Sitting of 30 April 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Company Names (Registration)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (1) what reply he has given to representations from the secretary of the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce with regard to the approval by the Registrar of Companies of the use of the name Huddersfield in the title of a company whose registered office is not in Huddersfield and which has no existing connection with Huddersfield;
    (2) what is the practice of the Registrar of Companies when an application for registration is made by a company wishing to use in its title the name of a town or locality in which its registered office is not situated and with which it is not in any way associated.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): Every proposal for a company name is examined to see that the name is not too like that of a company already registered. Except in a limited number of special cases, inquiries are not made into the justification for using the name of a particular town or locality.
    As the reply sent to the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce was rather long I will send a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware
    that the Registrar of Companies authorised the use of the name "Fine Fabrics (Huddersfield) Limited" by a company in no way associated with Huddersfield, and is this not liable to be misleading? If there was an oversight on the part of
    562
    the office of the Registrar, what remedy is available to firms in Huddersfield to object? On the general principle, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the town of Huddersfield is renowned throughout the world for the production of fine worsted fabrics? Surely the use of the words "fine fabrics" together with the word "Huddersfield" may be a bit misleading, particularly if the firm in question operates in Manchester and has no association at all with Huddersfield.
    Mr. Rankin: Bring it to Glasgow.
    Mr. du Cann: I can assure the hon Gentleman that the reputation of Hud dersfield is very well understood in the Board of Trade and, indeed, in the country as a whole. As far as this particular case is concerned, I am advised that even if inquiries had been made—and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has apologised in respect of this—no difference would have ensued because it is the intention of the company to operate in Huddersfield. As far as the hon. Gentleman's third supplementary question is concerned, the point is that there is an opportunity for these matters to be looked into within a limited period.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: What check has the Minister of State made to justify the assertion that the company is going to operate in Huddersfield? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that when this question was first raised he admitted that a mistake had been made by the Registrar? What steps has he taken to prevent similar mistakes in the future?
    Mr. du Cann: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, there has been an expression of intention on the part of the company. In regard to the second, the Registrar receives something like 2,000 inquiries each week. There is an obvious difficulty in checking half a million names on the register, but I should be surprised if there is a recurrence of this sort.

    Milk (Import)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will seek the necessary powers to prevent the imports into the United Kingdom of liquid milk for sale by retail which has been produced from herds or on premises

    563
    not subject to inspection on health or sanitary grounds by the Minister of Agriculture.
    Mr. du Cann: No, Sir. Any restrictions on imports of milk on health grounds would be a matter for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Health. I understand that there are in fact no commercial imports of liquid milk at the present time.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Would my hon. Friend agree that liquid milk now sold in this country is of the very highest quality and produced from herds on premises carefully checked by the Ministry concerned and that any control of imported milk which might be of a less high quality, perhaps having a high bacteriological content, would ultimately be a question for his Department? In view of the delay which has sometimes occurred through his Department having to check undesirable imports of food in the past, will he look at this matter again?
    Mr. du Cann: I can assure my hon. Friend that the points which he has made will certainly receive attention. I realise that he has a special and particular knowledge of the subject. I would not feel myself obliged to accept everything that he has said this afternoon, but we will certainly look at the matter.

    American Computers
    Mr. Pounderasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what steps he will take to restrict the importation of American computers into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. du Cann: None, Sir.
    Mr. Pounder: is not my hon. Friend aware of the very difficult situation at present existing in the British computer industry and of the continuing brain drain of computer engineers, and that unless something is done very soon to arrest this trend then the industry will become little more than a marketing agency for American machines? Will he therefore reconsider the matter?
    Mr. du Cann: I am afraid that I cannot accept everything that my hon. Friend says. The output of electronic computers by United Kingdom manufacturers increased from £7½ million in
    564
    1959 to £24 million in 1963. I think it is right to say that the industry is in a healthy state and is doing a first-class job.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that an American firm has established a computer industry in Lanarkshire where it will be building virtually from the ground up, and will he do everything to encourage this?
    Mr. du Cann: We wish the firm every success.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discrimination in respect of shipping which the United States exercises to the detriment of this country? Will he consider imposing a restriction on the import of American computers until the United States abandons this discrimination?
    Mr. du Cann: The question about shipping is not one for me but for the Minister of Transport. We are doing everything we can to get such restrictions as exist removed.

    North-East
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many new jobs for males are in prospect in the North-East and in Sunderland, respectively.
    Mr. du Cann: There are over 18,000 jobs in prospect for males in the North-East from new building and other projects known to the Board of Trade. Of these 2,100 are in the Sunderland, Pallion and Southwick Employment exchange areas.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will make a progress report on development and industry on the North-East coast.
    The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): I shall be making two visits to the North-East in the next few weeks. This will give me an opportunity to assess the progress made on the programme for the growth and development of the region and I shall report my conclusions to the House.
    Dame Irene Ward: While being absolutely delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is coming to the North-East—which is quite unexpected so far as I am concerned—may I ask if he is aware what a great welcome he will get there from all sections of the community, in view of the fact that we all have our tails right up? Is he aware that the latest Report of the North-East Development Council, which no one can call a Tory-inspired council, contains most glowing reports of the progress that has been made? I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to emphasise in no uncertain terms what has been done by this Government.
    Mr. Heath: Yes. I am glad that our esteem for each other has expressed itself in this form.
    Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman pays his visit to Peterlee—of which I have been informed and where he will be very welcome—and also to Durham, will he make inquiries about the industrial potential of the new town of Peterlee and about the persistent unemployment of miners in Durham County as a result of pit closures?
    Mr. Heath: I shall certainly under-take to examine that particularly.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Answers to this Question and the previous one show that Government policies are beginning to work after the set-back in the shipbuilding industry in the last 12 months?
    Mr. Dempsey: The last 12 years.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the task which has to be carried out is one of partnership of management, unions and Government so as to restore the fibre and determination of the North-East to overcome its own problems and not for ever to blame other people?
    Mr. Heath: As I have already made plain to the House when discussing these matters, we can achieve results only as a joint partnership.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his efforts and the efforts of his predecessors, despite the Local Employment Act, the pipeline and jobs in prospect, unemployment in
    566
    the northern region is almost 75 per cent. more than it was in 1951? That is about 20,000 extra unemployed. What sort of progress is that?
    Mr. Heath: What the hon. Member leaves out of account is the number of unemployed which has arisen from decline of industries through structural changes and the amount of fresh industry being brought into the area to remedy it.
    Dr. Brayasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what estimate he has made of the future reduction in jobs in existing industries in the North-East due to increasing capital intensity and automation.
    Mr. Heath: The expected effect of technological change particularly in chemicals, coal mining and steel was taken into account, with other factors, in estimating the future level of employment in the region. But no separate figure for less of jobs due to increasing capital intensity and automation was calculated
    Dr. Brayasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what steps he is taking to provide office employment in the North-East.
    Mr. Heath: Grants and loans under the Local Employment Acts are available to encourage office employment in the development districts in the North-East.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that 25,000 new office jobs are needed in the North-East if the average percentage of clerical and administrative workers in the North-East is to be brought up to the level in England and Wales or, far that matter, in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether further particular measures are needed on office employment in the North-East to ease the situation?
    Mr. Heath: I am anxious to encourage office employment in the North-East and particularly on Teesside. I hope that individual firms will move part of their office establishments to the North-East wherever possible.
    Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that vigorous action is

    567
    needed if he is to make up for the loss of the Post Office Savings Bank and that something more positive than his present statements will be required?

    Textile Industry (Trade with Australia)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what steps he is taking to secure that Article 9 of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement is being implemented in the interests of the United Kingdom textile industry; and whether he will seek an assurance from the Australian Government that United Kingdom textile manufacturers will receive full opportunity of reasonable competition.
    Mr. du Cann: The Australian Government are well aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom about the application of Article 9 of the Anglo-Australian Trade Agreement. So far as textiles are concerned, a meeting has been arranged to enable representatives of the British textile industry to discuss the matter with the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in four years there have been 55 representations made to the Australian Tariff Board or the Special Advisory Authority on Textile Matters, with the result that protection against low-cost Japanese production has denied British textile orders the reasonable opportunity for competition? Will he at the forthcoming conference attempt to get the rules of the G.A.T.T. revised to prevent their frustrating trade agreements in this way?
    Mr. du Cann: We shall certainly bear in mind everything my right hon. Friend has so wisely said.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that whereas two or three years ago the Australians were buying textiles from Macclesfield and Bollington those places are not now getting any orders from them? The Australians want to sell, but they could buy more from this country.
    Mr. du Cann: I have no doubt that this matter will be thoroughly examined at the meeting to which I have referred

    Crafts Centre (Grant)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, in view of the continuing housing and financial problems of the Crafts Centre, if he has completed the reconsideration he was giving to the renewal of a Government grant.
    Mr. du Cann: The grant to the Crafts Centre from the Board of Trade's Vote for the promotion of industrial efficiency and like purposes was terminated last year. I see no grounds for renewing it, but am following with interest new plans to foster the crafts which have recently been put forward.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware how much anybody interested in the Crafts Centre deprecates the meanness of Her Majesty's Government in this matter? I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—but he, of course, dodged answering my Question—whether he still adheres to the view which he at one time held that his Department was being rather mean over this, or whether he has got over that feeling? We thought we had a change at the Board of Trade on this very important matter.
    Mr. du Cann: As my hon. Friend will know, the grants to the Crafts Centre were on the basis that they would increase the contribution to industrial design. They were terminated because they were not having that effect, but my right hon. Friend and I regard the present developments as both interesting and hopeful.

