volunteers. The urgent need for new and comprehensive Civil Defence training manuals is well known, and I hope that the Minister's promise that these will shortly be available will be strictly honoured.
Perhaps the area where training and practice in peacetime is most urgently needed is the manning of Civil Defence headquarters or command posts. There will need to be many of these at all levels right down to village and town level, and even districts within a town, manned day and night, to control, administer and maintain the flow of the normal requirements of life, to deal with casualties, clear roads, and so on. Many of the staff at the small headquarters, or even the large ones, will be volunteers. Anyone who has worked in a command post at a busy time will know what an enormously difficult task it is and that with training enormous improvements can be made. I believe that that is one of the main aspects of training that we need.
I should like to end on a more positive and possibly more cheerful note by drawing your Lordships' attention to the responsible and positive actions of two famous and caring volunteer organisations which have given full support to the national plans for Civil Defence. Although I am involved in a very modest way with one of those organisations, I should like to try to outline the combined efforts of both organisations, which work together in a spirit of harmony and close co-operation.
I refer to the Red Cross and the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, which between them have a large number of volunteers deployed all over the country highly trained in first aid, basic life-saving and nursing skills. Those two organisations, working in close cooperation, formed in 1980 their joint emergency committees to support Civil Defence at both national and county levels.
Their role, for which their peacetime voluntary work and training make them ideally suited, is to form on mobilisation medical reception centres for service casualties at ports and airfields and to staff hospital trains and rehabilitation centres. Furthermore, they would be able to support the National Health Service by setting up and manning first-aid posts in hundreds of towns and villages throughout the country to receive casualties from enemy action so that those people can receive initial treatment before evacuation to hospital or discharge back to their own homes.
The voluntary auxiliary support which those two great organisations can provide would apply to an emergency in peace or war alike and to any form of attack, conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear, which might unhappily assail us. The training and preparation for that task since 1980 has been considerable. A large number of individuals from both organisations have attended four-day courses at the National Civil Defence College at Easingwold in Yorkshire, which we heard about from my noble friend. During the same period, over 100 combined St. John's Ambulance/Red Cross exercises have taken place in conjunction with the Territorial Army, the

1145
police, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the National Health Service and also some local authorities. Those exercises have been devised by the Joint National Committee of those two organisations, and I think that it is a remarkable tribute to their dedication and initiative.
As far as I can find out, the cost of this training at local level is met by the Home Office, while the secretarial, printing and postage costs of the national committee of those two organisations are met, for some reason, by the Department of Health and Social Security. Perhaps this is an example of the lack of co-ordination leading to confusion—which I referred to earlier—at the national level of Civil Defence planning.
What I have described is the private enterprise efforts of those two voluntary organisations, which specialise in first aid and nursing. But in an emergency there are needed elsewhere many other skills and services which can be provided by volunteers, supervised by professionals. What we must ensure is that there is proper co-ordination and planning at Government level down to regional and local government so that that enormous potential effort is not wasted.
Finally, I must say a word, as so many noble Lords have done already, about those local councils which fail to do their duty. It is utterly irresponsible for any local authority to dodge its responsibilities in this matter, in my opinion. Those which declare themselves a nuclear-free zone in total isolation, and as a result opt out of all emergency planning, are only marginally worse than those which do nothing. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to the idea of local nuclear-free zones as childish. I would use a like simile. I would liken it to the childish games of "Touch" or "Catch-me-if-you-can", but played in a confined space; or like a child playing hide-and-seek by taking cover behind an inadequate tree and thinking that he really is hiding.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in this debate. I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Renton, who has given me the privilege of serving on his Committee. He has introduced a wonderful debate today and has attracted many people to join in.
I wish to make a couple of points. I wish to discuss the question of research and development and to find out how much money is actually being spent on R & D. I should like to see more academic research. We want to know about the wider aspects of Civil Defence. I suggest that such research would be complemented by our NATO partners. They already have programmes of this kind, and we should bring ourselves into line with other members of NATO. Our NATO partners also involve their academic institutions in Civil Defence research.
What are the kind of things that they research? They include options for economic Civil Defence programmes, the viability of a long-term shelter programme, measures to protect the civilian population from aspects of chemical warfare and the value of limited evacuation. Is there a stay-put policy
1146
in the Government in regard to spending money on having academics brought into this work? Also there seems to be a great shortage of leaflets. Only about 750,000 leaflets are on hand. I come from Wiltshire, and I am glad to say that I have also worked in Devon, where we have very good organisations, as has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords. I should like to know whether more literature is available.
At the present time no research is sponsored at universities. Does the noble Baroness consider that the 1983 regulations for local authorities are sufficient to attract recruits and to train and exercise volunteers? Has the Home Office made an estimate of the numbers in areas where people are at the greatest risk and considered to where they might be evacuated?
As previous speakers have said practically everything that I had thought of saying, I end with only one suggestion. Forty years have now passed since the end of the war. I suggest that in this year in celebrating the ending of the war in Europe we try to make it a civilian occasion. Many cities, towns and villages are twinned with others in Europe. Is it possible to invite representatives from the twinned areas to attend the many memorial services that will be held in Great Britain? That would promote a real feeling of friendship. It should be remembered that in the 1939 to 1945 war, as well as the 26 million service people who were killed, 24 million civilians were killed. The courage of the civilians and the splendid support that they gave the military should never be forgotten. I should very much like it if we could do something to include the civilian population in the celebrations this coming year.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I want to begin by acknowledging the debt that we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Lord Renton is not merely a noble Lord, but, as far as I am concerned, he is also a noble friend. In another place over a number of years, he has joined with me, or I with him, in projects which we in common saw as serving the best interests not only of our constituents but also of the nation. I refer particularly to the national heritage aspects of our work.
Therefore, I listened very carefully to what he had to say. As other noble Lords have said, this is not merely a topic for debate tonight: it is a subject which the noble Lord has pursued, I think to the benefit and advantage of this House. Also, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said, he has pursued it certainly to the benefit of the nation, because, owing to the publicity we received earlier today, many more people will understand the importance that this House attaches to the topic. Therefore we are very grateful indeed.
The words of the Motion on the Order Paper are well understood. I certainly appreciate the care that was taken by the noble Lord in trying to maximise the support—if there were a vote—for the genesis of the whole raison d'être of the Motion. Various people have used bits of it to their advantage. That is, of course in the way of debate. I should also like to draw the following to the attention of the House. I want to use it to illustrate the sympathy that I have with the noble Lord in his Motion. I should like to draw

1147
attention to his response to the question of the Civil Defence Act 1948, on 14th January.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, in an intervention on a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, who is in his place, as I would expect, and who made an earlier contribution on this matter:
"My Lords, is my noble friend aware that peace-time emergencies are occurring on an ever-increasing scale and that the people responsible for dealing with them are also responsible for civil defence?"
Therefore, in preparing for this debate with the responsibility of responding on behalf of these Benches, I immediately began fully to understand that we can see a great deal of common accord. I refer particularly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In making a point, he wanted to stress that when one talks in terms of Civil Defence, it is not merely a one-issue, one-happening event.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, is not in his place. Again, I saw a great deal of sense in the way he illustrated the fact that preparations that might ostensibly be for one purpose can nevertheless be fully utilised for a great many purposes. The most terrible event at which these preparations are aimed might be the event for which people say we are not prepared to be prepared. However, as we have gone through the debate, we have had many illustrations of our dependence upon being ready. One of the noble Lords earlier reminded us of the Boy Scouts' motto "Be prepared".
My noble friend Lord Mishcon apologised for not being able to be here at this time. I want not only to recognise the value of his contribution to this debate, but also to use one or two of the points that he made and to re-emphasise them. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who is to reply, may very well take the view that there is insufficient time to give way in her winding-up speech. Therefore, I think it is right that at this time we read the questions that we may be asking later, in order to provide her with an opportunity of giving some of the answers.
One of the points that my noble friend Lord Mishcon made was on the need for co-ordination, the need to look at the responsibility, if not nationally and if with some reluctance locally, perhaps to get some major regional responsibility. These are interesting points. They illustrated the sadness of the abolition situation. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out that when abolition does take place arrangements are to be made. I want the House to listen to what the Government say will be the situation after abolition of the metropolitan county councils. This is what is said:
"Under the police and fire services, who will run the fire service? In future, the service will be run by joint fire authorities made up of elected councillors".
That is elected councillors from this council, from that council and from the other council. In other words, it will be a joint board.
Thee are some people in this House, with more experience than myself—and I have some experience—who will agree that a joint board of councillors of different political persuasions and, in the way of things, of different geographical imperatives is, if not a receipe for continual quarrelling, a most unsatisfactory way of trying to reach the maximum
1148
agreement. So I think the Government have to address themselves to the question as to whether that is the answer to, of all things, the need to maximise and strengthen Civil Defence.
Then, on Civil Defence itself, the document says:
"What will happen to Civil Defence? Most of the MCC's responsibilities will be taken over by the metropolitan districts".
Therefore, the London districts—that is, the London councils—will have the responsibility devolved upon them. I think the Government have a responsibility to treat this question seriously. When abolition takes place, will these responsibilities be left to joint boards in some cases or to the London boards in others—in which case, I cannot see that as being a very happy situation?
Then my noble friend raised the point about the 75 per cent., and the 25 per cent. He was chided about not having made reference to the number of events that could be 100 per cent. grant-aided. I have not checked it, but I think the record will show that what he said was that he had here a number of items that ranked for 100 per cent., which of course he will have available. I have them here, too. They are as follows: Provision and maintenance of Civil Defence communications; training of staff and their participation in training exercise; repayment of expenses etc.
Reference has also been made to the commitment in the Conservative manifesto. It was not my Manifesto but again I can subscribe to the premise upon which it rests. I will read it to you:
"We propose to amend the Civil Defence Act 1948, to enable civil defence funds to be used in safeguarding peacetime emergencies …".
I can see common ground, not only politically, but from the point of view of reception by the populace, to realise that inevitably most of the disasters will be of civil emergency kinds—thank goodness, terrible as they are. They will realise the nonsense of having prepared machinery and paraphernalia which is, as it were, cocooned for the ultimate of a war situation.
That was the Conservative commitment. Yet 1983 has gone by and nothing was done. Nineteen eighty-four has gone by and nothing was done. More than one member has asked the Government about this. The Minister has said well, of course, it is possible for it to be done by private legislation. The House must judge the seriousness of the Government and their ability to put their money where their mouths are, in saying in this context that we cannot afford a slot. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that if he had to find a slot, there was some legislation which he would get rid of to facilitate this. I am sure that it was the abolition of the GLC he had in mind; that he would not wish to proceed with that legislation—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. He knows that I regard that measure, which will take a great deal of time, as being quite irrelevant to this issue. Something much smaller could go. I did actually, I thought, make a constructive suggestion—the Insolvency Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we come to the realm of priorities. Some people attach more importance than others to Civil Defence. Some people attach more importance to spending public money,

1149
ratepayers' money, on Civil Defence, as opposed to housing, roads, or something of that kind. The Government have made their priority pretty clear in this matter. Civil Defence has not a high priority. If they cannot find the time or the money, the Minister must answer for that here in the debate tonight.
We have had a number of calls for compulsion if councils do not carry out statutory provisions. Again, Members of this House are more selective. There are other statutory provisions that are not complied with, but I cannot recall Members opposite saying that unless they are complied with we should send in commissioners, as one noble Lord said, and so on. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was not proceeded with for very good reasons. At one time there were hundreds of councils involved, but the figure gradually came down. There are provisions in housing and in education, and in the provision of assistance and homes for the elderly. There is a shortfall in maintaining the statutory provision on a range of issues.
This Government are not inexperienced in telling local councillors what to do. Local councillors have been elected on a manifesto. People choose to interpret manifestos, after they are elected, in certain ways. This Government are a champion of that approach. I say simply that one needs to be very careful before saying to the Government, when they have got their act together, that on Civil Defence there is no argument. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said that there should be no argument in regard to a certain level of compliance by the autumn of 1985. If the Government wish for ever to persist in their confrontation with local government, as they have done, in my view, over the last four or five years, that is the road down which they should go.
The Government have to come to terms with the art of trying to persuade not merely local councillors but those who elect local councillors that they are right in this matter. I do not believe that they are. I am, however, prepared to acknowledge that they may be. There has to be persuasion in that way.
I plead in aid a body that is not my favourite, the London Boroughs Association—not the Association of Labour Authorities, but the London Boroughs Association. This is what that association tells me in respect of Civil Defence and emergency planning. It wrote recently to the Minister saying:
"individual boroughs, in order to fulfil the proposed new statutory duties, will probably require to appoint additional staff".
The association speaks from experience. If we are making a political point, it is not mine. It refers to the need for additional staff. As the Minister knows, if there is anything that the Government are proud of, it is their manpower-watch exercise—to cut, to cut and to cut. There is not a single department in any council that cannot wring its hands over what the Government have done to staffing levels. I am not arguing about efficiency or cost. What the councils say is that if they are to fulfil what the Government want them to do, the question of staff arises.
The letter goes on to say:
"the Association firmly and strongly believes that all expenditure on civil defence finance incurred by Boroughs, whether for control rooms or equipment, should qualify for 100 per cent. grant-aid".
1150
It adds that the association has yet to give a formal view on the training of volunteers but again registers its concern at the apparent increased demands placed upon local authority resources.
Time presses, my Lords, but there is an enormous number of responsibilities laid upon councils already. There has been reference to the kind of disasters that could occur. Quite apart from the argument about Civil Defence preparations which some councils are not prepared to undertake, there is an enormous range of activities. Yet this Government—and, indeed, I suspect, every Government, including mine—do not seem to appreciate the weight of extra money that is laid upon councils as a result of legislation passed here in Parliament.
There has been reference to some backsliding councils. I should like to mention Enfield. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, entertained the House with remarks based on her experience at the GLC. She is more knowledgeable than anyone here about the GLC because she serves upon it—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I did not say that I was more knowledgeable than anyone else.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am prepared to say so. I say that, ipso facto, if you are a member of the GLC you must be more knowledgeable of the activities of the GLC. The noble Baroness also has the honour, the privilege and the pleasure to represent Southgate, which is part of the London borough of Enfield. There has been mention of councils failing to carry out their duties. The sad fact for Enfield is that it wants, I believe, to carry out its duty. The civic centre was built in 1961. In 1971 plans were created in order to equip the basement for the kind of purpose we are discussing. Last year, in the light of the new remit, the Enfield Council met to discuss a plan—this was all published in the newspapers—to equip the basement for a sum in the region of £100,000. Told that it would get £75,000 from the Government, which meant that it had to find £25,000, it was unable to find that amount. You have to believe that, with a budget ranging between £20 million and £30 million, it is impossible to find £25,000! I applaud Enfield's priorities. It spent the money on something else, which I believe might have been more worthwhile.
However, the dilemma for councils is that so long as grant-aiding leaves something for a council to find, and so long as they have the responsibilities and the priorities that are theirs, there will be difficulties of this kind. It may be that the situation has changed. I am describing what was the situation last year. I am aware that these matters are reviewed. A properly equipped basement of the civic centre at Enfield could serve to meet emergencies such as a motoring disaster on the M25. Enfield is also near Stansted Airport. Whatever happens about the airport, disasters could occur. Enfield also has a small arms factory within its boundaries. Disasters could happen there. There is a good case beyond the political argument for having a command centre, a place which could co-ordinate the hospital services and others.
We live in troubled times. In a perfect world, we would not need to make plans of this kind we are discussing. The peacetime emergencies that have been

1151
mentioned are real. They are here; they are horrific. I can see enormous common ground enabling the Government to re-orientate their policies in order to convince councils, councillors and the people that there is a real need to be ready. In this way they could project the matter properly, although discussion will be required, and also finance it.
The Motion calls for certain action from central and local government. The duty for which it calls is clear. It wants a review; it wants action; it wants money; it wants plans. Above all, it wants appreciation that we need to be ready for the kind of disasters mentioned in it. The Government's response has been criticised from all sides. Nor have local authorities escaped criticism. In my view, so long as the Government pay so little attention to the decline in relations between central and local government we cannot look forward to what has been asked for by more than one noble Lord—a national response to potential national disasters.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for giving the House the opportunity to discuss Civil Defence in all its aspects. I echo tributes paid by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and also by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in what, if I may say so, was a very statesmanlike speech. As my noble friend Lord Elton indicated, the Government fully accept the need for emergency planning both in peacetime and wartime. His speech made clear that we are actively encouraging local authorities to discharge their statutory duties and assisting them by making appropriate funds available.
My noble friend spoke of improvements in training and the enhancement of the capacity of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation by seeking ways to improve co-ordination both of contingency arrangements on the ground and at Government level, by improved consultation arrangements and by keeping the public informed of what is being done. All of this is an on-going process and a very great improvement on the poor situation which we as a Government inherited. In fact, my noble friend's speech was so comprehensive that he greatly eased my task. However, I shall now attempt to deal with individual points raised by noble Lords, and I shall of course write to any noble Lord whose question I omit to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a splendid speech, argued that Civil Defence is necessary to make military defence, and that makes credible the prospect of military retaliation. I shall not answer that assertion except to say categorically that that is not the reason we are creating a credible Civil Defence cover for the whole of this country. Our motive is the simple, humanitarian one of giving protection and succour to our people in the event of war of any kind. If I can go on to consider another aspect of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—really this is the most important point in the feelings of many noble Lords; I quote my noble friend Lady Cox, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Graham of
1152
Edmonton—I have to say that effective Civil Defence must be a partnership. This is because central Government cannot command the detail and local government cannot command the sheer scope of all that is needed.
This affects my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others who want central Government to pay 100 per cent. of all Civil Defence expenditure. We believe that if this partnership is to be real and motivated on both sides some local authority contribution from local government is essential; otherwise partnership will dwindle into dependency. We ask for only 25 per cent. of only a part of the total, and additional expenditure is disregarded for grant abatement purposes. It is not very much and it ought not to stop any local authority from doing its duty; and duty it is, and every local authority knows that it is a duty, because we have told them so. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and, as I have said, he is not alone—wants us now to force them to do that duty in full. We prefer to begin with persuasion and help, in the way my noble friend Lord Elton has described, but we do intend—mark my words—to keep in reserve our statutory position of formal direction and our default powers. We do not wish to use them, but they are there if we have to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made his usual robust speech. He is entitled to his views on the present programme of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also made this point about the manifesto. I can assure both of them that we have every intention of fulfilling our manifesto pledge with regard to amending the Civil Defence Act 1948.
In regard to the evacuation of port areas against conventional attack, and shelter and evacuation policy generally, my noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, my noble friend Lord Belhaven and my noble friend Lady Vickers asked about central planning for evacuation against such an attack. The effects of conventional attack are limited, and any evacuation required can be dealt with locally. The sort of area bombing of civilian populations that we saw in the blitz would serve no purpose in modern circumstances. In a nuclear attack a very large number of people would be at risk from fall-out, not from blast. As my noble friend said earlier from this Box, we do not know either where any bombs would be aimed or where they would fall; nor do we know which way the wind would carry the radioactive dust cloud which fall-out would cause to descend on the countryside, and no part of the country can therefore be called safe. Our plans are therefore diverted to advising and assisting people to use and improve the protection already afforded by their own homes. The Home Office issues guidance to help people to do this, including shelter designs. Further guidance is in preparation. For those whose houses are unsuitable, local authorities have a responsibility to identify buildings suitable for public shelter, and guidance to help them is to be issued shortly.
My noble friend Lord Murton's final point was about the distinction between casualty rates with and without purpose-built shelters. There can be no clear-cut answer to the numbers, or the effectiveness, of such shelters. It would depend entirely on the pattern and

1153
scale of an attack, the weather, and other such factors which cannot be predicted.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery reminded us that the plans which the Government are requiring local authorities to make will have to be put into action in not more than seven days. He asked what could be done in so little time. Arrangements for feeding and housing those made homeless, the setting up of communications and the opening of emergency shelters are all examples of things which, if proper planning and proper training has been done, should take only 48 hours. The extra five days could be used to improve the basic provision made in those first few vital days. The total level of preparation that could be achieved, in whatever time is available, will, I must repeat, depend on what has been done not only centrally but by local authorities to plan, to prepare, to provide and to train.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a most interesting speech, asked me for some information about the farmer. I apologise for the brevity of my reply. I shall write to him if he wishes. The text has been prepared by MAFF officials and is substantially complete. It needs to take account of the latest work by Home Office scientists on the blast and radiation effects of nuclear weapons. This is expected to be ready in the spring, when the MAFF booklet will be finalised.
I have listened to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and those of my noble friend Lord Gainford about employing the unemployed and paying all those involved in Civil Defence work. I do not think my noble friends would expect me to answer in this debate those very interesting speculations, but I shall see that my right honourable and learned friend is made aware of them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway also asked about the role of the police and about law and order. As I said in the House in answer to a Question on 12th December, responsibility for the enforcement of law and order in wartime will remain with the police. We are considering, with the police, how information can usefully be made available to volunteers about police wartime duties and the maintenance of law and order. Guidance on the police role is included in the new consolidated circular to local authorities. They of course have no direct responsibilities for law and order. The police will of course aim to respond as quickly as possible to law and order problems wherever they occur, in urban or rural areas, as they do in peacetime. I cannot predict how effectively they will be able to perform their duties but we should expect the law-abiding citizens—the vast majority—to take a commensurate approach.
If I may return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I would say that he is so right, when no one knows what the scenario will be. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, during his speech asked me many questions which anticipate that scenario. I could not give him answers just like that. However, the noble Lord did ask me about the United States contingency military hospitals. I am very grateful to him for advance notice of his question. The answer I have is that the United States contingency military hospitals are designed for use by military personnel and will be financed,
1154
equipped and manned by the United States Government for this purpose. They would not come under direct United Kingdom national control, but their use would be based on joint plans set out in close consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes of course said it all in her knowledgeable and amusing comments on the machinations of the GLC. With regard to the £475,000 study on Civil Defence which she mentioned, the GLC has submitted a renewed application for grant aid in respect of this study, which is being considered. My noble friend referred to the recent survey and the plans made by local authorities. The Government have responded to this by asking local authorities to complete the plans required by the 1983 regulations by the end of this year and to submit them to the Home Office. The new Civil Defence adviser, who was appointed last October, will help local authorities in this work and at the same time monitor progress. We do not believe that an inspectorate is necessary at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, asked about stocks of food. As part of its plans, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does indeed maintain strategic stockpiles of flour, sugar and other foods for use after a nuclear attack. Those stockpiles are dispersed across the country, although their locations are not made known in peacetime.
My noble friend Lord Gainford raised the question of amateur radio hams. The Home Office encourages local authorities to involve amateurs who form part of Raynet in their planning for communications, as well as other radio networks in the area.
My noble friend Lord Mersey referred to his visit to the Civil Defence College. He is right to acknowledge the excellent work done by the college. The staff are drawn from both the military and other walks of life, and the Home Office has no evidence that the pay is inadequate to attract the right quality of staff No cut in the resources available to the college is planned at present.
My noble friend—I cannot remember which noble friend—commented on the possibility of a biological-chemical attack. Perhaps someone will confess to this?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have the germ of an idea.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I might just as well tell your Lordships that we have no chemical or biological weapons and that the Government are playing a leading part at the conference on disarmament at Geneva to achieve a comprehensive, verifiable ban on the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Although we do not regard their use as likely, this cannot be completely ruled out—particularly against military targets. We are, therefore, actively considering how the present warning arrangements could be used for the detection and warning of the danger presented by chemical weapons and what protective measures might be taken.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked me questions about research, particularly research on Civil Defence, which takes place largely within the scientific research

1155
and development branch of the Home Office. This branch has a complement of 13 people and I shall write to my noble friend with the financial details. My noble friend also asked about leaflets. The Home Office has produced a number of booklets on Civil Defence and my noble friends have mentioned some of these, which are being revised, including Protect and Survive, and they will be re-issued later this year. We do not keep a record of leaflets issued locally.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me what would take place after the abolition of the GLC. The Government are confident that new arrangements to be made for Civil Defence in the GLC area and in the areas of the metropolitan counties following abolition will provide a sound basis on which to build. But we shall watch carefully how the work progresses.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his desire for a strong body of volunteers. Those of us who are old enough to remember the last war will recall Dad's Army and the ARP. Those among us who were not then alive may smile, but when the chips were down both of those voluntary groups played a vital part by fulfilling the role allotted to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said that Civil Defence is unnecessary. I am absolutely sure that he is wrong. Just as the Home Guard, because it was a trained unit, was important—and I realise that today's weapons are very different—so the same criterion applies to Civil Defence. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said—and I heard him—that Civil Defence can do little in war; that those authorities who do nothing are right. That is a disgraceful philosophy, thoroughly impractical, and a pessimistic view, and one with which the Government could never agree. The first duty of a Government is to keep the peace. Our policies for defence and for multilateral disarmament from a position of strength have helped keep the peace in Europe for almost 40 years, and should continue to do so. In this uncertain—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I will not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not giving way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend does not wish to give way, she is entitled not to. The noble Lord must not hold her up from making her speech if she will not give way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Very well, my Lords; I accept the noble Lord's ruling, but I think I am entitled to say—
Lord Denham: No, my Lords, the noble Lord is not entitled to say if my noble friend will not give way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, very well. I shall accept the noble Lord's ruling under protest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I was saying, our policies for defence and for multilateral disarmament from a position of strength have helped to keep the peace in Europe for almost 40 years, and should continue to do so. In this uncertain world there should be no argument about the need for Civil Defence in case defence policy were to break down. Much has already been done, but much remains to be done, as it always willl. If there is to be a Civil Defence, it should be effective, and that is the aim of this Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the mover of this debate a long time ago may I say, rather boldly perhaps, that I think that it has achieved its purposes. The first purpose was to enable as many noble Lords and noble Baronesses as possible in all parts of the House to give us the benefit of their experience, their judgment and their expertise, and I am so grateful to all of them who have done so.
Secondly, I must confess that a purpose of the debate was to try to achieve a consensus across the Floor of the House, and that has been achieved to, I think, a reasonable and good extent. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for making his position clear as the all-party approach. If I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was quite unequivocally in favour of that approach.
At this late hour your Lordships will not expect me to say very much. but I think that I should quickly draw attention to some conclusions which must be drawn from this debate. The first is that the all-hazards approach appears to be generally acceptable. There is the one exception of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and we understand his lonely position. But that has been accepted. Secondly, the Government's position has been clearly stated: they wish to go on improving Civil Defence; and we have been given in some detail an indication of the ways in which they intend to do so.
Thirdly, I must point out to my noble friend Lady Trumpington—I am so grateful to her, as I am to my noble friend Lord Elton, for the trouble that they took to go into considerable detail—that Lord Elton's statement about the unfeasibility of evacuation plans in the event of a possible nuclear attack is something about which the Government will have to think again. In the way that he stated it, and my noble friend lady Trumpington stated it, I rather have the fear that the Government do not even intend to have plans for evacuation in the event of a conventional attack, and that would of course be quite inconsistent.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I rather hesitate to ask my noble friend to give way, since I did not give way to somebody else. However, I think that that is a question of law and order taking over, as they always do with evacuation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with deep respect, that is an entirely separate issue. I must leave that as it is. I shall not take up further time.
The crux of this debate has really been seen to be the part to be played in future by local authorities. A number of speakers—in all parts of the House, it is fair to say—have rather indicated that this depends upon finance. Well, it must depend upon finance to some extent, but let us remember that there are some local authorities already playing a very full part on the basis of the present financial arrangements. I would hope that all local authorities will come round to that point of view. But if we find that we do not get enough volunteers on the basis of the present financial arrangements, then the Government will indeed have to think again. That, I believe, is one of the major lessons from this debate.
The Government will wish to study everything that has been said and to take it on board; and I hope that they will do so. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.
Shipbuilding Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

NHS: Drug Prescribing
9.13 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their answer to Lord Kilmarnock's Question on 15th January (cols. 867–870), and of the widespread professional support for the Greenfield Report on Effective Prescribing, they will now seek to obtain general agreement to revised proposals, taking into account the recommendations of that report.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question standing in my name I want first to thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have stayed here so late in order to participate in this debate. I think I am right in saying that not a single person has "scratched", which seems to me to be very creditable. This Question stems from the Starred Question I asked on 15th January. I asked whether, in view of the widespread opposition to their proposed limited list for National Health Service drugs, the Government would reconsider generic substitution by pharmacists
1158
with the consent of the doctor, as proposed by the department's own internal committee chaired by Dr. Greenfield.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, replied "No" to that question. But he seemed to recognise later that day, at column 870, that the list would have to be substantially amended. It is also common knowledge that the Government invited submissions from interested parties to the new internal committee chaired by Dr. Acheson. January 31 was the deadline, and the committee is presumably sifting the responses now. It is therefore my hope, indeed my aim, that what is said here this evening will play some part in that process. This Question is less tightly drawn than my earlier one because it is not intended to box the Government into a corner. It invites them to make a constructive response to the many criticisms that their plan has attracted.
We on these Benches are in favour of reducing the drugs bill as a proportion of National Health Service expenditure to release resources for other pressing needs in the service. We made this quite plain in a policy document we issued in 1982. But we are not in favour of the Government's way of going about this, and their friends on this issue seem to be few and far between. In 1982 we advocated generic substitution where feasible, unless there was an express wish from the GP to the contrary. We also thought that new drugs should only be adopted by the NHS if they were safer, cheaper or more effective than the drugs already available—a form of limited list, if you like, which would discourage the "me-too-ism", as I believe it is popularly called, and would encourage genuinely innovative products whose patent life we thought should be extended.
But what are we presented with? We are presented with a draft list of breathtaking incompetence. When doctors came into the National Health Service as independent contractors, preservation of their clinical judgment was part of the basic understanding. If they were state employees the Government might be in a stronger position to give them orders, but even in that situation it is to be doubted whether a wise Government would try to impose such an amateurish list with so little technical rationale. Even if the Government were only flying a kite this would be disturbing.
Let us take a few items from the list. Benzodiazepine prescribing is already on the decrease, and yet we are to be restricted to three out of over fifty. Two of these are long acting and one slightly shorter, but the spectrum of pharmacological possibilities is not remotely covered by this selection. There is no provision for someone who needs a short-acting sedative to "get off".
Let us take the case of laxatives. None is allowed that is effective for cancer patients whose medication induces severe constipation. Let us take aspirin. No enteric-coated aspirin is to be allowed, yet this is essential in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as normal aspirin in the required quantities would damage the stomach lining. If it is suggested that such patients should get their supplies from hospitals, they will have to be taken to the hospitals by ambulance for many of them are crippled, involving far greater expense than anything saved by banning enteric-