    Goods (Manufacture in Scotland)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will take steps to ensure that all goods manufactured in Scotland are so inscribed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. du Cann: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no powers to make such a requirement.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many interests are trying to sell Scotland at present in view of the fact that there are nearly 90,000 unemployed there? Is he aware that we are

    569
    proud of the Scots, of their skill, imagination, enterprise and initiative? Is it not fair that our commodities should be described accordingly? Is he aware that last week I had two commodities in my hands. One made in London was marked "Made in England", and one made in Lanarkshire was marked "Made in Britain". Does he realise that goods manufactured in Scotland should be marked as such and that it is time that Scotland had her rightful place by the stamping of goods "Made in Scotland"?
    Mr. du Cann: We all share and admire the pride in Scotland and what Scotland can and does produce, but it is open to manufacturers voluntarily to mark goods as they wish.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will now bring forward proposals to deal with monopolistic practices in the film industry and cinema trade.
    Mr. Heath: As the House is aware, the Cinematograph Films Council has recommended that, provided it should be practicable, the introduction of a larger measure of competition into film exhibition would be advantageous. I hope shortly to make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the Secretary of State recall that he received this report in early February? Has he not received from the film unions a rather urgent request, in the form of a telegram I believe, to consider the state of the film industry? Would he not, therefore, agree that it is about time, since there has been a long lapse, that Parliament discussed the state of the industry in view of the continued tendency towards monopoly?
    Mr. Heath: The Cinematograph Films Council itself took 20 months to consider the matter and produce a report. It emphasised how complicated and technical this is. I do not think it unfair that we should have proper time to consider the report and to reach conclusions on it.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament should discuss it?
    Mr. Heath: That is entirely a matter for the Leader of the House and the usual channels.

    Advance Factory, Blyth
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what success has been achieved in securing a tenant for the Board of Trade advance Factory in Blyth.
    Mr. du Cann: We are in touch with a prospective tenant.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Minister of State aware that while the recent improvement in the unemployment figures in my constituency aid the North-East give rise to satisfaction, there is, nevertheless, no real need for complacency in this matter? Will he do all he can to prevent his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from talking about full employment until that has become a reality in the North-East?
    Mr. du Cann: I should like to say how grateful we are for the hon. Gentleman's first comment. What he said represents the truth, and we share his pride. On the other hand, we certainly have no complacency but wish to make further, better and faster progress.

    Travel Agents (Report)
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what action he proposes to take in regard to the Report on Travel Agents recently issued by the Consumer Council.
    Mr. du Cann: My right hon. Friend will continue to keep under review the question whether it would be desirable and practicable to introduce some form of regulation of travel agents' activities.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the control of entry into the travel trade is not very satisfactory and that it is vital for the consumer that holidays should not be spoiled because of bad management on the part of travel agents? Since we have had a good and comprehensive Report from the Consumer Council on this subject and since this is indeed something in the realm of consumer protection, should not the Board of Trade be looking into this matter at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. du Cann: This is certainly an important subject. About a year ago a sub-committee of the British Travel and Holidays Association considered the problems of travel agencies, but it concluded that statutory control was unnecessary. None the less, we shall keep in touch with the B.T.H.A. on the matter. I understand that the Consumer Council made a general recommendation but not a substantial and deeply considered report.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the Minister of State realise that this is now becoming a tremendously big business which is attracting some people who do not give the service which they advertise? Although the Consumer Council may have made only a general recommendation, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Council thought the subject sufficiently important to discuss and that the Board of Trade should at least be more concerned with this problem than it apparently is?
    Mr. du Cann: It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Board of Trade either has no concern or is being careless in this matter. Quite the reverse. We are paying close attention to the subject, in co-operation with the British Travel and Holidays Association. As the hon. Lady knows, the B.T.H.A. has certain powers and a very wide membership. It has reported that there is no case for statutory control in this matter.

    Economic Policy (Regional Development)
    Mr. Merlyn Reesasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development to what extent regional development through planning is an element in the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Heath: Our economic policies give full weight to the contribution which balanced regional development can make to national growth.
    Mr. Rees: Would the Secretary of State estimate when we will have regional plans for the country as a whole? Would he also explain what link there is between the national plan and the regional plans?
    Mr. Heath: I have from time to time given the House approximate dates,
    572
    where possible, for the completion of the studies which are now in hand. Some of them are at the stage when it is not yet possible to estimate accurately what the date will be. It will then be seen how the individual regional arrangements fit into the national programmes, which are announced from time to time, on particular items.
    Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he shares the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on this issue?
    Mr. Heath: Those views are well known and are often debated in the House. They sometimes differ from those of the Government in some respects towards regional development.

    Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many new jobs were provided in Scotland during 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.
    Mr. Heath: I regret that the information requested by the hon. Member is not available.
    Mr. Willis: Why is not this information available? Would it not be a much better indication of what is happening in Scotland if these figures were available than to be given all the figures which the Government continuously give about jobs in the pipeline which will materialise, perhaps, some time in the future? Would not such figures help us to compare the number of jobs with those which we are told will be provided when a particular establishment is authorised?
    Mr. Heath: The information for which the hon. Gentleman asks is not available for the simple reason that jobs arise in Scotland, as elsewhere, through non-industrial employment as well, in firms and factories for which I.D.C.s are not required. The full information is not, therefore, available, and to obtain it would require a form of administration which I do not believe would be justified. In reply to the last part of his supplementary question, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman

    573
    would welcome the possibility of jobs going to Scotland. If he would be more welcoming he might get more jobs.
    Mr. T. Fraser: While one can understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in answering the Question as it appears on the Order Paper, may I ask whether he can say how many new jobs have arisen during this period in respect of his activities under the Local Employment Act?
    Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will certainly answer it.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what estimates he has made of the number of new jobs required in Scotland each year to prevent the continuing high level of emigration and to reduce the level of unemployment to two per cent.
    Mr. Heath: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 39 to 41 of the White Paper on Central Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: I cannot remember offhand what is stated in paragraphs 39 to 41. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Council has now definitely stated that Scotland requires 40,000 new jobs a year for several years to come? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that so far the Government have not got anywhere near that figure and that they require to do much more than they are doing if that figure is to be achieved?
    Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman consults those paragraphs of the White Paper he will see the Government's view on this matter.

    South-East Development Plan (Scottish Representations)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what protests he has received from local authorities and other bodies in Scotland concerning the proposed development plan for South-East England so far as these affect his department.
    Mr. Heath: I have had no representations from local authorities, but I had useful discussions about the South-East Study and White Paper with the
    574
    Scottish Board for Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress when I visited Scotland on 17th April. The Scottish Council's Economic Development Committee has also made its views known to my Department.
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman must pt up to date. Is he aware that I received a letter from the Lochgelly Town Council this morning—and it indicated that a copy had been sent to the right hon. Gentleman—complaining about the South-East Study and its effects on Scotland? Is he aware that confirmation of these fears is contained in a speech made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently, when he said that 270,000 workers from Scotland and the North-East would emigrate to the South-East between now and 1981? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of that, that the fears of Scotland are justified; that is, unless and until the Government modify the existing policies which they are pursuing?
    Mr. Heath: When I receive a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member has referred I will give it my full attention. I have stated the position as it is now, to my knowledge. On the first part of his supplementary question, I have explained to the Scottish Board for Industry and to the Scottish T.U.C. that I do not believe that these fears are justified. Of course, there will always be some movement between the regions. Naturally that will happen, hut the figures on which the South-East Study is based are those set out in the White Paper on Central Scotland and the movement from Scotland as a result of the success of the Government's policies.
    In the South-East Study there are most definite safeguards for Scotland and for the North-East of England. These are that the industrial development certificate policy will remain as it is now, that Scotland and North-East England will continue to get priority in investment and that they have had the assurances which we have given about the inducements remaining in the growth areas and public investment also remaining there.
    What is more, there will be several years—it will take us into the 'seventies—before the South-East Study requires

    575
    industrial development. This, therefore, means that Central Scotland and North-East England will have the advantage of several years in this respect, and I hope that they will take the utmost advantage of it.
    Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentle-man noticed that the South-East Study assumes that the rate of net immigration into the South-East per year over the next 20 years will be greater than it was over the last 10 years, and is not this an extremely bleak outlook for the other areas?
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that of the 1 million who will be moving into the South-East area, a considerable number of them will have retired and will have come from other parts of the country. They will not, therefore, be requiring work. Further, a considerable proportion will have been immigrants from the Commonwealth and foreign countries—and the figures for migration from the rest of the country are based on the White Papers for Scotland and North-East England.
    Mr. Jay: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that both factors are allowed for in the figures of immigration over the last 10 years, and that, despite that, the rate will increase, according to the White Paper, in the next 20 years?
    Mr. Heath: I will check up on the White Paper, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is not taking those factors into account.