1159
coated aspirin from the GP's list. Hospitals are now required to restrict the drugs they issue to patients in the community, so where is the rationale, where is the sense of all this?
We have to recognise that there are a number of interests in this rather complex field. First, and most importantly, we have the patients, by whom I mean the vast majority in this country who are NHS patients. It is obvious that their interests are not best served by limiting their doctors' ability to treat them adequately or even competently. This would bear with especial harshness on the exempt categories—the elderly, the young and the poor—whose prescriptions are now exempt from charges and who would have to pay the full price, not for only the over-the-counter products but for the many painkillers, laxatives and so forth that suit them—or go without.
This is to introduce first, and second or third class medicine with a vengeance. Some say it would be tampering with the foundations of the National Health Service. It will undoubtedly encourage a drift back to private medicine by those who can afford it, thus diminishing the general support across class and income barriers which the NHS enjoys and upon which it depends. This could be seen as a break-up of the GP's side of the National Health Service by the back door. If that is what the Government intend they should say as much.
People recall the Prime Minister's pledge that the National Health Service is "safe in our hands". They are frankly bewildered, and that is why they sign petitions such as the one I hold in my hand from 300 people who live in Barnsley which says:
"We the undersigned petition against this Government's National Health cutbacks on medicines and tablets".
I believe that 300 good citizens of Barnsley all signed in one afternoon.
That is the case for the patients. Now we come to the doctors, to whom the patients' interests must also be paramount. They are understandably furious over the lack of consultation. The Greenfield Report lay on the Government's table from 1982 and on the public table from 1983. On 8th December 1983 the Government said that they accepted the Greenfield Report other than paragraph 24 on generic substitution, which presumably meant that they accepted the recommendation in paragraph 25 against a limited list. There was no further discussion of the matter with the profession or the BMA before the announcement on 8th November 1984 of a limited list. Perhaps the BMA were ill advised to take such umbridge as they did at this U-turn, but it is understandable. Now, they again have offered positive collaboration with the department on policies for rational and effective prescribing, which should of course be accepted by the Minister.
Not all doctors, the Government may say, speak with one voice. Of course, there are different degrees of tone, emphasis and volume in which one can express concern. The Royal College of Physicians supports the principle of limited prescribing, but subject to important safeguards set out by Sir Raymond Hoffenburg in his letter to The Times on 15th January, in which he stresses that drugs must be available,
1160
"to meet the full range of desired therapeutic activity",
and calls for an appeals mechanism and regular reviews of the list. These are important qualifications to the Government's present proposals, and would all cost money.
The Royal College of General Practitioners have usually spoken in gentler tones than the BMA, but on this occasion they, too, condemned the Government's proposals as not well founded" and "clinically inept". I think that their letter to the Chief Medical Officer is particularly well balanced.
"There are",
they say,
"some well recognised anomalies in the supply and payment for drugs available through the National Health Service which are inequitable and should be removed. It is therefore time for all concerned to adopt a purposeful and constructive approach in order to establish a comprehensive strategic policy.".
Then they go on to describe their own approach to responsible prescribing on the basis of local practice formularies, generic prescribing and limiting the quantities of drugs supplied. In a letter to me on 29th January their chairman. Dr. Irvine, wrote:
"We are firmly committed to the broad lines of Greenfield underpinned and reinforced by clinical performance review.".
In this the Royal College of General Practitioners is encouragingly at one with the BMA, whose information manager, Pamela Taylor, has also written to me—I have the letter here—saying:
"You ask whether the GMSC could associate itself with an approach based broadly on Greenfield, together with the self-monitoring proposals advanced from several quarters. The answer is, Yes".
My Lords, who else is involved?—obviously, the community pharmacists, represented by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. They say that they,
"support a limited prescribing list which ensures value for money"—
Wait for it!—
"provided that a sufficient range of drugs continues to be available to meet the full range of clinical needs".
They would accept,
"the introduction of generic substitution where the proprietary medicine has exceeded the patent protection period and where the therapeutic effect and availability of the generic drug are assured".
They have some other useful suggestions on the role of the pharmacist and for reducing waste by triple prescriptions and dose-related quantities, and things of that nature.
That leaves us with the pharmaceutical industry, which has mounted a very high-profile campaign against the limited list. I do not underestimate the contribution of the industry to research and to exports, but, frankly, I think they went a bit over the top—and I told them so when I addressed a symposium that they recently held in the Barbican. After all, the National Health Service represents only 4 per cent. of the world's drug market and research done in the United Kingdom is reflected in world-wide sales. I do not believe that a great industry could not absorb some change, notably in promotional expenditure. The "complete dismay"—to use Dr. Griffin's words—with which they regard generic substitution seems to me to be somewhat exaggerated. I do not see why they could not manufacture high quality generics over here.
Yet, my Lords, the industry certainly has some valid points on parallel importing, quality control and patent protection. Also, the Government's total change of course between late 1983, when a limited list was absolutely "out", to late 1984, when it was suddenly and pugnaciously "in"—with no intervening discussion or consultation whatsoever—has obviously taken some companies by surprise and could have serious investment and job implications. Fortunately, we shall have the opportunity to discuss these rather complex matters in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, on the pharmaceutical industry on 20th February, and so I shall not pursue them here. The important thing for the moment is that the industry, according to the latest APBI News, which I have here, would be,
"happy to join in a working party with the department and the medical profession to discuss possible economies in a fair and constructive way".
So, my Lords, that is the field, excluding of course the Government. If there is not total consensus on what ought to be done, there is certainly convergence of all parties other than the Government. There are differences of emphasis, but I do not believe they are so great as to make impossible an agreed solution if—and this is a big "if"—the Government have the political will to bring it about.
Let us now be very realistic. The Government aim at £100 million, knowing they will not achieve that. As they have already said, their list is negotiable and it is presumably being negotiated at this moment, or tomorrow. The more it becomes a workable and clinically adequate list, the less it will save. Perhaps a more realistic figure would have been £50 million. My proposals (broadly those supported by both the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners), involving some degree of generic prescribing, some generic substitution, local formularies and searching self-audit, along with some of the pharmacists' ideas, would easily build up to an equivalent figure and beyond, with the added advantage of wide support and a fair wind in their sails.
There is another important consideration. The encouragement of good practice involves no additional bureaucracy. Have the Government thought through the administrative nightmare of their scheme?—assessors, new applications, an appeals tribunal, monitoring, policing, to say nothing of the threat of legal action, which I understand to be a distinct possibility. No, my Lords, that is not the right way. A rigid statutory list can only diminish a doctor's personal sense of responsibility. Indeed, faced with a therapeutic gap, he may simply prescribe upwards: for example, an antibiotic for a linctus or a knock-out sedative for a mild one. He may be forced into expensive overkill. The Government are keen on voluntarism and self-regulation in other walks of life: indeed it is the core of their philosophy. Why do they deny it to the medical profession? The threat of a limited list can always be held in reserve if the measures I suggest fail to deliver the goods.
Finally, I genuinely want to get the Government off the hook of bringing unpopular and unworkable regulations to Parliament, for there will be further storms if they do. I therefore want to ask the Government seriously to consider taking the following
1162
five steps. First, to defer the introduction of a statutory limited list for, say, two years; secondly, to widen out Dr. Acheson's committee to include representation from all those bodies which have now publicly indicated a readiness to reach a sensible and workable agreement; thirdly, to facilitate and encourage the adoption of the various measures supported by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, along with the anti-waste proposals of the pharmacists; fourthly, to set target savings in real terms, against which progress can be monitored by the expanded DHSS committee in the noble Lord's department; and, fifthly, if the experience is good, to stick to this course. If it is disappointing, the limited list weapon is always ready to hand, always there in the armoury.
This, I believe, is a solution which should appeal to all people of good sense and goodwill, in and out of the Alliance—for this is not a party matter. I repeat that this is not a party matter and it is in this spirit that I offer it to the Government. I realise that the noble Lord cannot say "yea" or "nay" from the Dispatch Box tonight, but will he commend it to his right honourable and honourable friends? And, in so doing, will he hear in mind that we are not talking only about the various professional and commercial interests involved—important and legitimate though they may be—but above all about patients' interests? And will he also hear in mind that the Government's actions will ultimately be judged against the Prime Minister's pledge that.
"The National Health Service is safe in our hands"?
9.29 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing this dicussion and for the way in which he did it. I must say that I agreed with almost all that he had to say. I think that perhaps to ask the Government to delay for two years may be going too far, but I would certainly join in his plea that the present method which is proposed should not be proceeded with and that there should be effective consultation.
In April 1981, shortly before the DHSS established the Greenfield working group, my successor as Secretary of State for Social Services, Patrick Jenkin, said:
"In Britain, in contrast with many other countries … we have resisted any system of limiting the freedom of a doctor to prescribe whatever he thinks his patient needs. Not for us are such devices as limited lists, black lists … We talk about the doctor's freedom to prescribe, but what we should really talk about is the patient's freedom to be treated as his doctor recommends".
I thought that that was a very good statement. I thought that it was pretty clear. I thought that it stated absolutely without peradventure that the Government were not about to do, and were not considering, what they have now said they are going to do.
I accepted, and I think that the professions and those who were interested in this subject accepted, the assurance given by the Minister that he meant what he said. If he did not, what did he mean? This is what we are talking about tonight—the right of patients to obtain medication regardless of their financial situation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, touched upon this, because those who

1163
would suffer most as a result of the first proposed limited list would undoubtedly be the elderly, the disabled and those suffering from arthritis, etc.
All right, my Lords, maybe the list will be much improved in the course of consultation, but the proposals which were announced by the Secretary of State in November 1984 were, in my view, quite contrary to the whole spirit of the National Health Service expressed in the principles repeated by successive Governments: first, that the patient's interests must come first—clearly, that is ignored in this proposal; secondly, that there is no restriction on the doctor's clinical freedom—that I believe successive Governments have stood by and I think that they should stand by it; and, thirdly, that we do not create a two-tier National Health Service, one for those who can pay and an alternative for those who cannot.
Let us get it quite clear that, if the Government have their way, whenever a doctor prescribes a medicine from one of the therapeutic groups that are listed, patients will have to pay the full cost of the medicine prescribed whatever their personal circumstances, unless the medicine happens to be on the limited list. There will be no exemptions. Inevitably, the ability to pay will determine the patient's treatment, prescribing patterns will be distorted and effective prescribing made more difficult.
The proposal, whatever the contents of the limited list, however much it is revised in the present consultations, runs directly contrary to the principle of the National Health Service that the individual's ability to pay determines his tax, but not his medical treatment. Once the principle of a limited list is conceded, a two-tier system of care within the National Health Service's general practice is established and the way is open for further restrictions whenever political expediency demands. I believe that these proposals open the door to things that could be even more dangerous.
What I have just said are not my views alone. They are the views of Dr. Michael Wilson, the chairman of the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA. It is interesting also that the Government's own advisory committee dismissed the present proposals—I will not say out of hand, but after careful consideration.
Perhaps I may refer very briefly to the Greenfield Report and to what they had to say. I am quoting from paragraph 25, when they said:
"it is our view that a limitation on prescribing at NHS expense would be interpreted by some doctors as an attempt to curtail their freedom".
I think it will be interpreted by all doctors as an attempt to restrict their clinical freedom. It goes on:
"Since we have not received any convincing evidence that suggested financial benefits would outweigh the administrative problems in drawing-up and maintaining the list we have concluded that such a move would not be justified and we do not recommend any measures to introduce nationwide a Limited List".
It is because of that statement that I was staggered when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that the proposals that were before the House, before the Government and before the country were proposals that sprang from discussions ever since 1981. We
1164
knew what the Minister had said in 1981 and we know what the Greenfield Committee concluded when it reported in 1982. The department's own evidence to the Greenfield working party opposed the introduction of a limited list.
What sort of consultation has there been? Virtually none. There is consultation about what is on the list, but there has been no consultation about the method devised; namely, a limited list. The Government put forward their plan without prior consultation with the medical of pharmaceutical professions, with patient representatives or the pharmaceutical industry. Their goal is simply to cut public expenditure on health care by £100 million, not to reallocate spending within the NHS.
The Government's proposals have been condemned by most of the royal colleges, by the BMA, by the Government's own Standing Medical Advisory Committee, by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, by patient groups, by charities such as Age Concern and Help the Aged, and by many individual experts. But somehow or other Ministers remain intransigent. Although they will probably permit some extension to their limited list of NHS medicines on the basis of the consultation that is now going on, they apparently intend to stand by their original, arbitrary and unfair intention to withdraw a large number of NHS medicines. I do not want at this stage to go into the particular medicines that are on the list. One could have a long debate about this, but I shall not do so in what will be a short contribution.
I have had a very careful discussion with doctors, with pharmacists and with the pharmaceutical industry, and all agree that the Government believe that it is in the interests of the National Health Service to save £100 million on drugs. I agree that there are savings to be made in the drugs bill. I am not saying that the Government are wrong to seek to make a saving in the drugs bill. All of those whom I have consulted have said that they are prepared to consider with the Government alternative ways of doing this, and that includes the pharmaceutical profession, the British Medical Association and the pharmacists.
The pharmacists' charter, which was published last summer, made a series of proposals which they thought would lead to a saving in drug costs of well over £100 million out of a total drugs bill of more than £1 billion. Among the things they proposed were the introduction of generic substitution where the proprietary medicine exceeded the patent protection period and where the therapeutic effect and availability of the generic drug were assured. I agree with the noble Lord. I am in favour of generic substitution provided only that the GP has the opportunity to say, "It must be what I have put on the prescription sheet". I would not interfere with clinical judgments as the Government now propose to do.
The pharmacists' charter also recommended advice to GPs on the choice of drugs, on the encouragement of generic prescribing, and on the introduction of triple prescriptions so that a patient would receive three prescriptions each for one month rather than three months' supply, thus saving excessive supplies of drugs for patients who do not need to be treated for so long. It recommended the introduction of dose-related