    Industrial Building
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development by what amount, in thousands of sq. ft., the area of industrial building started in Scotland in 1963 exceeded that started in 1960.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development by what amount, in thousands of sq. ft., the area of industrial building approved in Scotland during 1963 exceeded that approved in 1960.
    Mr. Heath: The area of industrial building approved for Scotland in 1963
    576
    was about 2·8 million sq. ft. less than the 1960 total. The area started was about 2·9 million sq. ft. less. The year 1960 was the year of the big developments in the iron and steel and vehicle building industries in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he intended to mislead the House in the Budget debate on 15th April last when he gave the impression that there was continued and growing buoyancy, and that the Government were doing more and more, and getting more and more success, when the actual fact is that, compared with 1960, there is a reduction of over 50 per cent. in the number of starts, and that that is not just in 1963, but that the same story can be told of 1962 and 1961?
    Mr. Heath: What the hon. Member must take into account is that as a result of the Government's policies in 1960, there was the steel development in Scotland and also the movement of the motor industry there. It is obviously quite impossible for movements of industries on that scale to take place every year. That is why the figures for 1960 are so much greater than those for other years. But I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the success of Government policies in 1960 in getting those particular industries to Scotland.
    Mr. Lawson: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that debate an example of selectivity? Did he not seek then to convey an impression that industrial building in Scotland was going far ahead even of industrial building in London and the South-East? Will the Minister study his own figures, not over two or three years but over a number of years, and appreciate that industrial building in Scotland persistently lags behind, and very much lags behind, the size of the Scottish industrial population, so that our position is worsening all the time?
    Mr. Heath: What I gave to the House in that debate were the figures of standard grants for building and equipment under the 1963 Act. I showed the way they were growing, and emphasised their importance. It is perfectly true that a number come from within Scotland itself, and that is to be encouraged. One wants to see development in Scotland, and that is what I was telling the House.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what is his estimate of the volume of industrial building currently under construction for which no industrial development certificates have been issued.
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will estimate, in thousaids of sq. ft., the amount of industrial building not sanctioned by industrial development certificates which has been carried out in the London and South-East Region and in Scotland, respectively, during each of the past five years.
    Mr. Heath: I regret that it is not possible to make reliable estimates of this kind.
    Mr. Robertson: Does not the Secretary of state agree that it is quite impossible to make any assessment of I.D.C. policy until we have those figures? Would he not agree that from what one can see far more industrial building is going on in London than in any other part of the country? Why cannot we have the figures when, without them, we cannot make a comparison?
    Mr. Heath: The reason the hon. Member cannot have the figures is that firms can expand to the extent of 5,000 sq. ft. without an industrial development certificate. Therefore, no record is kept in the Board of Trade of the firms that do this. This has been a policy pursued by Governments on both sides since the war, because it is believed, first of all, that the burden on administration of keeping records of small expansions is unjustifiable and, secondly, that expansions of this size are not likely to move to other parts of the country.
    Mr. McInnes: The Minister must appreciate that it is desirable that his Department should keep these records, because we should have information about the large volume of development taking place south of the Border, to the neglect of Scotland. Will not he now consider keeping these records in the Department?
    Mr. Heath: This is not to the neglect of Scotland, or any other part of the country, because if a firm is prepared to
    578
    expand by only 5,000 sq. ft. it is most unlikely that it will be prepared to set up a separate organisation whether in Scotland, the North-East or anywhere else. As this is unlikely to happen, Governments on both sides have in the past pursued the policy that it is an unnecessary burden on administration to keep full records of each case.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Minister give an assurance that no industrial buildings in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. will be allowed without an industrial development certificate?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance, and it is the responsibility of planning authorities to see that it is carried out.
    Mr. Smallasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what were the Eastern Region and Scottish percentages, respectively, of the Great Britain total of industrial building approvals for each of the years from and including 1959.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what were the Eastern Region and Scottish percentages, respectively, of the Great Britain total of industrial building completions for each of the years from and including 1959.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what were the Eastern Region and Scottish percentages, respectively, of the Great Britain total of industrial building under construction at end of period in each of the years from and including 1959.
    Mr. Heath: As the Answer involves a number of figures, I am circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Small: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied these figures? I have studied some of them, and find that they make a mockery of the claim to keep an equilibrium in industrial building approvals and I.D.Cs. The present trend is against Scotland and in favour of the North-East by about two to one. Will the Minister reverse that trend?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Member referred to the North-East, but this

    579
    Question deals with the Eastern Region and I would not accept the hon. Member's views on the analysis of those figures. He must also take into account that the Eastern Region takes a great deal of the overspill from London, because of the growing population of London, and, naturally, there must be jobs with the overspill.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Millan.
    Mr. Small: Does the Minister recognise the size of the population in that region compared with that of Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I called Mr. Millan.
    Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman talks of a tough industrial development certificate policy, but is it not strange that the figures published by his own Department of actual industrial building show that a population based on an area like Scotland, which has large numbers of development districts, still comes off very badly in comparison with the Eastern Region, which has not? If the Government's policy is working, can the right hon. Gentleman explain this discrepancy?
    Mr. Heath: It is a point that I have just mentioned. The Eastern Region takes a great deal of overspill from London, and industry moves with the overspill. That is the reason.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it true or not that in the Eastern Region, which is not nearly such a big region as Scotland in terms of population, industrial building has been about twice that of Scotland despite the tight control the right hon. Gentleman's Department is supposed to exercise over industrial building?
    Mr. Heath: I do not think that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will give him the exact figures in that respect.
    Mr. P. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend noticed a report in the Press this morning that an electronics firm has established itself, or is about to establish itself, in Scotland? Did this demand an industrial development certificate? If so, is he aware that it is welcome, and that his efforts to bring an electronics firm to the North-East will also be welcome?
    Following are the figures:

    PERCENTAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN TOTALS

    By Area

    —

    Eastern Region

    Scotland

    Industrial development certificates issued

    1959

    10·5

    10·5

    1960

    9·8

    7·8

    1961

    9·3

    8·6

    1962

    12·4

    9·9

    1963

    9·6

    12·7

    Industrial Building Schemes under construction

    End 1959

    14·6

    6·1

    End 1960

    12·3

    7·5

    End 1961

    13·5

    8·5

    End 1962

    14·6

    7·6

    End September 1963

    14·6

    7·7

    Industrial Building Schemes completed Schemes completed

    1959

    8·6

    11·0

    1960

    9·5

    8·4

    1961

    8·5

    6·9

    1962

    9·4

    9·3

    January-September, 1963

    9·5

    11·9

    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development by what amount, in thousands of square feet, the area of industrial building completed in Scotland in 1963 exceeded the amount completed in 1959.
    Mr. Heath: By 38,000 sq. ft.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are we to be told that 1959 is also a specially selected year? Is not this a very disappointing figure?
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. In 1963 it was 4,053,000 sq. ft. and in 1959 it was 4,015,000 sq. ft., so 1963 exceeded 1959 by 38,000 sq. ft.
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development by what amount, in thousands of square feet the area of industrial development under construction in Scotland at the end of 1963 exceeded the amount under construction at the end of 1961.
    Mr. Heath: The area under construction at the end of 1963 was about 2·4 million sq. ft. below the end-1961 total.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not this a further indication that the Secretary of State has

    581
    misled the House of Commons by some of his recent speeches about the great improvement that was taking place in the industrial scene in Scotland? Is it not better, as the Prime Minister advised a little while ago, not to look at the short-term figures but at the trend over a period? If the right hon. Gentleman does that, is it not quite clear that the position in Scotland is worsening, not improving?
    Mr. Heath: I do not accept in any way that I was misleading the House. The hon. Member is always trying to reduce the impact of what is being done in Scotland. He does not seem to realise that the figures for starts in 1960 for the steel and motor industries of course continued into 1961 as being under construction and that that is the reason for the contrast between those figures and the figure which I have just given the hon. Member.
    Mr. Ross: Very poor.

    Mail Order Firms
    Mr. Coulsonasked the Secretary of Stale for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will seek power to strengthen the law with regard to mail order firms in such a way as to ensure that customers receive the goods for which they have paid.
    Mr. du Cann: If my right hon. Friend had evidence that the law concerning the non-delivery of goods was inadequate he would consider amending legislation to strengthen it.
    Mr. Coulson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks on this point, and I thank him for agreeing to consider any possible amendment of the law. He is probably aware of the correspondence that has passed between my right hon. Friend and myself. A firm known as Carberrys—which, until recently, advertised in motor-cycle magazines—has still not refunded money sent to it for certain articles by one of my constituents eight months ago, and the goods have never been delivered. Is my hon. Friend aware that this is by no means an isolated case; and that there is general need to strengthen the law in order to persuade certain mail order firms to honour their obligations? To say that there is access to the civil courts in such matters is not encouraging to people
    582
    who are treated in this way. Will my hon. Friend look into the matter?
    Mr. du Cann: The Sale of Goods Act, 1893, provides certain remedies for the buyer with regard to the non-delivery of goods and we are advised that this applies to contracts with mail order firms. We have not had complaints other than the complaint made by my hon. Friend about matters of this sort, regarding which my right hon. Friend is writing to him and is obliged to him for having mentioned the matter.

    Vacant Factory, Airdrie
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Industry Trade and Regional Development, what progress he has made in finding an occupant for the vacant Salt Saltaire factory at Carlisle Road, Airdrie; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: We have had no recent inquiries about this privately-owned factory.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not good enough? Is he aware that figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday indicated that more than 5 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed in this part of Lanarkshire? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to find a tenant for this factory, is it not about time that he took it over himself and let it at concessionary rentals, simply because it will be more sensible to put the unemployed to work in a comparatively new factory before it deteriorates?
    Mr. Heath: I have already explained to the House and the hon. Member that it is not suitable for us to take over as an advanced factory. On the other hand, if there is a specific request for it I will consider it. This factory is brought to the notice of all industrialists in exactly the same way as are our own factories, because of the position which the hon. Member has described, but I cannot force people to make inquiries.

    Computers (Import Duties)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what duty is charged on the import of computers

    583
    either partly or completely assembled abroad; and what quotas or other restrictions are imposed upon such imports.
    Mr. du Cann: The duties are: full rate, 14 per cent.; E.F.T.A., 7 per cent., and Commonwealth Preference rate, nil. There are no quota or other import controls except on imports from the Eastern Area.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties facing the computer industry in this country? Is he aware that I.C.T. factories in Belfast are contracting and that there is a fear of greater redundancy? In these circumstances will he look at the picture again, with a view in particular to imposing the same type of quota and import duties on the import of American computers as the Americans do on the import of British computers?
    Mr. du Cann: No, Sir, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are all aware of the problems to which he refers, but they are more concerned with rationalisation than they are with imports.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers are by tradition convened by the British Prime Minister, who, in making the arrangements, seeks to meet the wishes of his Commonwealth colleagues.
  It has long been recognised that the only persons who attend these meetings, as of right, are the Prime Ministers of the fully independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, before issuing invitations to the Prime Minister of any other country which is not independent, the British Government have always thought it right to satisfy themselves that this would be generally acceptable to the other members.
  In accordance with this practice, we told the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that if he so wished, we were
  584
  ready to consult the Prime Ministers of the independent member countries about the question of an invitation to him.
  The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia replied that he considered that he was entitled, as of right, to receive an invitation to the meeting and that he did not therefore wish the British Government to consult the other Commonwealth Governments about it. We have asked him to consider the matter further, since we would not feel it right to depart from the usual practice.
  Mr. Wall: While my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that Southern Rhodesia has no direct legal right to attend the conference, may I ask whether he does not agree that there are strong traditional precedents for its participation? Is he aware of the danger of increasing the support of the more reactionary type of European opinion in Central Africa? Will he do his best to reach some compromise—for example, the attendance of both the Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia Prime Ministers as legatees of the old Federation?
  The Prime Minister: We must leave as a matter of consultation between partners in the Commonwealth as to how this meeting should be handled and whether any other Commonwealth countries should attend. I think that the aim of the whole House would be that Southern Rhodesia should proceed towards independence with the consent and approval of the Commonwealth. In the shorter term we are bound to have difficulties ahead, but I hope that we shall bear this long-term goal in mind.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever the differences have been in the House about Southern Rhodesia, and they have been very deep at times, the line which he has taken this afternoon in relation to this very difficult question which he has to decide is almost certainly one that will command support in all parts of the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that what we understand to be the position in this very difficult situation—that any unilateral request for independence would be met by the line which he has taken—has our full support, namely, that independence should not be agreed by the United

  585
  Kingdom without provision for democratic rule in Southern Rhodesia? Is he aware that this policy will receive the very fullest support from this side of the House?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to go into the latter part of that question, but I think that the line which I have taken on my hon. Friend's Question is the only one that I could take in the circumstances.
  Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no discussion of Southern Rhodesia in the absence of representatives of Southern Rhodesia from the conference?
  The Prime Minister: We do not, and it has not been the practice, to use Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings to discuss the internal affairs of other countries. Of course, outside the conference, or at informal discussions, these matters are very often raised.
  Mr. Wade: While I agree with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, may I ask whether there are any insuperable difficulties in trying to arrange a private and unofficial meeting between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth who are particularly interested in the future development of Southern Rhodesia, at some time and place convenient to those concerned?
  The Prime Minister: This, of course, is a matter that could be considered. I do not think that if the meeting took place it would be either private or unofficial.
  Mr. Bottomley: Has the Prime Minister given further consideration to the earlier suggestion which I made, that, at the time of the Prime Ministers' meeting, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nkomo and the Rev. Sithole might be invited to this country?
  The Prime Minister: It would be for Mr. Smith to say whether he would wish to accept an invitation of that kind.
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the situation in Southern Rhodesia following the resignation of Mr. Winston Field and the arrest of Mr. Joshua Nkomo, he will propose to the Prime Ministers of the
  586
  Commonwealth that they should jointly propose to the Government of Southern Rhodesia that a conference representing all political parties be held to prepare an acceptable constitution for the territory.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Brockway: Would not this proposal contribute both to the solution of the difficulties in Southern Rhodesia, where there is the danger of violence and, as the Prime Minister indicated in his earlier answers, to co-operation among Commonwealth countries to maintain their unity which is imperilled by the very strong feelings of Asian and African Governments on this issue?
  The Prime Minister: If any meetings are to be arranged, they must be arranged with the consent of the different parties. I do not think that that consent would be forthcoming.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not we all desire that Southern Rhodesia should advance towards independence in harmony between the races? Since the Commonwealth can, in Mr. Nehru's words, bring "a touch of healing", will my right hon. Friend consider with his colleagues in the Commonwealth whether, as a first stage, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia should not be in attendance at the Prime Minister's conference, in accordance with a precedent which Southern Rhodesia has honoured by great sacrifices to the Commonwealth in peace and war?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I answered that supplementary question by my hon. Friend when answering Question No. Q1. I have no reason to believe that an invitation to discuss the future of Southern Rhodesia would be acceptable to Mr. Smith.
  Mr. Bellenger: Does not this question illustrate the desirability, in a family like the Commonwealth, of Commonwealth Prime Ministers confronting one another to try to resolve these difficulties face to face rather than washing dirty linen in public?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, this would have been very desirable, but, in the circumstances, I am not sure that it is practicable to arrange any such meeting.