1165
quantities, eliminating the wastage of repeat prescriptions for high dosage pills when low dosage pills are still available. In my view this is a very good agenda for consultation. But for the life of me I do not understand why the Government have not been prepared to sit down with these organisations, all of which are essential to the good operation of the health service, and consult with them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said, this is not an occasion to go into any detail on the problems of the pharmaceutical industry, but I think it is perfectly fair to say to the noble Lord that a qualified firm of accountants has studied the likely effects of the limited list proposal. They consulted more than 20 leading pharmaceutical companies operating in Britain. Some of those companies were British and some were foreign. Some were multinational firms and some were entirely British-based. That study related to the value of investment plans deferred or cancelled as a result of the Government's limited list proposal. It estimated that such deferment and cancellation could be valued at 138·2 million. That is a very large sum of money. It also accounts for a very large number of jobs—some 2,000—if that estimate is correct; although I cannot say whether or not it is correct.
At this stage I urge the Government to think again. I believe that they have created a great deal of anger because of their failure to consult. The opening paragraph of an article by David Fletcher in yesterday's Daily Telegraph stated (and I quote):
"The row with the Government over its plan for a limited list of drugs has brought relations between doctors and Ministers to their lowest ebb for years".
Later it states:
"Ministers admit privately that they had not intended or expected to stir up such a hornets' nest of controversy. Why all the fuss?".
I put the same question. Why did the Government enter into this without some form of consultation?
I will conclude by putting two questions to the Minister. First, will he urge his right honourable friends to think again?—to postpone the 1st April date to enable there to be effective consultation? Secondly, will he comment on the article which appeared in the Guardian today, which suggested that there should be both a black list and a white list and that pharmaceutical companies not only would have to apply to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines but would then have to apply to another committee to ensure that their drugs were available on the National Health Service. This is a very serious allegation and I hope that the Minister will answer both questions when he replies.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, when first I saw the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I wondered whether he planned to discuss only generic drugs. But when I examined the Question more closely and saw its reference to the Greenfield report, it became quite obvious that the discussion this evening would be more general and would deal with the different methods by which money could be saved in the prescribing of drugs in the National Health Service; in other words, a comparison of other methods with the limited list—a matter in which I personally am more interested.
1166
I must declare a double interest. First, I am an ex-medical man, albeit a surgeon. But as noble Lords will know, today anaesthetics (which are drugs) and preoperative and post-operative drugs are taking an infinitely greater part in surgery than they did a few years ago. Secondly, I am a director (although, quite frankly, very much a non-executive director) of a well-known pharmaceutical company.
Having made that declaration, I want to say first and foremost that I greatly regret the limited list concept because it destroys an ideal. That ideal existed long before the NHS came into existence but in fact was vital to its inception: the right of a doctor to treat his patients as he thought best for that patient; and, perhaps even more importantly, the right of a patient to expect that treatment from his doctor. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has already made but I wish to repeat it because we are discussing here an important primary principle.
Some noble Lords with long memories will be able to recall the beginning of the National Health Service. In itself, surely, it was an ideal—even if it has proved rather expensive and impractical in the many years since. Nevertheless, when that service started, GPs refused en masse to follow Aneurin Bevan's ideal. Until he gave them the status of an independent contractor they were determined not to join his National Health Service. This status of independent contractor they still hold today, as your Lordships know: at least, they hold it until the limited list comes on the map and that is where we come to the death of an ideal; The institution of the "black list", as the profession prefers to call it. It is a suggestion which has been so bitterly and unnecessarily antagonistic to so many people.
The list has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but I want to refer to it again because I think that we should realise the enormous antipathy to this idea. Many of the people against it are very good friends of this Government: not only the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry and the Pharmaceutical Society but also practically all the Royal Colleges and their Faculties and specialist associations have all lined up against it. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the DHSS's own Medical Advisory Committee has come out against it, to say nothing of a mass of ordinary people; by which I mean patients and charities, which groups will include, I imagine, a number of MPs and, I hope, a number of people in this, your Lordships' House. Surely that is a formidable opposition to create and I think that it merits serious rethinking.
Personally, I never thought that I should live to see the day when a Government department undertakes the treatment of a patient. That is putting into simple terms what is being done. I think that probably most people would agree that a saving on the National Health Service drugs bill is a very good thing. There is no harm in that. That is practical politics. It is, however, very relevant to say that our expenditure on drugs in this country is lower per capita than for most of our European neighbours, and is considerably lower than that of Japan and America. So it is not as outrageous as people say. It may be a heavy bill for us, but nevertheless it is not as excessive as peope like to make out.

1167
There is the question of the much-maligned profits of drug companies. They have not, as is frequently stated in the press and in the media (and seemingly, judging by the financial raids made on it by the Government), increased very much in the past 10 years: in fact very little more than that which can be accounted for by ordinary inflation. By far the greatest part of those profits goes back into developing the industry, into research and development, and into the making of new drugs for patients.
It was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in answer to a Question a week or two ago, that circumstances had changed since the publication of the Greenfield Report in 1981. No one would deny that, but let us remember that that report (as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said) came down firmly at that time against any form of limited list; so this is a major change. At that time he said that a study of the whole subject of prescribing medicines, in great depth, had taken place—hence, the present project of a limited list.
But what study is involved? Who took part in it? Certainly not the BMA, the ABPI or any pharmaceutical society. Who drew up the painfully inadequate list of prescribable drugs—the very exclusive "white list", as it is described? All this was not disclosed. It is a radical change without any reason at all. This project has nothing to do with medicine or pharmacy. It is entirely political and financial—the DHSS's seemingly blinkered response to the Treasury's request—or, should I say, demand?—for savings of £100 million. That is putting it crudely, but that is what it seems to all of us who are thinking straight. It is a classic example of the dictum that principles and politics make very uncomfortable bedfellows.
The so-called consultations that have taken place—more or less at the point of the gun—since the publication of the limited list have clearly shown that there are many alternative ways of saving this kind of sum. Both the BMA and the ABPI, while very reasonably refusing to discuss a totally inadequate list of which they had had no warning whatsoever, have brought forward a number of alternative constructive propositions, and they have done that without jeopardising the basic principle of clinical practice and without doing irreparable damage to the flourishing British pharmaceutical industry.
Where does this kind of restrictive practice end up? I was told on the highest authority, which I am not permitted to quote, that if the list as originally set out had to be modified after consultation, the Government would expand the scope—that is to say, the number of categories to which limitation applied—until sufficient drugs were proscribable (as against prescribable) to produce the required savings in departmental expenditure. That is where we are going.
What is to prevent the further spread of this limitation-by-diktat policy? Are we to see only "Elephant and Castle" instruments used in operating theatres; only "Fowler" pacemakers supplied to heart patients; only "Kenneth Clarke" prostheses used for hip replacements? This may seem a joke, but it is
1168
extremely serious. That is the policy. If we start doing that sort of thing in one part of the country, it will spread all over the country. It is a risk that is too great to take. The whole idea is so contrary to British medical practice that it merits one description only—sinister.
This is probably not the time or the occasion to enter into details, but I would say just this. The "Black List" is a negative approach to the problem, it is a therapeutially inadequate measure and an inflexible way to cope with an essential part of medical practice—the treatment of the individual patient and the individual disease.
That brings me finally to say a few words on the other side of the picture—the dangerous situation into which the British pharmaceutical industry will be forced as a result of this short-sighted plan. As I said originally, my personal knowledge of the industry dates back a mere 10 years or so, but I have been increasingly impressed by the results that it has achieved and the way in which it has achieved those results.
My view—and I can assure your Lordships that it is not a biased view; I came to it from nowhere at all, I just learnt like any kindergarten pupil, and it has been a very interesting education—is quite unbiased. Of course, one knows that in every industry, in every business and even, one can say, in every profession, there is an odd bad apple in the basket. I do not think that anybody would deny that there is probably an odd bad apple in the pharmaceutical basket. But I would suggest that they are few and far between. I have never been able to understand why Governments, and especially this Government, do not give more active and positive support to what must surely in their book in many ways be an ideal set up.
Here is an industry whose prime purpose is to produce substances to prevent and to treat the ills of the country's population and to reduce and to ameliorate its discomfort and distress. It is an industry employing 70,000 people with minimal industrial disruption—almost negligible. It is an industry earning more than £12 million a year in exports, and, at the same time, attracting very considerable foreign investment. It is an innovative industry responsible for at least 10 per cent. of all the research work done in the world, and probably respected to a far greater extent than that percentage indicates.
Why does it not receive more support from this Government and the backing of the media and the public? It seems extraordinary to me. It has done nothing but good—good medically, good financially, good nationally. The limited list would do irreparable harm to the industry that I have just described. It is so discriminating and so inequitable that, while some companies would lose 50 to 75 per cent. of their profits because their drugs were on the black list, others would be completely untouched by the list as it stands. This is the arbitrary selection of drugs without sufficient knowledge. There is no doubt it would severely restrict research. What self-respecting company will spend thousands of pounds and waste thousands of hours of its highly-skilled scientific staff to produce a new drug which may not achieve the bogus popularity of the white list?

1169
Already the Treasury has, from 1983, through the PPRS scheme, cut the industry's profits to the tune of £100 million. It is now apparently engaged in the process of imposing another major cut. This would seem a classic example of the "goose and golden egg" scenario. Taking all this into consideration, can we not
1170
persuade the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, seriously to think again? This is an ill-thought-out scheme and, to many people, an offensive scheme. One hopes that the Government will see these matters as sufficiently important to have another thought on the subject.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I start by apologising in advance to the House because I have to leave before the end of the debate. This is because I have to catch a train. May I also say that I have listened to my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and I have agreed with every single word that they have said, from beginning to end. I do not want to say it all over again, probably much less well than they have already said it; but there are one or two aspects of generic substitution about which I want to say a word because I can claim to speak with a little authority.
The first reason I say that is because I spent 15 years as a member of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission. I well remember, month after month, agonising over lists of approved names for new drugs. There were certain conventions that had to be followed. One did not give a name that described the action of the drug because a little later another action might be found which was much more useful. One did try to give an indication, in the official name, of the chemical structure of the compound. It was quite extraordinarily difficult to satisfy these conventions and to find a name that was euphonious and tripped readily off the tongue.
We were up against branded names which did not have to obey any of these conventions, and which were chosen solely because they were memorable. I understand that some of them were even trademarked before a drug had been invented for the name. If I give your Lordships one or two examples, I am not at all denigrating these particular compounds. If we take librium, the name is a very easy name. It conjures up liberation from tension and stress. We found that the best name we could give it was chlordiazepoxide. It has six syllables compared with three. Going back a few years before that, a very common barbiturate went under the brand name of Soneryl. I do not know what that conjured up, whether it was somnolence or someone who snores, but it was certainly easier to describe than butobarbitone.
I would remind your Lordships that unless there had been the First World War, we would not be able to prescribe aspirin as the official name. It cannot be done in Germany. It would have to be prescribed as acetylsalicylic acid because it is a Bayer trade mark. That is bad enough. However, when one comes to drugs which are mixtures to two active ingredients, some are all right, but most that I used to teach are wrong. One example is given in the blacklist put out by the ABPI. That is distalgesic. To give distalgesic its proper name means writing down paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. That is a pretty big mouthful. My point is that it is very difficult to get official names that will be remembered.
The second point on which I claim to speak with some authority is that I taught pharmacology in Edinburgh to medical students for 10 long years. I tried hard to persuade them to prescribe using the official names of drugs in order that there should be generic prescribing. I have to confess to total failure. Within a year of leaving my tender hands, they had
1172
learned what all the consultants in the wards did. That was to use the brand name. While that is all right in hospital because the consultants can agree with the hospital pharmacy to dispense the generic form, it is not all right when they go out into practice.
I am saying all this because many statements have been made in various papers over the last few weeks indicating that doctors should be educated to use generic prescribing. It is hopeless to expect that to happen. Official names are too difficult to remember. Even if one does remember them, they are too long to write down even if one can spell, which not all doctors can. Even if the official form of the drug is prescribed, it is still perfectly open to the pharmacist to dispense the very much more expensive brand equivalent. So it works that way round to the cost of the taxpayer. It does not work the other. That seems very odd. If we want to save money on the drugs bill, the answer was, I think, given in Greenfield. It is not generic prescribing. It is generic dispensing. It is certainly not, as everyone has said, in the limited list.
Greenfield's proposals and those that have come forward since suggest a box on the National Health Service prescription form which the doctor would tick if he wanted to allow the generic form. I do not like ticks in boxes. One never knows whether one is opting in or out unless one reads the small print. I believe that nearly all doctors, when prescribing brand names, do it for the reasons that I have outlined. They are easier to remember and quicker to write. They do not care a two penny toss whether the brand drug is prescribed or whether the generic form is prescribed. I believe that if they want the brand form they should be asked not to tick anything but to underline the name twice. Some people underline it once. If they underline it twice it will mean "I want this and nothing else". It would not cost anything. It would save far more than any limited list could possibly save.
In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said, I should like to refer to damage to the drug industry. The limited list will certainly damage the drug industry indiscriminately and unfairly penalising some firms. There is no doubt that generic dispensing could also damage the drug industry unless steps were taken to prevent that. But steps can much more easily be taken to protect the British drug industry, which I agree does a good job on the whole, for instance by extending the patent life of a drug before the generic form becomes available.
I should like to end simply by adding my small voice to those of noble Lords who have already spoken and pleading with the Government to think again. I believe that a generic dispensing proposal would receive general approbation if the safeguard to the industry were taken from every single branch of the professions engaged in medicine, and from the general public; but I think the limited list is being received with general odium.
10.6 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, after so much medical expertise I am shaking with fright at the thought of speaking at all; I really think I need valium! I am not