  NASSAU AGREEMENT
  Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister what recent approach has been made to President Johnson for a review of the Nassau Agreement, in view of the difficulties of producing suitable British warheads for the Polaris missile.
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently had with the President of the United States concerning a review of the Nassau Agreement, in view of the difficulties now anticipated in fitting a British warhead to the Polaris missile.
  The Prime Minister: No approach has been made to the United States Government for a review of the Nassau Agreement and none is required.
  Mr. Healey: Is it not true that to fit British warheads to these missiles would mean a substantial reduction in their range or destructive power, or both? Does the Prime Minister propose to test the completely new type of warhead which we should require to build to fit to such a missile? Is it not the case that the only sensible military answer to this problem is to buy American warheads, but, since these are subject to American veto on their use, this would nullify the whole political purpose of the Government's Polaris programme?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; we have no doubt that the British-made warhead is perfectly adequate for all the purposes, and the hon. Gentleman's assumptions in the earlier part of his supplementary question are wrong. As to when or, indeed, if, any tests are necessary, I do not think that I should answer that now. I think that there is no reason to believe that this warhead would have to be tested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no reason to think that there would have to be special tests for this warhead, but I would rather not go into that because one never quite knows in the manufacture of something of this kind. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we do not require American warheads and we are going to make them ourselves.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the
  588
  assurance which he has now given is worth any more than the assurances given some time ago regarding Skybolt?
  The Prime Minister: Any assurance given by me is worth what I say it is.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Does not my right hon. Friend deplore questions like this with the suggestion behind them that the British have failed again? Why do the Opposition go out of their way to denigrate British achievement?
  Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister in a position to assure the House that not even any modification of the Polaris missile system is necessary before the British warhead is fitted?
  The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of this Question. I am not really sure that I understand or that [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I was going on to say—or that the right hon. Gentleman quite understands what he is asking. Is he asking whether any modification of the inside machinery of the submarine is necessary in order to accommodate the warhead?
  Mr. Grimond: May I, with respect, attempt to enlighten the Prime Minister? It has been suggested by experts that such a modification of the American system would be necessary to enable it to take the British warhead. What I am asking is whether his expert advisers tell him that this is so or not?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the engineering problems are quite straightforward and will cause us no difficulty at all. The question was about the construction of the warhead. The right hon. Gentleman need have no fears about the engineering problems.
  Mr. Healey: Will the Prime Minister be kind enough to answer the question which I asked, which was: will not the fitting of a British warhead mean a substantial reduction in either the range or the destructive power of the Polaris missile, or both? In answering that, will he realise that the House will accept his assurances in the knowledge that the Government have already had to cancel 26 major missile or aircraft projects which they had undertaken, at a cost to the taxpayer of £300 million?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that had answered the hon. Gentleman quite clearly earlier when I said that both his assumptions were wrong. I could hardly have answered it more clearly.

  SOUTH AFRICA(UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  Mr. D. Footasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the report of the United Nations Special Committee on South Africa; and whether he will propose that the report shall be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  The Prime Minister: We have received a copy of this report and we are studying it.
  It is not our practice to reveal details of the agenda for Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences.
  Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this report will be one of the principal topics for debate at the next meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations, if not sooner in the Security Council? In the circumstances, does not he think that the issues which it covers should be considered by the Prime Ministers' conference?
  The Prime Minister: It may be that this question will be raised at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. I cannot tell. As I say, we are considering the report ourselves.
  Mr. Ridley: In view of the Opposition's great interest in this subject, might it be a good idea if the Leader of the Opposition were to call a Commonwealth conference of Leaders of the Opposition?

  HOUSES, WREXHAM (SALE)
  Mr. Hoosonasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the decision to sell the houses of the Pentre Maelor at Wrex-
  590
  ham to the Wrexham Rural District Council; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: Two tenants in this housing estate wrote to me and it has been explained in reply to them that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has not yet finally decided what action to take with regard to the estate.
  Mr. Hooson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that an important principle of public policy arises here inasmuch as the Government advocate home ownership and this is an estate owned by a Government Department? Should not the sitting tenants be given every opportunity to purchase their own houses before the estate is sold to the local authority? Further, will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade to state his willingness to sell to the tenants, to name his price and to state his conditions for such sale?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand it, there are difficulties in connection with this estate and my right hon. Friend is looking into the question. There are difficulties in disposing of houses individually to the tenants. I understand that provision has to be made for the maintenance of open spaces and water drainage. It is really a question of selling the whole of the estate, and this would be much easier than selling the houses one by one.
  Mr. Idwal Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that this housing estate is in my constituency and has no connection whatever with the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)? Is he further aware that, from the outset, I have followed all developments in this matter with care in an effort to fulfil my duty as a Member? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be an early settlement, hearing in mind the interests of the local authority, of all the tenants, and of the industrial estate?
  The Prime Minister: I am bearing in mind all the things that the hon. Gentleman has asked me to bear in mind, but I hope that he will go on discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH MAY—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the South East Study and the White Paper on South East England (Command No. 2308).
Motions on the Cotton Industry Order and the Iron and Steel Regulations.
TUESDAY, 5TH MAY—Debate on a Government Motion on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence (Command No. 2323).
WEDNESDAY, 6TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on a Motion to take note of the Tenth Report from the Estimates Committee of Session 1962–63, on Military Expenditure Overseas, and, if there is time, on the Eleventh Report from the Estimates Committee of Session 1962–63, on the Home Office, together with the relevant Special Reports.
THURSDAY, 7TH MAY—Finance Bill: Second Reading.
Motions on the Calf Subsidies Amendment Schemes, and on the Fat-stock (Guarantee Payments) Order.
FRIDAY, 8TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 11TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Malawi Independence Bill. Lords Amendments to the Harbours Bill, and the Succession (Scotland) Bill.
Motions on the Winter Keep Amendment Schemes, the Ploughing Grants Schemes, and on the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order.
Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the suggestion which we made last week for a fairly early debate on the Southern Rhodesian situation? Would he agree that, while,
592
of course, all questions of what is in order are for you, Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Malawi Independence Bill would not seem to be an appropriate occasion for outlining the issues which we hope to consider when we debate Southern Rhodesia?
Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his supplementary question. I will bear in mind what he said in the first part.
Mr. W. Yates: Has the Leader of the House noticed the Motion on the Order Paper standing in my name? In view of his assurance last week that he thought that a debate on foreign affairs would be necessary, will he bear in mind that it appears that both Her Majesty's Government and the Arab world are on a form of collision policy? If they are spoiling for another Suez crisis—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is very important. I have warned the Government and the country before about this.
Will my right hon. Friend kindly take note that I consider a debate to be both in the country's interests and in the Government's interests so that there can be no possible mistake made when the Jordan water crisis breaks?
[That this House expresses its deep regret that Her Majesty's Government failed to take any diplomatic steps to respond to the courteous message of goodwill communicated to the Foreign Secretary by the hon. Member for The Wrekin from the President and Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Yemen who wished to co-operate with the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government to restore peace and goodwill in South-West Arabia, to which Her Majesty's Government replied by bombarding the Fort of Harib in the Yemen and killing people.]
Mr. Lloyd: This debate cannot take place next week. I hope that we will be able to have a debate on foreign affairs within the reasonably near future.
Dr. King: The Leader of the House will have seen on the Order Paper the New Forest Bill, a semi-private Bill, which has been sent from another place. It is a Bill of such magnitude that it cannot get through the House on Second

593
Reading on the nod. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider giving time for consideration of this Bill, which would take only a short time, in view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) has devoted a tremendous amount of time to its preparation?
Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of what the hon. Member has said. The Bill has been through the other House, and I am considering very carefully whether we can help it in some way.
Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is very great feeling in the House and, I think, in the country, which will deplore attempts, however well meant, to raise the Southern Rhodesian question before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference? Whatever the statesmanship shown in Front Bench speeches, there are dangers. Feelings might be aroused in this country and in Africa which would be hard to control.
Mr. Lloyd: Obviously, what my hon. Friend has said is a matter to be taken into account. I think that today it would be better for us to content ourselves with what the Leader of the Opposition said in the second part of his supplementary question earlier. I do not think that Friday's business would be a suitable place for such a debate.
Mr. Wyatt: Has the Leader of the House read Motion No. 99 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)?
[That this House notes that the Prime Minister in replying to a Question by the hon. Member for Bosworth about a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on economic matters at Barnet on Saturday, 14th March, stated that no such speech was made; directs the attention of the Prime Minister to The Times newspaper of Monday, 16th March, where this speech was reported; and is of opinion that the Prime Minister should verify his references before attributing his own fault to another hon. Member.]
As it is a matter which affects the integrity of that great newspaper, The Times, and of the Prime Minister, who is so anxious to have a reputation for
594
straight talk, will he arrange to debate this matter very early? Half a day would, perhaps, be sufficient.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am quite happy to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)?
[Line 6, leave out from "reported" to end and add" to have included a passage dealing with the problems of competition in the modern world of industry and commerce; considers that the Prime Minister's reply must have been intended to suggest either that the Chancellor had not made a speech at all on 14th March or that the speech did not refer to economic matters, and that this reply was, accordingly, evasive and misleading; and is of opinion that the Prime Minister should not have sought to attribute his own inaccuracy to another hon. Member, and that he should now make a personal statement correcting his reply and apologising to the House."]
Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with my tight hon. Friend about this matter. It is not for me to comment on the merits in answer to a question on business, but how what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Saturday, 14th March, could be described as a speech on economic matters I fail to follow.
Mr. Jay: As the Government now have so much Parliamentary time on their hands, does the right hon. Gentle-man propose to introduce strengthened legislation to deal with monopolies and mergers as well as resale prices?
Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will not face the facts ever. The fact is quite clear: the Government do not have a great deal of time on their hands.
Mr. Hocking: Since it is some considerable time since we had a debate on the motor industry, will it be possible to find time to debate the present success of the industry?
Mr. Lloyd: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. I cannot suggest that he should be optimistic about it before the Whitsuntide Recess.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of the disturbed and somewhat complicated situation in

595
Cyprus—I do not want to go into the details; they are familiar to everyone in the House—will it be possible to have a report before the Whitsun Recess on what is happening in that island?
Mr. Lloyd: I will convey what the right hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friends concerned.
Mr. P. Williams: My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a foreign affairs debate. Will he recognise that this is of supreme importance in view of the problems affecting so many different parts of the world? If there is time to spare, there should be at least two days—preferably three—given to this matter so that we can consider the situation in different regions of the world in turn.
Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Rankin: I gather that the Leader of the House said that we would have a debate on the Report on the Home Office next week. Does he realise that this is a most important Report and that I had a hand in shaping it? Why will we be able to debate it only if time permits? Why apply that condition?
Mr. Lloyd: Because there is a previous debate. If that debate takes place expeditiously and all the speeches are brief and to the point, it may be that there will be plenty of time for the second one.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House conveyed a welcome hint to some of us that we might soon expect a debate on nationalisation as a general topic. Could he give us any encouragement today, since many of us are very anxious to break through some of the shyness on the subject on the part of hon. Members opposite?
Mr. Lloyd: Not next week.
Mr. C. Pannell: In the time that remains to this Parliament, will the Leader of the House consider discussing not only the future development of the House itself, but the future control of the Palace of Westminster with a view to ending the rather medieval control of this place and bringing its control into a modern setting?
Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to consider anything.
Mr. Driberg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has some duty to the whole House, to consider seriously the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and my Amendment to it? If he cannot arrange a half-day debate next week, will he ask the Prime Minister to make a personal statement, which we are surely entitled to? Does the right hon. Gentle-man really think it right that the Prime Minister should get away with deliberately misleading and deceiving the House?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is quite inaccurate. I do not think that my right hon. Friend has deliberately misled the House at all, or that anything that I said was inconsistent with my duty to the House. I have read the Amendment, but I do not see how my right hon. Friend's speech could be described as a speech on economic matters.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Is it not against the Rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to make that grossly inaccurate statement against the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is in the same difficulty as I am.
Dame Irene Ward: No, I am not.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady is not, she is much "wronger" than I thought she was. If she will look at the terms of the Motion, in my belief the allegation which has been made is precisely in the terms of the Motion to which reference has been made. This clearly creates a different situation.
Mr. Willis: Can the Leader of the House say whether it is still the Government's intention to proceed with the Divorce (Scotland) Bill?
Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.
Mr. Pavitt: Will we be having a statement next week from the Minister of Health on the results of the working party on general practice in the National Health Service? If not, are we likely to get it before Whitsun?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that question today. I will consult my right hon. Friend about it.
Mr. Swingler: Is the Leader of the House aware that since early February, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has had before him a report on the structure and trading practices of the film industry, which has been published as a White Paper? In view of the widespread anxiety in the industry about American take-over bids, the continued tendency to monopolistic practices and future prospects of employment, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman sympathetically consider providing time for the House to debate this important White Paper?
Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.
Mr. H. Wilson: While the urgency of a decision on a report which has been in the Government's hands since February this year is undeniable, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the same Secretary of State is yet in a position to make a statement to the House about his decision on the Monopolies Commission's Report in the case of Lucas and restrictive practices in connection with car batteries and components, which has been in his hands since a year last February, having taken seven years to produce?
Mr. Lloyd: I have no information that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement next week.
Mr. Crosland: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the true priorities facing the nation in the middle of the 1960s? Has he noticed the proposal by British Railways to withdraw almost all the fish trains from Grimsby? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide a day to debate the subject?
Mr. Lloyd: Not next week.
Mr. Speaker: I wish to revert to what I said a few moments ago, because I now have a copy of the Motion and Amendment in question. My recollection of them was wrong, which alters the position and causes me to apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) because I was wrong in my recollection. It means,
598
also, that the allegation of deliberately misleading is out of order and I must ask the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to withdraw it.
Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, in view of what you say, I will naturally withdraw that word, which I had thought to be the less unflattering of the two words which I might have used. If you instruct me, Mr. Speaker—[An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug."]—to substitute the word "accidentally", which really means that he did not understand what he was saying, of course I will do so.
Mr. Speaker: I was asking the hon. Member not to substitute any other word, but merely to withdraw the offending one—which he has done.
Mr. Rankin: I should like to return to a point which I put to the Lord Privy Seal on the two preceding Thursdays and in which I have no personal interest. In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that the Government have more business than they thought they had, does this mean that the Whitsun Recess will be shorter?
Mr. Lloyd: I spoke not so much of the Government as of the House itself in view of the various requests for debates which have been made to me today and previously. Obviously, there is heavy pressure on the Parliamentary programme. I hope, however, to be able to relieve hon. Member's anxieties next week.
Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in his letter to me the Prime Minister said that he preferred the report of the local Press to that in The Times? While I am in favour of local newspapers, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have checked this matter with The Times, which is quite satisfied that its reporter was correct?
Although the Prime Minister, in his letter to me, referred to it as being a social occasion, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not remember what he said on a social occasion does not necessarily mean that The Times reporter was wrong.
Ought we not, therefore, to go into this matter, because the Prime Minister

599
asserts that a speech was not made when it was and is endeavouring to get away from answering questions on the point?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is trying to draw me into the merits of his Motion. Certainly, there will be no time to discuss it next week.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the attachment of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) to The Times, do we now know who a so-called Conservative was?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has difficulty in acquiring the knowledge in connection with next week's business.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.46 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is important and it is positively needed, despite the suggestion in a newspaper that to legislate is premature. When an evil is growing, and manifestly growing, I believe in acting to stop it. The Bill does not, of course, affect the legitimate use of drugs for proper therapeutic purposes. My intention in introducing the Bill is to provide new and needed powers to deal with what, I am certain, is the increasingly serious social damage arising from the growing misuse of drugs, particularly of the amphetamine type.
  This misuse of amphetamine type drugs, popularly known as pep pills, is a comparatively recent development in this country, although it has been doing much damage abroad. In recent months, there has been increasing evidence that the habit of taking these pills for completely non-therapeutic purposes has been spreading outwards, first from London to other big cities and then beyond. To satisfy the demand, there has grown up a widespread illicit traffic. The police are increasingly concerned about it. The powers available under existing legislation have proved to be inadequate and I hope that the House will, therefore, agree that the Government are right to ask for further powers.
  The future of growing numbers of young people, of both sexes, is at stake. I am advised that the immediate physical effects of taking excessive quantities of these drugs may not be serious, except for people with cardiovascular disease, because further damage may be done to the heart or to the cerebral arteries by the higher blood pressure resulting from an overdose. Even in physically normal people, however, the long-term ill-effects of prolonged overconsumption are more serious.
  These drugs give a stimulus which takes away desire for sleep or for food.

  601
  The deprivation of sleep and the lack of interest in food which can be endured with the help of these pills lead eventually to a state of such intolerable discomfort that it can be relieved only by yet further substantial taking of similar drugs. Rapidly, an amphetamine type of drug dependence is set up. It may not be addiction in the sense in which someone becomes addicted to a drug of the morphine type, but it creates a kind of psychological dependence.
  Where a mixture of amphetamine and another drug, such as a barbiturate, is misused, there is the extra risk of the development of a barbiturate type of drug dependence, and that does more closely resemble addiction to the opiates. I cannot believe that anyone would say that young people should be lightly exposed to this.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to make it an offence to be in unauthorised possession of the drugs concerned, and to prohibit their import without a licence. In making unauthorised possession an offence, the Bill follows the precedent of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, which creates a similar offence as regards drugs controlled under that Statute.
  The police tell me that this additional power will be particularly valuable to them in dealing with traffickers in the drugs, who are likely to have in their possession large quantities of pills without being able to account for their possession of them. At the present time, these drugs are subject to control under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. and the Poisons Rules made under that Act.
  The effect of this control is that the drugs can lawfully be sold only on a prescription and by an authorised seller of poisons on his registered premises, that is to say, the chemist's shop. The Bill does not affect this control; it will continue in force just as at present.
  Nor does the Bill seek to deal with the increasing number of offences concerned with alteration or forgery of prescriptions. The reason is that already there are sufficient powers to deal with offences of this kind, if the culprits are caught. The remedy here is greater care in preventing blank prescription forms from getting into the wrong
  602
  hands, and in watching for forged or falsified prescriptions.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already warned doctors of the dangers of prescribing drugs of this kind for people who are not known to them or who are known to be addicts, and I think that most doctors are well aware of the need to keep their prescription forms in a safe place to avoid their being stolen.
  The Pharmaceutical Society, for its part, has taken pains to impress on its members the importance of watching for prescriptions which have been forged or tampered with, as well as the importance of adhering strictly to the requirement that drugs of this kind may be dispensed only against a prescription. I am grateful for what has been done.
  But this type of action, by itself, is not enough: we have the proof of that. Supplies of pep pills can be obtained without much difficulty in certain clubs and cafes, particularly in London and the larger cities. That is a fact. They are thought to be obtained in various unlawful ways, and particularly by theft.
  It is always difficult to obtain information about the sources of drugs which are being traded in illicitly, for the obvious reason that neither the buyer nor the seller is usually prepared to disclose information which may affect his ability to obtain supplies in the future. In these circumstances the only offence which it would often be possible to prove is that of unauthorised possession.
  In making unauthorised possession of these amphetamine-type drugs an offence, as the Bill for the first time does, obviously it is essential to identify those categories of people who may legitimately be in possession of the drugs. Provision is made in the Bill for various categories to be safeguarded. First, there are those who are getting the drugs for medical purposes, either for their own use or for the use of some other person or perhaps an animal in their care.
  Secondly, there are the manufacturers and wholesalers and importers of the drugs, who deal in them by way of trade. These latter classes are not clearly and indubitably identifiable, so the Bill requires manufacturers and wholesalers to register with the Home Office, and