1173
altogether opposed to generic prescribing, provided that the drugs used come from a reputable manufacturer or supplier who can be identified and against whom an action could be brought for any damage to the patient caused by that drug. The Greenfield Report mentions this in paragraph 21. It does not seem that the present situation is entirely satisfactory, even within the EEC; and what about outwith the EEC? I find this slightly disquieting.
My principal anxiety is about the limited list. I understand that it is being reconsidered in consultation with the professions—medical, I presume—and the pharmaceutical industry. I am very glad to hear this because it really is far too restricted. People are not all the same, and a drug or remedy which may suit one person and be effective may be quite useless or even counter-productive for another. To many of us that does not matter, because if what is available on National Health Service prescription does not suit us we ask for something else, and in many cases we go out and buy it at the chemist without ever going near the doctor; and often it is cheaper than the prescription charge.
But what about those who are exempt from the prescription charges—children, pensioners and some of the disabled? It is certainly not cheaper for them to go and buy what they need, even if it costs less than the prescription charge; and most of them really cannot afford it. I am truly concerned that they will suffer unless either the list is considerably extended or some arrangement can be made by which the limited list would not apply to people who are exempted from prescription charges. I know how important it is to cut out wasteful prescribing—and I know there is a lot of wasteful prescribing—but, please, not at the expense of children, pensioners or the disabled.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I had intended to start with a few rude remarks about the Government's action, using such phrases as, "Elected dictatorship" or, "Democracy isn't a ballot-box exercise to be indulged in once every four or five years"; but I think that might he regarded as party political, and I think also that the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply has already had quite enough criticism on that front.
I merely want to say that the medical profession is as concerned as anyone with the problems of prescribing; this has been alluded to by all speakers so far. Cost is only one of the problems of prescribing. We have had much responsible opinion that there is far too great a reliance on drugs—a pill for every ill, if you like. Doctors are under great pressure to prescribe. Limited time, and sometimes an unwillingness to listen, or inadequate training in getting to the bottom of patients' problems, may result in a prescription being given instead of the explanation and advice that is needed. As the Greenfield Report says:
"In our view a little extra time spent listening and talking to patients on their first visit will usually benefit both patient and doctor in the longer term".
Unfortunately, the prescription sometimes becomes the symbol for the fuller doctor-patient transaction
1174
that did not take place. But with the best will in the world, it is not always possible to change people's expectations. Sometimes patients will say to me, after I have listened to their problems at some length, "Well, I feel very much better now. Thank you for listening to me. By the way, before I go can I have my valium?"
Changes in attitudes take place, and I can understand the Government's reluctance to wait the decade or so that it might take before better medical practice and changed public attitudes have a measurable effect. We fully accept that more urgent measures are necessary now. But that is exactly why the Greenfield working group was set up. It consisted of representatives of all the major branches of the medical profession and the DHSS. There were five GPs, three consultants, and four DHSS officials on the informal working group. They recommended not only generic substitution, which would have had an immediate cost-cutting effect, but also much longer-term measures whose effects will increase with time. The Government say that they have accepted these other recommendations, but so far there has been very little evidence of that.
One of the most important recommendations was the provision of detailed prescribing information to general practitioners. They said:
"General practitioners should have available to them frequent detailed analyses of their own prescribing for self-audit purposes. These should form part of a continuous educational process and research is needed into the method and style of presentation".
A very important piece of research on the effect of this kind of approach is described in Prescribing: A Suitable Case for Treatment—some might say a well-chosen title—suggesting that "prescribing" is in a bad way and needs attention. But I wonder whether amputation is the right method of treatment. This report was produced by a team from St. Mary's Hospital and is published by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Here a group of 28 general practitioners in North London were given detailed computerised analyses of their prescriptions over a period of a single month on four occasions separated by six-month intervals. Each month's analysis was followed up by detailed discussions of the findings, at which groups of doctors met a clinical pharmacologist.
At the end of a two-year period it was found that the proportion of generic preparations had risen from 16 to 23 per cent. and relative costs had fallen by 12 per cent. compared with a controlled group who did not have the benefits of this information and discussion. If these results were extrapolated nationally £61 million could have been saved. This saving was partly made up of the change from proprietary to generic products and partly by better prescribing, often using cheaper alternatives of equal efficacy. It is interesting to note that this saving was achieved with only a small shift towards generic prescribing. Considerably greater savings could have been achieved with full generic substitution.
Noble Lords might be interested in another example of self-audit; this time an example from my own group general practice. As a development of an inquiry into antibiotic prescribing we decided to look at all the

1175
drugs we prescribed over a five-week period. There were 523 different preparations; of these, generic preparations made up 29 per cent. of the total, which your Lordships may note is already considerably higher than the national average. We thought that it would be useful to try to develop our own limited list or "practice formulary" of drugs which we would try to stay within, both for economy and good clinical practice. After several meetings, much redrafting and discussion with an eminent clinical pharmacologist we reduced our list to some 280 drugs, of which 80 per cent were generic preparations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has said, to discipline oneself to write out the generic title of every drug requires some effort. The list was chosen to the exclusion of brand name products. Noble Lords will be interested to know that we have described this exercise in a paper which will be published in this week's edition of the British Medical Journal. The article is entitled "Prescribing: The Power to Set Limits". This is not the first effort of this kind; several similar articles in the journals have been published over the past few years, and hospitals have for many years used their own formularies which have been drawn up and agreed by the doctors and pharmacists working in the hospital. These lists are flexible; the effects of limited drug lists depends on how and by whom they are compiled, and how the doctors' compliance is maintained. Compliance is most likely if the prescribing doctors have been actively involved in constructing the list, and this is where the Government have gone completely wrong.
Quite apart from creating the two-class system and undermining the basic philosophy of the National Health Service as the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, has pointed out, doctors are going to feel profoundly annoyed at having their judgment overruled without consultation. Some, as has been mentioned, may even consciously or subconsciously sabotage the Government's intentions to save money by, for instance, prescribing a more expensive drug from a different category which is not on the restricted list. An example might be to prescribe Tagamen, which costs £14 for a hundred tablets, instead of Asilone or Gaviscon, which cost £4 per 100 tablets. All three are useful for acid indigestion but Tagamet alone can heal a duodenal ulcer. It can also have unpleasant side effects: a healed ulcer is worth the risk, but the cost and the risk are certainly not worth it if there is no ulcer.
Changes in prescribing will profoundly affect patients and the process of constructing a formulary, or limited list, needs to be linked with the provision of information and advice to patients about the changes in prescribing that are going to take place, and should include a method of incorporating patients' response. In our practice we plan to ask our Centre Users' Group—this is a consumer group composed of patients—to consider the formulary and in their routine surveys of patients' views of the service to inquire about their views on the use of this limited list of drugs. These views will have been taken into account when the formulary is revised, and we intend to do this from time to time.
Finally I should like to give your Lordships the concluding paragraph of the evidence given by the
1176
Department of Health and Social Security to the Greenfield Committee when commenting on whether a limited list would be useful.
"It is almost impossible to establish whether the introduction of a limited list of drugs will in itself produce any financial saving for the NHS. What does seem apparent is that any attempt so to do is likely to arouse hostility, result in higher administrative costs, affect the pricing of drugs and the industry, generate unwelcome pressures for GPs and pharmacists, and possibly cast some doubt on the Government's intentions towards the standard of provision of general medical services in the NHS."
Some of these powerful comments have already been shown to be true, and it is highly likely that time would show the other objections to be equally valid. I do most earnestly ask the Government to reconsider their mistaken step in suggesting this list. I am sure—and other medical Peers have pointed this out—that the profession will readily agree to the introduction of all the measures suggested in the Greenfield Report, and more, which will preserve a greater freedom of action and eventually lead to greater savings and more responsible prescribing if the Government will stay their hand on the limited list as all noble Lords who have spoken have requested.
10.19 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for enabling us to debate an issue which has caused concern right down the line. I should also like to apologise to him for not being in the Chamber to hear what he said, but I look forward to reading it tomorrow.
I welcome any attempt to avoid waste, and it certainly seems that the area of drug prescription is one where there is waste and in which savings can be made; but it must not be to the detriment of the consumer. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has already said, among the most worried consumers are the terminally ill, the elderly, the chronically sick and the disabled, many of whom need regular drugs and are on pensions or low wages. I am going to concentrate on the needs of people with spinal cord injury, paraplegics and tetraplegics, and this will also include people with, for example, spina bifida and, to a certain degree, people with multiple sclerosis.
People with other disabilities also have essential needs which must be met, but their problems are rather different. Here I should like to ask the Minister whether he can assure me that Brompton mixture, which is diamorphine and cocaine, will still be available on an ordinary National Health Service prescrition as it is invaluable for treating severe terminal breathing problems. I believe he has already had a letter on this from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox.
I welcome the news that the limited list is to be enlarged with regard to laxatives and pain killers, which are two of the three groups of drugs which are vital to paraplegics, the third being the benzodiazepine group. Neverthless, I am still worried, and the Spinal Injuries Association—the SIA, of which my noble friend is the president—is worried. The Scottish Council on Disability and many individual paraplegics and tetraplegics are worried, and I should like to explain why.

1177
First, laxatives. Paraplegics have no control over their bowels, and therefore it is extremely important, if they want to get around and lead normal lives, that they get the bowels right. The SIA, in its response to the proposed limitations, give some examples (but I should like to stress that they are only some) of the drugs used. I quote:
"Many members must use Dulcolax, Deogex or other products such as Dulcolax Rectal solution, perhaps combined with oral laxatives, because their paralysed bowel will not work without additional drug action. The balance between good bowel action, constipation or accidents during the day requires fine tuning for each individual often by the daily use of oral laxatives such as Senokot, Syrup of Figs, Dorbanex, Regulan or Fybogel in addition to suppositories".
During the exchanges on the Starred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on 15th January, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said that she had had letters from people who were extremely worried by the exclusion of Dorbanex from the list. The individual person's needs vary enormously, and in the case of paraplegics they really need access to the whole range of available laxatives. It is no good suggesting that paraplegics change their diet or their lifestyle, take exercise and do without laxatives, like many able-bodied people, because their system has been impaired. I am lucky and, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, I get by on bran, but most do not.
I should like to read an extract fron a letter which a very worried and otherwise healthy and active paraplegic wrote to her Member of Parliament. She said:
"I personally am a 'health food' believer, but my bran-and-fruit-juice breakfast is not sufficient and my digestive system cannot cope with quantities of raw vegetables or nuts. I have spent 5 weeks in hospital during the last year in an attempt to clear and regulate my digestive system and bowels. Laxatives are essential. They always have been. The laxatives which my GP now prescribes for me have restored my health. 'Laxoberyl' and 'Fybogel' (or 'Regulan') are essential for the maintenance of my good health and my paralysed body. I cannot live without them. I cannot afford to buy them. They are on the 'hit list' and there is no generic substitute".
Before I move from this area of the anatomy I should like to ask the Minister about disposagloves, which I presume are not in a group subject to limitation; but the SIA and my noble friend fought long and hard to get them on prescription because the standard issue of glove could and did damage the bowel during manual evacuation. I would welcome assurance from the Minister on that point. In her quest to try to get disposagloves accepted on the list, I believe my noble friend waved a glove in this Chamber at the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who was then the Minister. Anyway, she succeeded.
I now move to analgesics. The SIA states:
"Pain is the single most debilitating side effect of paraplegia for many members. Aspirin and Paracetamol tablets are usually ineffective with chronic pain and the hard-core of members who suffer intractable pain may need Distalgesics or a combination of powerful analgesics to make life barely tolerable".
I very much hope that a wider range will be made available to control pain that may occur every day in the life of a person with spinal cord injury.
Finally, the benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers. These are used by paraplegics and tetraplegics (the latter have broken their necks and so are paralysed
1178
in all four limbs) to lessen muscle spasm, which can be a severe problem. One can have a severe spasm of the muscles in the legs, the back, the bowels and in the stomach, and even, in the case of tetraplegics, in the arms and in the neck. These can be so severe in the case of a tetraplegic that they can throw you out of bed or out of your chair. Some people even have to be strapped in. A spasm can prevent you from driving a car because your legs may spasm up under the steering wheel. You can burn yourself drinking a cup of coffee because you have a sudden jerking spasm and you throw the boiling coffee all over your legs.
I had, with great reluctance, because it had adverse other effects, an operation to lessen spasm because mine became so strong that I used almost to fall out of the chair when I was getting dressed and I had great difficulty in transferring and I really thought that I might lose my independence. So I felt that it was worth having this operation.
The Spinal Injuries Association say that while Diazepam (which is on the list) is suitable for some members, the newer benzodiazepines can often offer better control with fewer side effects. As with laxatives, the individual paraplegic will find one particular drug that suits him and he really needs to be able to choose from the whole range.
Personally, I would prefer that there was no limited list. I believe that great savings could be made by generic prescribing, as suggested in paragraph 24 of the Greenfield Report, and I am even more convinced now, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who I thought made a very interesting speech. I think that to a lesser extent you could cut costs a lot by limiting the quantities of drugs prescribed for long-term treatments to one month's supply, as suggested in paragraph 27. When people are encouraged by chemists to return unused and unwanted drugs some bring back supplies worth hundreds of pounds. I believe that there was a case in a south coast town where someone brought back unwanted drugs worth between £2,000 and £3,000. I am also worried that if a limited list is introduced, it could be extended to other groups at some time in the future. I am worried even more so now, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said.
I very much hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to introduce a limited list, but if we are to be stuck with it, we must see that the various disability groups in general, and those with spinal cord injury in particular, get what they need. The SIA submit that the revised list must initially include all drugs required by its members and must be reviewed regularly, so that new drugs can be added and that, furthermore, consultants should be able to authorise a special free prescription for an essential drug excluded from the list. A consultant in spinal injuries at Stoke Mandeville Hospital says that he thinks that paraplegics should have free access to the whole range of laxatives and all the drugs to treat spasm because the treatment of spinal cord injury is so specialised that one needs the whole variety to choose from.
Whichever way it is done, my Lords, I think that all the drugs necessary to treat the consequences of spinal cord injury should be freely available for they clearly

1179
are not being used to treat minor or self-limiting ailments. We are not talking about very expensive drugs, but they are in many cases needed daily and for the rest of the paraplegic's life, which may well be for 20 or 30 years, and could be more. Most paraplegics are exempt from prescription charges. Many more are on low wages or pensions or are unemployed and so it would cause hardship to have to pay for these drugs.
Nor do I think that those who can afford it should have to pay this additional cost of disability. British paraplegics are treated in National Health Service hospitals, not as private patients, because it is in the NHS hospitals that the best treatment is available. The management of paraplegia is, in fact, one of the great success stories of the National Health Service and it would be inappropriate to have to pay for the consequences of paraplegia.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, it will be a serious reflection on the wisdom of the Government if we do not have a significant response to the appeals which have been made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, himself, and by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Porritt, and the others, up to and including the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). It will be a serious reflection if we do not have a significantly positive response from the Government—perhaps not tonight, since that might be too much to expect, but certainly before the matter is finalised.
It is customary courtesy of this House to express appreciation to those who initiate these debates; but it is no mere courtesy to my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock tonight, because but for his success in obtaining this debate no opportunity might have presented itself at all. It seems to me a very great pity indeed that a debate on a matter of such great public importance should take place starting some time after 9 o'clock and finishing around 11 o'clock. There are a dozen or two of us on this side of the House—and when I say "on this side of the House" I mean on these Alliance Benches, on the Labour Benches and on the Cross Benches. There is not a single, solitary soul that I can see on the other side of the House, apart from the two Members of the Government; and I think that is altogether regrettable.
Are the Government going to brush aside and pay no attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said? For example, he talked of the destruction of an ideal. Are they going to laugh that off and smile about it, and think it does not really mean anything, coming from Lord Porritt, with no political axe to grind—as they might accuse me, or the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, of wanting to do?
The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, also said that the thing was so contrary to British medical practice that it merited the description "sinister"; and he was right. It was very much the same as the view expressed by my own general practitioner—a view expressed to me in somewhat blunter and more graphic language. Here we are dealing with it tonight. Are the Government going to respond or not?
1180
It is a great pity that we should deal with it tonight, because of course no one will hear about this. I do not suppose the media will repeat what the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Porritt, have said about this matter. And the great British public, who will be affected by this as much as by almost any other single domestic issue that we have discussed in this Parliament since I have been a Member of it, will hear nothing about it. I think it is a great pity that the Government should get away with this. But governments, of course, of all parties—and I have been a member of one that got away with more than it deserved to get away with—nowadays seem to get away with an enormous number of sins, at least in this way.
Of course, no sensible person would deny the importance of keeping public expenditure, including expenditure on the National Health Service drugs bill, under control and of avoiding waste. But, surely, when they reflect seriously upon it, many will share my feeling that there is something absurdly but profoundly pathetic in this attempt—which will no doubt prove as ill-fated as have other attempts of this Government before it—to bring public expenditure under control by denying the elderly and aged poor their Dorbanex under the National Health Service. This feeling will be all the more acute if you share my view that the competence of successive Labour and Conservative Governments over these last two decades or so in avoiding wasteful or unnecessary expenditure has scarcely been exemplary.
However, away back in the 1930s there was a popular song whose refrain was.
"It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it".
I remember it because I was interested in those matters in those days myself. The way in which this Government handle a wide range of the nation's affairs reminds me from time to time, with increasing frequency, of the words of that old song. There is, however, a problem—and I speak of this of course purely as a layman—relating to the achievement of effective, including cost-effective, prescribing.
To me as a layman—because I do not fully appreciate some of the more technical aspects of the matter—it is the way in which the Government have approached this problem that is open to serious criticism. Indeed they have been thoroughly incompetent. So far as the Greenfield Report itself is concerned, it is not just that in paragraph 25 the committee came out against a limited list. In the face of that alone, I could understand the Minister saying, as he did on 15th January at Question Time at col. 867 of Hansard:
"Times have moved on since then."
But that is not good enough, for in his covering letter presenting his report to the then Minister, Dr. Greenfield said, as your Lordships will remember,
"Because of having to work to a tight time-table we have not been able to look in depth at all the topics which arose in discussion. In the last paragragh of our report we therefore express a willingness to continue our work if you wish us so to do."
What should a competent Government have done? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will forgive me for touching on this aspect, because he dealt with it himself very fully. But I think it is worth re-emphasising that, in the concluding paragraph,

1181
paragraph 39, of the report, Dr. Greenfield, in effect, invited the Government to come back to them and ask them to look at it further and explore the whole situation in depth. Why on earth, may I ask the Minister, were these offers not taken up? A competent Government would have followed them up.
Is it the case, as I understand it to be, that the Government accepted the report and, having accepted it, took no action, as stated in various publications by the British Medical Association? And, worse than that, having let matters rest on the Greenfield report, out of the blue comes the Secretary of State's Statement in another place on 8th November, which so upset the British Medical Association and everyone that I know in the medical profession, including my own practitioner. Is it true that the decision to issue this list was taken within the department, without any preliminary discussion or consultation with the profession? If that is so, I think it is unanswerable. The Government are damned for incompetence. If that is so, we can only assume that the responsible Minister is sadly lacking in an appreciation of the importance of having the active co-operation of the profession in this context.
I do not believe that Aneurin Bevan would have treated the profession like this. He had his differences with them but they were resolved, and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, touched on this. I do not believe that Aneurin Bevan would have treated them with such contempt, but if he had I will bet that the Benches opposite would not have been empty. You would have heard the howl going up about it and the Government, in the face of that howl, I should hope, would have shown some humility, some understanding, of the serious mistake which they had made.
It would be a great thing if the Government were to take a leaf in this matter out of the book of the late H. L. Mencken, the American journalist about whom some of your Lordships may have heard Alistair Cooke's story the other day. He was a terrible unbeliever and he was asked what he would say if, when he died, he went to Heaven, and there were the Lord of Hosts and all the angels and disciples waiting to pass judgment on him. What would he have done? He said:
"I would have said, Gentlemen, I have made a mistake and I have made a serious one."
I think that that is what the Government should do in this context.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, it is very late and I shall speak for only a very few minutes. I do not want to anticipate the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will provoke later this month but I must, perforce, repeat some of the points that have been made this evening although, no doubt, I shall do so far less eloquently than the speakers who have already had their time.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, I must declare an interest. I am not a physician or a surgeon but like him I have for the past 10 years been a director of a research-based British pharmaceutical company. This
1182
company, in addition to its plants in this country, has a manufacturing capacity worldwide in developed and developing countries. It has a research and development budget of more than £100 million per annum and in the United Kingdom employs 2,000 persons in this particular function. These are people with high qualifications whom we would wish to retain in this country.
The company exports from this country more than £.150 million-worth of goods. It has one other unique characteristic; its sole shareholder is a charitable trust which supports medical research only in a wide variety of fields to the tune of about £17 million per year; and this at a time when the Medical Research Council has failed to get even a small advance in additional funds from the Government.
I draw attention to these matters not for the purpose of advertisement but as one example from the industry and to remind the House that it is one of several enterprises which should be supported and applauded rather than impeded. And at a time when we have an unprecedented deficit on our manufacturing trade, we cannot afford unnecessarily to put obstacles in the way of those who are contributing so much. We should in no way degrade industries in which we excel.
That the Secretary of State should seek to reduce the size of the NHS drugs bill is understandable. He has a clear duty to try, if only in the interests of good administration. No doubt it is a very attractive step politically; and I do not blame him for pursuing it. But leaving aside for the moment the interests of the patients, to which we must all attach the highest importance, are the savings which he is claiming to make going to be as significant as he said? Indeed, are there savings at all? If, by cutting the NHS drugs bill by x million pounds, he creates unemployment not only on the shop floor but in the laboratory for which other parts of the Government have to pay, what has been achieved? If he damages an industry which is successful not only financially but often more importantly scientifically, the wisdom of the Secretary of State's action must be further called in question.
The budget of the NHS is only one part of the equation. It is surely doubtful, even in terms of Government expenditure, whether the proposed cuts make sense; and it is even more doubtful if it is looked at as a balance struck overall in the national interest. When we come to the interests of the patients, the views of the medical and associated professions must be given appropriate and, indeed, overriding weight. Is the Minister satisfied that there has been adequate consultation with those best fitted to advise? I know that the medical profession does not always speak with one voice, but what profession does? It is to my mind hard to avoid the conclusion, which other Members of the House have drawn tonight, that the department has in this instance acted hastily and is now rather belatedly seeking further consultation. On the relative merits of the limited list and the alternative proposal in the Greenfield Report there is obviously urgent need for further thought.
The original limited list is, I believe, a mistake; certainly for the patients, possibly for the doctors, and certainly for the industry. Many authoritative people have rubbed in that point tonight. I understand that

1183
the list is already undergoing significant modification. It is clear that if it is modified and retained, it will require an expensive review and appeal system, with additional expensive bureaucracy.
On the Greenfield proposal, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and many others who have spoken tonight; further consideration is necessary, taking full account of the report which is indeed the work of qualified people. My recommendation, which is the same as others', is that the Minister should hold his hand until further discussion has taken place, and then come forward with a new, well thought out proposal which suits patients, doctors, and an important industry.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords the hour is late but the Minister, when he replies tonight, has an important and difficult job to do. First, he will have to explain why the Government are prepared to ignore the recommendations of the Greenfield Report. The Greenfield Committee consisted of six members of the DHSS, four GPs, one consultant physician, one consultant anaesthetist, one clinical pharmacologist, and one official of the BMA who was a former GP. Therefore, we had the Government and the profession together.
The committee made certain recommendations as to how we should achieve effective prescribing. Several were positive and one was negative. The recommendation that was negative was that for the limited list. The Government have not implemetned the positive proposals; they have gone straight for the negative one. I believe it is necessary for the Minister tonight to explain to the House why the Government preferred to overturn the negative proposal rather that act on the several positive proposals.
The negative proposal was soundly based. There are many problems involved in having a limited list. There will need to be a central bureaucracy to keep the list up to date and ensure that it is not to be frozen at today's level of drugs. Also, new drugs are regularly being produced and there must be machinery for making them part of that limited list.
In addition, and as has been said before, the limited list will introduce a double service; a service which is unlimited for people who can afford to pay for the drugs they need, and a service which is limited in the case of people who are too poor to pay for the drugs they need. Now, automatically, you have that. As the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, pointed out, we do not know where it will end. You start with controlling laxatives and tonics, and so on, but what you move on to next is a different matter. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to explain to the House tonight why they chose that particular course.
I want to say one or two things about that. I spend a lot of my time debating the issue of socialised medicine with people who are opposed to it. One of the things they invariably say is that if you have socialised medicine the Government determine what you should do and how you should treat your patients. Up till now my reply has always been the same: "It is not true. In Britain we have a comprehensive health
1184
service in which the doctor treats the patient as the patient needs; and the advantage of that service over yours is that he does not have to take into account what the patient can afford". That has always been my answer.
I do not know how I can face my friends in the United States after this. They will say to me, "We have always told you so. Once you accepted socialised medicine you gave up clinical freedom. You have accepted that a bureaucracy can tell you how to treat your patients and you jolly well will have to conform because you have accepted being part of that system". That is what they will tell me because that is what they have been challenging me with every time I have had discussions with them.
Therefore, I want the Government to take very seriously the consequences of what they are doing. It may well be—and, frankly, I do not put it beyond them—that the Government want two services and that they see this as the way that they can get the two services. They start by undermining the National Health Service, by encouraging people and making it possible for them to go in for paying for their services, and the Government will get their two services. That may well be what they want. I do not imagine that the Government will tell us in those words that that is what they want. I hope it is not. I rather suspect it is not what they want, but that they thought they were doing something which would enable them to save money and they have done it clumsily and foolishly. I hope that they will accept that they have made a mistake and will withdraw.
I hope that the Minister listened to the noble Baroness and that he is in a position to answer her. That is a serious issue: whether or not people who are handicapped will be restricted in the sort of treatment that they can have. Every patient does not respond in the same way to every drug. There is a difference. I hope that the Minister, and the Government, will understand that there is a difference between local formularies. There is a difference between what I call a recommended list and an enforced limited list.
When I have had discussions with people who try to defend limited lists they have often come forward with the fact that hospitals have local formularies. The local formularies are really recommended lists. If a doctor in the hospital wants to prescribe something else, he does it. He will have to explain himself to his colleagues when they next meet, but he can do it. That is not what the Government are recommending. If the Government recommend a limited list, and there is no way that a patient of mine can benefit from anything on that list and I prescribe something else, the patient will have to pay for it out of his or her pocket; or, frankly, I should have to give the patient the money to pay for it because that would be the only way that he or she could get it.
I hope that the Government will think about this issue. The form of generic dispensing—and I like the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Perry, put it—recommended by Greenfield is practical. If we combined that with local formulary, we should be well away. There is no need for this draconian action that the Government are taking.

1185
I hope that the Government will think again and study what has been said tonight; in particular what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I do not really believe that they want to harm patients, and because I believe that, at this stage I am prepared merely to appeal to them to recognise the error of their ways and withdraw the proposal.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Winterbottom: My Lords, I am not in a position to speak with the professional expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, or from personal experience as did the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), but I want to make one point which I do not think has been stressed this evening and which I believe is of importance in simple terms of administration. I have been encouraged to speak tonight by a friend of mine who is a doctor in a four-member group practice in a remote part of England. It provides an admirable service, looking after many people spread over a wide area, even extending into Wales. Because they work over a very large area, they have their own dispensing facilities. The medicine is provided in such a way that the patient drops in one day and gets his medicines the next.
I believe that such practices are banded together in an organisation called the Dispensing Doctors' Association, in which there are 3,225 members. That group of doctors will be inhibited under the present proposals from providing drugs which are not on the approved list, or rather they could provide them but they would not be allowed to sell them. That will be a great problem in such a remote area.
I have been gathering information from two articles in The Doctor. It has done a small survey of the problems of people in such areas. If the dispensing facilities of the medical group are not available, such people will have to travel eight or 10 miles to obtain the medicines which they would have to buy, because the doctors in the group will not be able to sell them these medicines. The small study shows that no fewer than 48 per cent. of patients who came to the small sample of doctors cannot afford to pay for their medicines.
I wish that the Government could give undertakings that the inhibitions which would be placed upon dispensing doctors will be removed, so that somehow or other they can supply people who cannot afford to pay or to travel 10 miles to get the medicines that they require. Those patients could then continue to be served in the way that they are at the moment by an excellent organisation, conducted by competent people. I believe that that is of very great importance.
For that reason, I should be grateful to the Minister if when he winds up he can, first of all, tell us whether the Dispensing Doctors' Association has been consulted, and, if not, why not? If it has been consulted, what action will be taken by the Government to ensure that people are able to obtain products that are not on the approved list from these small dispensaries scattered throughout the country, such as the one that I have mentioned, where I live?
11 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving us this opportunity tonight to debate the recommendations of the Greenfield Report. As the report did not recommend a limited list of drugs, this is my reason for taking part. Also I have had many letters from GP doctors and consultants and I should like to bring some of their comments to the notice of your Lordships. I applaud the recommendations in the report that there should be greater emphasis on the teaching of therapeutics, the science and art of healing and the treatment of disease, and the education of patients.
Some countries, including the United States of America, are far ahead of us in the education in health through schools, TV and the media. The report states:
"The role of the doctor as educator of his patients is paramount".
How many doctors are good counsellors? I do know a few. The good doctor should look after the whole patient. Here, I should like to stress how important are the correct diet and finding out from patients what are the real problems. So often it is easier and quicker for the doctor to put the patient on a tranquilliser and leave it at that.
The food in hospitals varies considerably. Some health authorities do not have a food policy. If more thought was given to correct, healthy food being given to patients in hospital, I am sure the drugs bill would be less expensive. The patients would be educated as to what was good for them and would get better sooner and keep fitter longer. The waste of food in some hospitals is appalling. Large plates of heavy, unappetising food are put in front of patients who often cannot bear to look at it. It is then thrown away. I wish the Government would look at diet as vigorously as they have looked at drugs. Maybe the members of the Greenfield Committee were not thinking of diet but I am sure it has a great deal to do with therapeutics.
When the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked a Question on 15th January, I asked a supplementary question, asking the Government to look sympathetically at the special needs of disabled people in relation to the limited prescribing of drugs. I do hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance tonight that their needs will be carefully examined and that the views of specialising doctors will be heeded.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, visited the Southport Spinal Unit during the Summer Recess. His visit was greatly appreciated. Because of that visit he will understand the kind of patients about whom I shall now speak. I should like to quote from a few of the letters received. The first is from a consultant in spinal injuries from the north of England. He says:
"With regard to the limitation of drugs proposed, paraplegics are rather a special category. The vast majority have their bowels regulated using Senakot, Phenolphthalein and paraffin emulsion and Bisacodyl tablets, rectal solution and suppositories. It would upset the whole management of their bowel care if such drugs were not available on prescription to them and I would urge the Government to allow these drugs for paraplegics after April".
From another letter I quote:
"I have read in some detail your Memorandum CMO (84) 13 sent out on the 14th December, 1984. As a consultant urological surgeon