  603
  requires importers to obtain a licence. This will enable lists to be kept of manufacturers and wholesalers and importers, and will enable Customs officers to identify consignments of the drugs which are imported legitimately.
  The third group of people are those who need to be in possession of drugs in the course of their profession, business or employment. This includes doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and chemists. Exemption is also given to police and Customs officers who may need to take possession of drugs in the course of their duties.
  There is also power for the Secretary of State, by Regulations which could be prayed against, to make further provision for exempting any other persons or class of persons who may hereafter be shown to need to be in possession of the drugs for legitimate purposes.
  Another source of supply of these drugs is by importing them from abroad. At present, there is nothing to prevent anyone from bringing these drugs into this country or having them sent in, perhaps through the post. It is known that this is done. The Bill prohibits importation, except under a licence granted by the Secretary of State. The intention is to grant bona fide importers open licences for the import of the drugs to be controlled. So there will be no interference with legitimate trade. But any drugs not brought in under a licence will be liable to be seized.
  The police, if they are to check the misuse of these drugs, must be able to search clubs and cafés where they are known to be obtainable, or places where traffickers in them are suspected of keeping their supplies. So the Bill gives power for a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant to enable the police to search any premises on which it is suspected that an offence of unauthorised possession is being committed.
  Sir Barnett Stross: I should have interrupted the right hon. Gentleman a little earlier to ask him this question. Is not this drug manufactured in this country? If it is, is there any reason at all why it should be imported in any event?
  Mr. Brooke: It is manufactured in this country, but we do not normally put
  604
  a prohibition on the import of articles which can be manufactured in this country, and this drug has perfectly legitimate uses.
  I have explained that the Bill gives power to issue a search warrant. There is also power for a court to order the confiscation of any drugs which may be found in the possession of a person who is convicted of unauthorised possession. These follow similar provisions in the dangerous drugs legislation.
  The drugs which will be subject to control under the Bill are listed in the Schedule. I hope that the House will not ask me to read them out. Hon. Members will be able to read them for themselves. These are all drugs of the amphetamine type, which are liable to have a stimulant effect on the central nervous system.
  I hope that the House will support the inclusion in the Bill of provision for the Secretary of State, by Order and after consultation with the Poisons Board, to add drugs to the Schedule or to remove them from it. It may be necessary for an Order to be made removing a particular drug from the Schedule, because the description used in paragraph 3 of the Schedule could cover drugs which have not at the present time been synthesised.
  It may be that at some future time new drugs of this kind will be produced which will not have the kind of effects that would warrant their control under the Bill. In that case an Order would be made removing that substance from control. On the other hand, it may well be found that drugs other than those listed in the Schedule are abused. If the availability of one kind is checked, the demand may swiftly switch to another.
  The power to add substances to the Schedule is drafted in such a way that it would be possible to bring under control substances of a different nature, such, for instance, as the barbiturates, should events prove that desirable. At present, there is not sufficient evidence of the abuse of any other kinds of drug to warrant their inclusion in the Schedule.
  Orders adding drugs to the Schedule, or removing them from it, could be prayed against, like the other Orders I mentioned.
  It is proposed that the Bill shall apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, for

  605
  drug traffic does not halt at borders. These provisions have the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and of the Northern Ireland Government. The power to register manufacturers and wholesalers in Northern Ireland, and to license imports into Northern Ireland, is given to the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland.
  I doubt whether I need explain the Bill at greater length, except to say that the power to register manufacturers and wholesalers and to license importers will come into effect immediately the Bill becomes law. I estimate that a period of three months will be necessary for initial registration and licensing, and at the end of that period the other provisions of the Act will take effect.
  I believe that the Bill is a necessity. I have been out with the police at night to see for myself some of the social problems which face the police in Central London. Amid all that sleazy stuff, the thing which impressed itself far the most deeply on my mind was the danger to the teenagers, both boys and girls, if this easy getting and taking of "purple hearts" and pep pills went on growing and spreading. I had been thinking about legislation on these lines for some time, and that convinced me. Our weapons for checking it are at present not effective, even with all the help that doctors and pharmacists can give.
  I ask the House to give us new and stronger weapons in the Bill—weapons to save youths and girls from a habit which can become a vice.
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I find myself on this occasion in the unusual but happy position of substantially agreeing with practically everything that the Home Secretary said. I agree with him that it is not premature, as The Times suggested recently, for the Home Secretary to invite the House to deal with questions of the misuse of pep pills, whether they are "purple hearts" or other pep pills.
  Nevertheless, I think that it is necessary on an occasion such as this, when new crimes are being introduced, that the House should for a moment look somewhat critically at what is being
  606
  suggested. The House will have observed from the Home Secretary's speech—I noticed it particularly—that he based the case for the Bill almost entirely on medical grounds and on the necessity of protecting adolescents and other young people from what he thought, no doubt quite rightly, is becoming a social danger.
  The right hon. Gentleman apparently did not base his case, as one might have expected him to do, on the ground that addiction to these pep pills is not merely harmful to the individuals themselves but also has a causal connection with crime. That would have been a possible line of argument, but I notice that he did not rest his argument on that ground.
  It therefore seems to me worth while to say a word or two both about the form of the proposed legislation and about the principles which underlie it. On numerous occasions we have heard from both sides of the House that the whole of the present legislation both on dangerous drugs and on poisons is in a chaotic state and ready at an early opportunity for overhaul.
  As I understand the position at present, dangerous drugs are dealt with under Acts passed by Parliament pursuant to international regulations and they are aimed at prohibiting, except under the most stringent conditions, dangerous drugs such as Indian hemp, cocaine and heroin, some of which have no therapeutic value at all and others of which have only a very limited therapeutic value.
  No one would doubt the wisdom of that legislation. I gather that the reason why that legislation is not being extended in the case of the drugs with which we are dealing today is that at the moment there is no international convention dealing with them and, therefore, they are in a different category. That brings me to inquire into a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross). In the case of dangerous drugs of the narcotic type I understand that in some cases there is a prohibition against import.
  I therefore ask, when we are dealing with a less dangerous drug—and when I say "less dangerous" I mean in the sense that it has obviously considerable therapeutic value in those cases, quite numerous, in which it is properly prescribed by medical practitioners—and