1187
working in the spinal injuries unit, I am extremely worried by the implications of this document both for our prescribing within the hospital and for our patients when they leave hospital.
"Ninety per cent. of my patients are neurologically disabled. This applies both to their locomotive system, bladder and bowel. Many also have a pain problem. In a list of drugs which would be available for prescription, there are three groups which, if limited in the way described, would cause severe upset to our patients. Laxatives: A variety of suppositories are now used, with recently Dulcolax rectal solution and laxatives, which are taken orally. There is only one type of suppository on the proposed list".
In regard to analgesics, I quote only part of what he says:
"There is a considerable variation in the response of patients to analgesics. Many of the compound tablets may suit some patients better than others".
Many doctors have told me that if the middle group is not allowed, they might have to put patients on to a stronger analgesic, which would be unnecessary.
In regard to Benzodiazepines, many neurological patients suffer with severe somatic muscle spasms and although Diazepam is suitable for many patients to help control such spasm, many find the newer Benzodiazepine tablets are better for their spasm than the simple Diazepam; for example, Ketazolam (Anxon) is of considerable benefit if given to the patient at night, getting rid of spasm at night and during the following day, with the maximum sedative effect being present only during the night, leaving them wide awake during the following day.
The surgeon concludes:
"I firmly believe that such a limited list of drugs would be a complete disaster for the management of the neurologically disabled patient and that, if such a list is necessary, then it be radically changed to take into consideration the problems that I have mentioned".
As my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) has stated, the Spinal Injuries Association is also alarmed for the sake of some of its members whose lives can be full of worries and insecurities. The National Health Service is a life-line for many.
From a GP in Essex, I received a letter which says:
"If laxatives, for example, Lactulose and Dorbanex, are withdrawn, the elderly and disabled who cannot afford to buy them will need far more enemas from the nursing staff".
He says about Diazepam that if it is the only minor tranquilliser which will be available on prescription, patients can become addicted to it more easily than other minor tranquillisers which they will have to buy. Also, Diazepam interferes with the reaction time more than other tranquillisers. So there will be more road accidents if Diazepam is the only one available.
I have also been told that cough linctuses, which are potentially addictive, have been included on the proposed list. If limited, this could be a problem as one in every three people are at risk of being addicted to something. Think for a moment, my Lords, of a child with an anal fissure. It can be so agonising that they do everything to stop opening their bowels, with dangerous results. I hope very much that a stool softener for all who need it—and this includes cancer patients—will be included.
I do not expect that the Government will retract, but I hope that they will look again at the advice of doctors now practising with patients. Patients with long-term illnesses and disabilities need protection and the greatest sympathetic consideration; otherwise, their
1188
quality of life, which may not be very good, could be made unbearable. I realise how expensive everything is; and the message is getting through. However, with patients leaving hospital early and the pressures of modern society being what they are, if patients vary in their reaction to drugs—and some have complicated allergies—the correct prescription can be a case of a stitch in time saving nine.
Some years ago the health district in which I live did a collection of unused drugs. It was a revelation to many as sacks of drugs of all sorts were collected. In these days when there is a need to be economical such waste is shocking. Careful prescribing is necessary, and, above all, education is necessary so that the patient finishes his treatment, as long as it suits him.
I hope the Government will augment their list to make it more acceptable to doctors and their patients. Perhaps there could also he a different coloured prescribing pad so that the doctor has total freedom to prescribe a drug which is not on the limited list for patients who have allergies, reactions or particular needs; and he would have to justify this action. I look forward with hope to the Minister's reply.
I end by saying that there is a growth industry in alternatives to medicine. All sorts of weird and ineffective potions might start appearing on the market. Some might even be dangerous. I also thought the Conservative Government stood for freedom of choice. Are they not going against their own principles? If patients cannot afford the unlimited drugs they will lose their doctors' freedom to choose what is best for them.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, at this time of night none of us is in need of any of the benzodiazepines, whether on the restricted list or off it; though I note that my noble friends seem already to have taken their mogadon and retired to bed. I hasten to say that mogadon of course reveals my age. I am one of those doctors referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, who can speak only in brand names; but it is of course true that the generic equivalent of mogadon is still on the permitted list. I am of the generation of doctor who find it a bit easier to talk about Cetab rather than cetyl-trimethyl ammonium bromide, which is of course its generic equivalent. I hope that the new generation of doctors will learn to prescribe in a bit more effective terms than I have done for some 30 or 40 years. I also hope noble Lords will stay awake long enough for me to make a few short points.
It falls to me to try to draw together the various threads of what has been a fascinating discussion on a most important topic, so admirably introduced to the House by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. I have no wish to go over old ground or retread paths already covered by other noble Lords. I shall try merely to focus attention on what seem to me to be crucial points which have emerged from speeches of noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and to put a number of specific questions to the noble Lord who is to reply, in the hope that in due course I shall receive some specific answers.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock said a great deal about the inadequacy of consultations before the so-called restricted list was made public; and that indeed

1189
has been a matter which has appeared prominently in the press and has been mentioned by other noble Lords. I do not entirely disagree, and I think that perhaps one might have seen better consultations before the so-called restricted list was finally leaked and before everybody suddenly got upset about it. I do not yet know whether or not there were consultations. I personally suspect that perhaps the British Medical Association did have opportunities to play a more constructive part in the formulation of the present policy than it actually has done. But we do not yet know; no doubt the Minister will tell me when he comes to reply.
I have spent many years in your Lordships' House, in another place, in medical practice, and, as the British Medical Association's press officer in the North Region, trying to persuade doctors that it was perfectly possible to make very substantial savings in the nation's drug bill. Here let me digress for a moment to say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who reminded us that in relation to other countries we do not spend overmuch on drugs. Indeed, I think the last time the World Health Organistion did an analysis of the expenditure per head of population throughout developed nations we came about nineteenth.
How nice it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, speaking. As a student, when I took my finals in medicine, I had to study the noble Lord's textbook on surgery. It was an excellent book, but I had to study it because the noble Lord happened to be the external examiner at my university, so it was very important indeed to be entirely familiar with his book. I shall return to some of the noble Lord's points in a moment.
I merely make the point that it is my view, and has been for very many years, that it should be perfectly possible to make very considerable savings in the nation's drug bill without detriment to the patient and without doctors having to sacrifice their clinical freedom in any unacceptable manner. I have been saying that for a very long time, and were I to be the Minister of Health—which I accept now seems unlikely, although I must hasten to say that, should the appointment be offered, I would not necessarily reject it—I would be looking for savings far in excess off £100 million. I believe that they could be made without detriment to the patient and without doctors forfeiting their clinical freedom.
However, those savings can be made only with the full co-operation of the medical profession, and I am not entirely satisfied that every possible effort has been made at the appropriate time—and the noble Lord will tell us this in due course—to obtain that co-operation. I think that if the profession has withheld that co-operation, then the profession itself should indeed be criticised, because all doctors know that it is possible to make savings and, indeed, we ought to be making these savings. I want to ask the noble Lord—and this point has been raised in a number of speeches—where on earth we are in this long-running saga. We have heard all sorts of rumours about restricted lists. I think that the back page of today's edition of the Guardian talks about "new white lists" instead of "black lists". Which are we to have—a white list, a black list, or both? From the admirable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de
1190
Knayth), it has been made utterly clear to us all that, if we are to satisfy patients and fulfil our responsibilities to patients, we must have an almost unlimited number of lists. We cannot treat individual patients with a list; we want a lot of different lists in order to treat different circumstances.
The noble Lord the Minister, and indeed his right honourable and honourable friends dealing with this matter in another place, have been told over and over again, and have said, that the hospitals have had restricted lists for many years. They have all had different restricted lists, and for perfectly good reasons. They have required different restricted lists in order to cope with different conditions in different areas and with different patients. A single restricted list is no way in which to practise medicine effectively.
I should like to know precisely where we are in the present discussions. With whom are the Government negotiating at the moment? When the so-called restricted list first appeared I seem to remember that the British Medical Association said that they would not talk about it. They had to talk about it, and I hope that they are now talking about it. I know that the General Medical Services Committee, which is often referred to as a BMA committee—it is not, of course; it is a so-called autonomous body of the British Medical Association which is elected and appointed by all general practitioners working in the National Health Service, whether or not they are members of the British Medical Association—has been having discussions, and I hope that the British Medical Association is now having discussions. I also hope that the Royal College of General Practitioners, which I think has made some very sensible remarks on this whole matter, is having discussions with the Minister at the moment. However, I should like to know from the noble Lord the Minister what is the present situation, precisely what is happening?
I think that I am right in saying that we all believe that an acceptable solution could be found, a solution which, first, would save money; secondly, would not be to the detriment of patients; and, thirdly, would be acceptable to the doctors. But we shall not find that solution unless effective consultations are taking place at the moment. I hope that when the noble Lord replies, he will be able to tell us precisely what is the present state of play, what is being discussed, whether we are to have a black list, a white list, two lists, or several different lists. I should like to know with whom consultations are taking place.
On this point, the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in his very interesting speech asked: where does this kind of thing end? Do we finish up with the Government telling surgeons which instruments they should use? I am not saying for a moment that the Government should start telling surgeons which instruments they should use. But I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, that from my personal experience there have been elderly and somewhat irascible surgeons who have sometimes persisted in using instruments which have long since been superseded merely because somehow they feel they must have that particular kind rather than another kind.
I am sure that there could be substantial savings for the National Health Service from a variety of

1191
reductions in fields other than that of drugs, but I am saying that those savings must be made by the doctors themselves. I believe that the time has long since passed when people in all branches of the profession should have got down to this job. On drugs in particular it has always seemed to me ludicrous that a pharmacist should have to stock on his shelves 120 different anti-histamine tablets and hundreds of different varieties of iron tablets because conservative and irascible old doctors go on prescribing things which have long since become superseded.
On that question let me return to the list. Who has drawn it up? It is an extraordinary list which has on it, as permitted, things which nobody in his right mind ought to be prescribing nowadays, and which has omitted many things which any sensible and responsible doctor would be prescribing every day of the week. Where did this list spring from? If we are to have a list, let us hear more about it and where it came from.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made an admirable speech, and as a former Secretary of State he is clearly aware of all the circumstances here. He reminded us that since the National Health Service started on 5th July 1948 the general principle has always been that there were no restrictions on what a doctor could prescribe.The noble Lord will forgive me if I say there always were restrictions. Doctors could always prescribe whatever they wished and the chemist had to dispense it; but if it was later found that the substance prescribed was not a drug within the meaning of the Act, then the cost of that prescription was surcharged to the doctor who had made the prescription.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows, the procedure was that where a prescription was intercepted by the then Executive Council, now the Family Practitioner Committee, then the doctor was required to justify his prescribing to a medical services sub-committee. Where the medical services sub-committee held that the substance prescribed was not a drug, and therefore the doctor had to pay rather than the patient, then the doctor was entitled to appeal. Many doctors did appeal, and they appealed to a succession of Secretaries of State.
What is the position of substances which are not now on the list but which have been prescribed by doctors, have been questioned by the Family Practitioner Committee, have been considered by a medical service sub-committee and then on appeal have gone to the present Secretary of State, Mr. Fowler, who has said, "Yes, this is acceptable, and a proper substance to have prescribed"? Surely all those substances which have gone through that procedure and which have finally been approved as being drugs within the circumstances in which they were prescribed must be on the list. Otherwise, somehow, one is undoing a whole judicial process which has been gone into in the case of a whole number of drugs over many years.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), made clear, what is an essential drug for one patient may not be essential for another. This matter has occurred with many conditions; for example, with children who have to have a gluten-free diet, or whatever. The question has arisen: is this substance
1192
which has been prescribed a drug or is it a food, or whatever?—and a final decision has had to be made by the then Secretary of State. When the present Secretary of State has made the decision on appeal in relation to a number of substances, are we to assume that all those substances will at some stage be added to the list?
All noble Lords in this House, and certainly all those noble Lords still here tonight, believe that our pharmaceutical industry is of vital importance to our nation's economy. It is one of our most important exporters. At a time when our balance of payments situation is not a very satisfactory one, none of us would like to see actions which might in any way imperil the pharmaceutical industry.
I am bound to say that I was not unhappy when the Government decided to take certain steps which reduced the amount of expenditure on promotional activities, sending literature to individual doctors and so on. I supported that, though I regret the fact that a number of important educational magazines, which were supported by the pharmaceutical industry, have gone to the wall. That has been a disadvantage for postgraduate medical education. If further difficulties were placed in the way, such as VAT on typescript and print, that would have a further effect on postgraduate medical education.
In a Written Question, which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answered, I asked whether the Government would ensure that generic equivalents of named drugs were, wherever possible, available from British manufactured sources. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, raised the question of satisfactory generic substitution. I must make it clear that I wholly support my noble friends on these Benches in believing that we should have adopted the Greenfield Report and gone for generic substitution. I wholly support what the noble Lady said about our need to know whether the generic substitute is entirely satisfactory.
I should also like to know whether the generic substitute has been manufactured in this country. The answer I was given was somewhat emollient. It said that everything was all right and that most of the drugs were available. But the fact remains that for many commonly-used named drugs the generic substitute is available only from foreign sources. I hope that, as we are moving towards generic substitution, which we shall have in the end, the Government will do what they can to try to assist the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that British firms manufacture generic substitutes for commonly-prescribed named drugs. That is certainly not always the case.
In many ways this raises the question of patents. I am going on for longer than I meant to, but many of the discoveries of new and very valuable drugs are made by accident—not all, but many. It necessarily follows that the company which has discovered the new and very valuable pharmaceutical substance is not always the best possible company to manufacture and market that product. I hope that some day we shall find the means of enabling companies that have discovered new and valuable therapeutic substances to recoup their research and development costs without necessarily having to manufacture and market the drug, while other people who are in a better position to manufacture and market it are enabled to do so.

1193
I wish to come to a final question that I regard as of the utmost importance. I hope that in his reply the noble Lord will tell us, if the Government are to proceed along the present path—with possible modifications in the light of discussions with various bodies—with lists, whether they be white lists, blacks lists or any other sort of lists, what kind of parliamentary procedures will be required to make that possible?
It is clear that the terms of service of general practitioners do not enable them, do not permit them, to issue private prescriptions for certain drugs. It seems to me that probably we shall have to have some primary legislation. I should like to know whether all this is to be done by orders subject only to the negative procedure, with the faint hope of a Prayer against them, or whether, in both Houses of Parliament, it will be possible to discuss these matters in more depth before the necessary legislation is finally passed so that the Government can take these various steps.
Finally—and this really is finally—if the Government are able to arrive at an agreed solution with the medical profession whereby we can move over to generic prescribing and make substantial changes in our prescribing costs so that we can cut the size of the drug bill without detriment to patients, the Government will have the fullest possible support from noble Lords on these Benches. But if they are to persist in a scheme which will in some ways reduce still further the provision for the elderly and the sick so that they have to pay for things which they may need, then we shall not support them along that road.
11.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I join with others who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for raising this important issue tonight. It has certainly been an interesting debate and it warrants a full reply. There has been a great deal of misplaced anxiety about the Government's proposals to limit from 1st April the range of some types of drugs available for prescription on the National Health Service, much of it rehearsed again this evening, so that I welcome the opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have arisen and set out once more the realities of the subject.
Matters have not been helped by the pharmaceutical companies' advertising campaign. I hope that many of your Lordships would join me in condemning what amounts to little more than a crude attempt to frighten the poor and the elderly into believing they will be denied essential medicine. This is simply not true. And, if that was not its intention, it certainly has been its effect. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, called it a "high-profile campaign". He can certainly say that again!
Let us remind your Lordships of the background to our proposals. In 1983 some 334 million prescriptions were dispensed through the Family Practitioner Service in England: almost one million every working day. Current levels of prescribing are 40 per cent. higher than they were 25 years ago. Over that same quarter of a century, the range of medicines actually
1194
prescribed by general practitioners, as recorded in the pricing authority's master index of drugs, has doubled from less than 8,500 different items to some 17,000. The drugs bill now stands at £1,400 million a year in England—about £2,000 million in the United Kingdom as a whole. It has been rising by an average of 5 per cent. a year in real terms over recent years.
These are staggering figures, and while they reflect enormous advances in drug therapy, this alone cannot account for the full scale of the increase. The Government have a responsibility to consider whether this increasing expenditure can be justified. The question we set ourselves was: how could we best ensure that the taxpayer was getting real and lasting value for money—and this was certainly a theme of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he was in office—spent on medicines while maintaining a fully effective service to patients? This theme is not new and obviously has general support from your Lordships, judging by the comments that have been made tonight. Your Lordships will be aware that our policies on the National Health Service in general are similar in this respect, that the principles are applied to all areas of the health service; and it is only sensible management and administration to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said.
The plain fact is that the need to contain the drugs bill has been on the agenda of every Government since 1948. There have been reports, inquiries, educational programmes, promises of co-operation and many more. But while many GPs have responded by more careful prescribing practice, I am afraid to say that there are still too many doctors who are guilty of slack and excessive prescribing. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others have suggested that a solution to the problem—which everybody seems to acknowledge—may lie in the Greenfield Report.
There were 14 main recommendations in the report. Only two of the 14 were about limitations on prescribing. The report recommended that generic prescribing should be encouraged, by providing a box on the prescription form which the doctor would initial if the proprietary form of a drug was required. In the absence of the prescriber's initials, an approved name or generic version of the drug would be dispensed if it existed.
The Government accepted all the working group's recommendations except this last one when the report was published in February 1982. Recognising that generic substitution was a contentious issue, we undertook full and widespread consultation on the proposal before coming to a decision. Given the British Medical Association's apparent enthusiasm now for generic substitution, as was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, it may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that the BMA was then against the Greenfield Report's recommendation. The GPs on the BMA's General Medical Services Committee, whose then chairman was actually a member of the Greenfield Committee, voted it down. They foresaw problems of divided responsibilities for the treatment of patients if substitution was introduced. They felt that, unlike the limited list, doctors would never know what had actually been provided to their patients, making monitoring of side effects and adverse reactions more difficult.

1195
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Porritt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, accused the Government of a U-turn. I cannot conclude that I find the attitude of the BMA on this issue convincing or consistent. It is a fact that the BMA rejected the Greenfield proposal on generic substitution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, chided us for failing to follow up Dr. Greenfield's offer to do more work but, as Dr. Greenfield said, the committee he chaired had not looked in depth at some of the issues on which it made recommendations. The Government decided to rectify that on some of the key points—particularly limited list versus generic substitution. They looked very carefully at schemes in other countries and concluded that a limited list would work. There was, frankly, no point in asking the Greenfield Committee to carry on. Its recommendation on generic substitution, as I said, had been rejected by the BMA, and there was no reason to suppose that it would come up with any certain way of making savings that would be more acceptable to the BMA. The Government decided that the time had come to act, and acted they have.
I cannot accept, either, that doubt has been cast on the quality of generic drugs. There is no doubt about their quality at all. They are subject to exactly the same stringent licensing and quality control arrangements as branded drugs and, indeed, are often made by the same firms. They are already prescribed by general practitioners and widely used in limited lists in hospitals. Such minor differences as do occur are a matter not of quality, but of precise formulation and method of manufacture and are just as likely to arise between different branded versions of the same drug as between branded and generic ones.
When the BMA rejected the Greenfield proposal it suggested a scheme of its own, which would be entirely voluntary. The doctor would have to take a conscious decision to permit substitution by initialling a box on the prescription form, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, described. But any doctor who wishes to can already write a prescription generically; indeed, we encourage him to do so. The alternative suggested by the BMA would most likely be used by doctors who already see the value of generic prescribing. I have to say that there is little reason to believe that it would have had any significant effect on those who, despite years of advice on these questions, have failed to alter their prescribing habits. Nor do I see that such a voluntary scheme is likely to save worthwhile amounts of money. Even if compulsory and across the board, it could not save more than about £35 million a year, because comparatively few branded drugs actually have direct generic equivalents. A voluntary scheme confined to the same categories of less essential drugs as our limited list proposals, so as not to damage research and important life-saving drugs, would be unlikely to save more than a few million pounds a year. Such a sum is no doubt worth having, but had we taken it, we would have precluded the possibility of alternatives such as the limited list, with its savings of up to £100 million a year. In return we would get an entirely voluntary scheme under which GPs could carry on prescribing exactly as before.
1196
If we strip away the rhetoric, what is the real issue? Should we continue to spend enormous sums of money on any new product which the industry cares to bring on to the market and promote, irrespective of price and therapeutic value: or are there areas in which sensible economies can be made without harm to patients? We believe there are, and we have concluded that there are two major areas in which sensible economies can be made and through which there will be no risk to patients. To suggest that we are advocating a two-tier system, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested, really is not true at all. In the group of drugs to be covered by the limited list an adequate range of drugs will be available under the National Health Service to meet all clinical needs. There is no question of this being any sort of second-class service.
On the question of harm to the pharmaceutical industry, which was a point raised by a number of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Porritt, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Winstanley, I do not think it would be right for me now to go into the PPRS in any detail; but there is no reason why exports should suffer and there is no reason to suppose that research and development will be affected in the way that some people seem to think they will be. I do not believe that the list will result in the decline of the industry. The industry is a strong one, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, indeed described it so. The fact remains that the United Kingdom has about 4 per cent. of the world market in these drugs. The limited list accounts for less than 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. Therefore, we are talking about 0.5 per cent. of the world market for these drugs, and that is hardly a basis on which to talk about the total decline of research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was concerned, very rightly, about the elderly, children and people who might be affected in the way that she described. The scheme does not affect the prescription charge exemption arrangements. The elderly and other eligible persons will, of course, continue to be protected as at present. The medicines which remain available under the National Health Service will still enable doctors to prescribe all necessary treatment, and I suggest to the noble Lady that that is the key phrase there. All this list will mean is that in the groups concerned other drugs from the list, but perfectly suitable drugs, will be prescribed.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to take the Minister up on what he has just said. If I decide that one of my elderly patients needs Dorbanex, which is not on the limited list, and that particular patient gets his prescriptions free of charge, is he not affected?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Lord makes, but it does not detract from what I said just now. The fact is that if somebody has to be prescribed something, for whatever reason, whether he is getting a free prescription or one which has to be paid for in the way that prescriptions are paid

1197
for, a suitable drug of whatever type it is will be available. But I do not think that I can develop that theme any longer, because I have a lot of ground to cover.
The point which I should like to take up next was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who indicated that this might lead to what I think is called trading-up. It is possible that these proposals might result in some increased prescribing of those medicines not affected by the limited list. However, medicines should only be prescribed when they are essential, as he himself will know, and in all cases the benefit of administering the medicine should be considered in relation to the risk involved. For example, indiscriminate use of antibiotics for minor ailments could well encourage antibiotic resistance; and he will be more aware of that than I am. Doctors do, of course, take a sensible approach to their prescribing to ensure that the safety of their patients is paramount, and I am sure that this approach will continue. The present system of prescription monitoring is likely to confirm this.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, raised a question about long and approved names. It is a pity that he is not here to listen, because I would have asked him whether it was he, in the days when he considered such matters, who came up with the name Pericyazine. I hasten to reassure him and anybody else that this product is for the relief of anxiety. But I had better deal with him in correspondence.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised a question about the Guardian article today, and black and white lists. The Guardian article is a complete misunderstanding of the position. When the limited list is in operation there will need to be, as several of your Lordships have pointed out, a mechanism to keep its contents under review and to advise my right honourable friend on whether or not new drugs within the categories covered by the limited list should be available on the National Health Service. That is all that we have in mind. There are no proposals for separate assessments of safety and efficacy, which are already fully considered by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines in the context of applications for product licences.
There will be a statutory black list—this answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—of drugs that cannot be prescribed on the National Health Service. It is more useful for doctors to know what they can prescribe, so there will be for the guidance of doctors an administrative white list (a list of what is not on the black list) to help them choose which of the medicines available on the NHS they should prescribe.
I turn now to the areas in which we feel economies can be made. First, there are the more minor remedies which many people already buy from their local chemist and could have had prescribed by their doctor. These less important medicines include a wide range of cough and cold medicines, indigestion tablets, vitamins, tonics and the like. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, accuses us of interfering in clinical matters. I really cannot agree that in this context our proposals hold up to the label "sinister" which he put on to them and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, supported.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. These minor remedies may be of considerable importance to pensioners and people who cannot afford to buy the varieties, which may be necessary to them, out of their own pockets. They are not able to obtain them under the National Health Service on prescription in respect of which they are exempt from paying. That is my point.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand the point of the noble Lady, but the fact is that the taxpayer cannot afford to pay for every single item that is readily available over the counter of the local pharmacy. The point I made earlier about people who really need medicines being treated in a way in which they will certainly get their medicines still holds good.
The British National Formulary advises that many of the enormous range of medicines in these categories are of no proven value or are inappropriately formulated. This covers some of the points which the noble Lady might like to consider. This is the BMA's own advice. I therefore find it difficult to understand its insistence that in the case of all these drugs of no particular value, doctors should have an absolute right to prescribe at the expense of the NHS.
The second group covered by the limited list are the benzodiazepine tranquillisers and sedatives. Many doctors are rightly concerned about the readiness with which these are prescribed and the length of time they are prescribed for. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, says, the many letters that we have received from patients have not allayed these fears. To put it bluntly, there are still too many of these pills, given to too many patients, for too long.
When we published the provisional list of drugs—I stress the word "provisional"—to remain available for National Health Service prescription in these categories our intention was always that it should simply provide a framework for consultation.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Lord made a most important statement when talking about certain of these drugs. He said that the Government's view was that many of these patients have been prescribed too many of these drugs, for too long. Is the noble Lord saying that as a general statement, or is he saying that some particular patient has been prescribed too much of a particular drug, for too long? The noble Lord has made a very general statement and it is a very damaging one.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was certainly not intended to be damaging or to relate to any particular patient. But the fact is that there are many doctors who accept that a great many of these sleeping pills—the benzodiazepines—are given out, too many patients forget them—one cannot be specific about individual patients—and they have been given them for too long. It seems from what I hear that it is a very widespread practice which really ought to be stopped. That is why we are setting about this particular proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will realise, we are just removing from this particular list certain drugs and leaving perfectly adequate drugs for people who need these items.

1199
I was saying that the basis of the provisional list was a framework for consultation with all interested parties to ensure that drugs which are essential for the treatment of particular conditions are not accidentaly removed from NHS prescription. There is no question of treating people with contempt, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, suggested.
The fact is that the provisional list certainly had a medical input to its formulation and was simply a basis for consultation. Obviously one has to consult upon something: the proposed list was it. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It is a fact that has been widely misrepresented.
The response from those consulted has, apart from the BMA and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, been generally constructive. Even individuals in the drug industry have in the end been realistic about the limited list, for while the ABPI is gloomily prophesying the end of the National Health Service, individual companies are urging us to accept their products onto the list. They see that they have a future in this country, just as much as they have a future in France, Germany, Switzerland, or in any other country that does not allow every medicine on the market to be prescribed at public expense.
From the medical profession, more than 1,000 individual doctors across the country have given us helpful ideas and comments, despite the BMA's resolution that they should not co-operate in any way.
Their views, together with those of other interested parties, have been carefully considered by an expert group of advisers under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer, and the final list to be introduced on 1st April will be based on their advice.
Obviously I cannot tonight comment on the contents of the final list, but I shall certainly ensure that the Chief Medical Officer is made aware of the comments made on individual drugs, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked particularly about the "Brompton Cocktail". This will be all right. It is a major analgesic containing controlled drugs and is not affected by our proposals. It contains morphine or diamorphine, cocaine and alcohol. It is potent and dangerous, I am assured—and it certainly sounds it—but no doubt it is extremely effective.
So far as the question of one month's supply is concerned, we shall certainly look again at that point, but so far no real evidence that would save money stems from it. We would have to pay three times as many dispensing fees for patients on long-term therapy who now obtain, say, prescriptions for three months at a time. It is interesting that the BMA has been vehemently opposed to this suggestion in the past. Has it really changed its mind, or is it simply playing for time on the limited list? I do not know. Anyway, I shall certainly consider the point which the noble Baroness has raised
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, asked whether the Dispensing Doctors' Association had been consulted. No, it was not consulted. The association is a small, breakaway group in opposition to the BMA
1200
and is not recognised as representing the medical profession. It did, however, submit its views in writing, and these have been taken into account. So far as dispensing doctors are concerned, we intend the limited list to meet all clinical needs. If, with the advice we have received, we succeed in that, then there will be no reason for a general practitioner to issue a private prescription to an NHS patient. That said, we have taken note of the many representations made on behalf of patients in rural areas, and we are still considering their position.
At present ours is the only country in the developed world where the state will pay for whatever drug a doctor wishes to prescribe. It is certainly very rare nowadays for a doctor in private practice to feel free to prescribe any expensive brand that he wishes and to expect his patient to pay, regardless of the cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made five suggestions and I shall study those again from the Official Report. I should like to pick up now one suggestion—
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as there is no right of reply on an Unstarred Question, perhaps I may intervene. I believe I am right in saying that 12 speakers in the debate this evening have asked the Government to think again. I, as the Minister has acknowledged, submitted a five-point programme. Will the Minister undertake to convey that programme to his right honourable and honourable friends, and also to the Acheson Committee, which is actually studying the list at this moment?
Lord Glenarthur: My right honourable friend certainly studies all that transpires on this kind of issue in your Lordships' House, and this particular debate will be no exception. On the noble Lord's third point, we certainly welcome all proposals for savings and hope that we may have constructive talks with all interests when this particular issue has come to a conclusion. These talks will be additional to the limited list and not an alternative to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in explaining the significant advances in prescribing practice which he and his partners have achieved has shown that there is much more to be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others, were keen to stress, of course there is much that can be achieved through co-operation between Government and the profession on prescribing issues. Agreed measures could lead to a further significant saving in the drugs bill. With our encouragement, and as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, 40 per cent. of our hospitals have already drawn up their own limited list, different though they may be from one another, and some National Health Service practices do it as well.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me one important question: how would the new rules be brought into effect? I can tell him that regulations will be laid to amend the terms of service for doctors and pharmacists which are at present set out in Schedules 1 and 4 to the NHS General Medical and Pharmaceutical Service Regulations of 1974. Those will come forward in due course, and they are subject to the negative procedure.

1201
The fact remains that generic substitution alone would not encourage doctors to think more carefully about their prescribing, nor would it achieve the very necessary and immediate savings in the drugs bill that we must have in order to protect essential developments in other parts of the health service. Our limited list proposals do. They offer no threat whatever to the safety and wellbeing of patients. That is why we are so firmly committed to them and why we believe them to be fully justified.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether this House will have a chance to see and discuss the revised limited list before it is adopted?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the list is under consultation at the moment. It is much more important, I think, for doctors and experts to discuss it. That is what we entrust the Chief Medical Officer and his panel of experts to do. They will complete it in due course and then the list will be published.

Cinemas Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes before midnight.