  607
  when we are dealing with drugs which are manufactured in this country, why it is necessary to permit importation at all. I appreciate that the Bill will make it an offence for them to be imported except under licence, but perhaps the Home Secretary will consider what it is in the economy of the country which makes it necessary that there should be any importation.
  As the Home Secretary said, at present these are subject to the prohibition with regard to poisons under the Poisons Rules, which means that no chemist can sell them to any member of the public except upon a prescription by a medical practitioner, a registered dentist or a registered veterinary practitioner.
  Nevertheless, as the Home Secretary said, it is notorious that there has been a widespread illicit consumption of these drugs, notably by adolescents. We must accept what he said, based no doubt on statistical evidence which is available to him but perhaps not to others, that these illicit sales and growing addiction or, as he said, drug dependence, are a recent manifestation which is growing in volume.
  It seems to me, therefore, that we face this situation: as the law stands it is not an offence to import these drugs. It is not an offence to have them in one's possession. It is not an offence to consume them even in quantities, nor do I think that it is an offence to distribute them. Certianly, it is not an offence to distribute them wholesale, although it may be an offence to distribute them in retail or small quantities. I agree with the Home Secretary that in those circumstances some further measures are necessary to prevent what is a mental and physical danger to those who become dependent upon them.
  Having said that, I think that we should just look at the matter and observe that we propose taking a somewhat novel step. No doubt it is justified. The State has always recognised the principle that it has a duty to protect members of the public in certain circumstances from doing some things which may be harmful to them. That, however, is obviously a principle which one cannot carry too far, and one must be on one's guard, because if that principle
  608
  were accepted, one could extend it to the excessive consumption of alcohol, or of tobacco, or of a variety of other matters.
  Mr. Percy Browne: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member on the point which he is making. But does he not agree that in Clause 5 these powers are being taken and that they could extend to include alcohol, which I believe to be a far greater evil among teen-agers than pep pills?
  Mr. Fletcher: I gather that the hon. Member was following and not dissentiing from my argument. I object to it being said that the Home Secretary is taking powers, because Ministers do not take powers; they ask Parliament to confer powers upon them. It is our duty to decide whether we should confer on Mnisters the powers for which they are asking.
  I am saying that I am prepared to support the Bill for the reasons adduced by the Home Secretary, because marginally—not merely marginally—I think it is right to support it; but I just thought it appropriate to add, as a word of caution, that there is also, as the hon. Member realises, a principle involved in the Bill which ought to be stated.
  The principle, it seems to me, is that the State has, in certain circumstances, a duty to prevent members of the public from doing things which at present they are free to do, but which public opinion regards as producing harmful social consequences to them either mentally or morally. That, it seems to me, must be the principle underlying the Bill.
  It is not a criminal offence to be a drug addict. Under the Bill, I suppose, it will become a criminal offence. That is why I was a little surprised that the Home Secretary did not give us any information at all about the causation, if there is one, between drug addiction and crime—for this is a penal Measure. Just to pursue the analogy we were talking about, as an analogy, Parliament, quite rightly I think, passes laws against the importation and dissemination of obscene literature, but it has not yet thought fit to make it an offence for an individual to have obscene literature in his possession. Nor do I think that such a recommendation would meet with the approval of the community.

  609
  There is one other thing one ought to observe in connection with the Bill. By passing it, stringent though some of its provisions are, I do not think we must delude ourselves into thinking that we are necessarily dealing with the medical and social problems which underlie the fact that in recent years increasing numbers of people have become drug addicts through addiction to "purple hearts" and various other forms of pep pills. That is a social problem which obviously requires much more social and medical research into the causes which have brought it about, and I have no doubt that that research will continue.
  The only other observations I should like to make are on a few matters of detail of the provisions of the Bill, some of which, I have no doubt, would be more appropriate to deal with in Committee. I have already asked the Home Secretary to deal with the question of whether Clause 4 is necessary. I am sure that it is necessary to prohibit the importation of these substances, but one hopes that it will not be found necessary to grant many, if any, licences to licensed importers.
  I should rather like the Home Secretary to tell us something about how he proposed to exercise his discretion under Clause 1(5) with regard to registering manufacturers or wholesalers.
  Then with regard to the penalties, the House will observe that as the Bill stands, by Clause 1(1), contravention of the Measure renders the person who offends liable
  "to a fine not exceeding £200 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both".
  As far as I can see, those penalties apply equally both to the person who, after the Bill is passed, may continue to peddle large quantities illicitly obtained of those drugs, and also to the person who is found with a few of these drugs in his possession without having obtained them as a result of a medical prescription.
  Perhaps the Minister will explain why it is necessary that the main provisions of the Bill are not, as I read it, to come into operation till three months after the operation of the Act. If, as the Home Secretary has told us, there are urgent reasons for giving the police these additional powers, one would
  610
  have thought that the sooner they are in a position to operate under the Bill the better. Is there not some risk in allowing a locus poenitentiœ of three months to elapse, within which, no doubt, those who are so minded may be able to accumulate quantities of these drugs for subsequent distribution? I would have hoped that the administrative measures could be taken to enable that period to be very considerably abbreviated.
  Finally, let me echo the hope expressed by the Home Secretary that, in addition to the powers given under the Bill, steps will be taken to prevent the misuse which has occurred in the past, by urging all medical practitioners to take some effective steps to prevent the theft of prescription forms and to advise registered chemists, pharmacists, to be on their guard against forged prescriptions.
  4.17 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: I am glad to have this opportunity of following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), because I take very much the view which he has expressed. Like him, I find that the case for this kind of legislation is convincing, and I certainly support the Bill, but I feel that when we introduce new legislation to create a new criminal offence the House should always look at that legislation with the utmost of care and caution.
  I find myself certainly sharing the sense of concern which he expressed, and which my right hon. Friend expressed, about the widespread illegal use of these drugs, amphetamine drugs, but my sense of concern is not only about the physical consequences which follow from the excessive taking of these drugs. In certain circumstances, such as those which my right hon. Friend mentioned, the excessive taking of amphetamine drugs can be physically dangerous.
  My sense of concern is also because the widespread illegal use of these drugs means that so many young people are being brought into the thoroughly murky world of theft, of black marketeering and intimidation. They are being brought into the world where the key figures are probably the most unattractive and sinister persons in society, drug pedlars and drug pushers.

  611
  Also, I feel a sense of concern because the widespread illegal taking of amphetamine drugs is yet another indication that there are quite a number of our young people who find the real world in which they live so unrewarding and so unsatisfying and so unconstructive and unexciting that they turn to the unreal world of drugs. This is an immense sadness for those who come into contact with these people and see the lives they have to lead.
  I am rather diffident about taking part in the debate, if only for the reason that the list of drugs in the Schedule is quite unpronounceable to me. I cannot bring, as some hon. Members can bring, any qualified medical opinion to bear on the subject. Nor can I claim ever to have had these drugs. I certainly have never taken them in the quantities in which they are sometimes taken. I understand that 50 to 100 tablets taken on a Friday night to keep one awake throughout the week-end is by no means unusual. Nor can I claim, like some hon. Members, to know how widespread is their use. There is no doubt though, according to reports in the Press and authoritative surveys, that there is an extension of some forms of drug addiction. Today, it is reported in the Press that, according to a medical survey, about 500 undergraduates at Oxford University are smoking marijuana cigarettes fairly regularly.
  I want to take part in the debate because I have a special interest in the sense that the company which manufactures one of the main drugs covered by the Schedule lies within my constituency. This is the pharmaceutical company of Smith, Kline and French, situated in Welwyn Garden City. It manufactures the drug drinamyl. It is the drug which has won for itself a mystique factor amongst young people. It has been given by them the evocative name of "purple heart" because of its triangular shape and light blue colour.
  As the hon. Member for Islington, East said, this drug has a very great therapeutic purpose. Paradoxically, it is used for the curing of alcoholic addiction. It is also used for manic depression, for obesity, schizophrenia, and as an appetite suppressive. The company is of the very highest reputation. At my
  612
  request, several months ago, it has given me quite a lot of information about this drug, but I have not asked the company whether it supports the Bill. My information is that the Bill is welcome to the company, but I speak for myself and I deliberately did not consult it because I believe it to be my responsibility to judge this matter not from the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, but as an elected representative of a cross-section of the community.
  Sir B. Stross: I think that the hon. Gentleman should tell us, also—and it is to the credit of this very great company—that it is the original patent holder and first originated the stuff we used to call benzedrine.
  Lord Balniel: I believe that the hon. Member is right and I shall certainly refer to some aspects of the company's work.
  The drugs contained in the Schedule fall into much more normally known names if we group them under the headings of benzedrine and dexedrine, in which group the particular drug drinamyl is contained. There is also the drug group called lucofen, a little known appetite suppressant, and another group, tonyl, which is very little known in this country.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the Schedule with great care. I am told by a chemical analyst that any substance containing yeast is included in it. My right hon. Friend is a strong Minister, but a fine of £200 for possesion of a bottle of beer seems to be a little draconian. If my informant is correct, I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the Schedule very carefully.
  I am told that these drugs are now very widely obtainable in "pubs", clubs, and dance halls, and that their circulation and distribution is by no means confined to Soho, but that they can easily be obtained in almost any of our great cities.
  Messrs. Smith, Kline and French is a firm of the very highest reputation and it has no wish to see drinamyl being used for non-therapeutic purposes. It has no commercial interest in such distribution. Also, drinamyl forms only a tiny proportion of its total production and, rather surprisingly at a time when the illegal use of this drug is increasing,

  613
  during the past five years the manufacture of drinamyl has decreased by 50 per cent. No one is more concerned than this company to ensure that its products are available only for therapeutic purposes through proper medical channels.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: What quantities are produced by the company at present?
  Lord Balniel: I cannot say what the actual quantities are, but I think that I would not be far out—although I cannot speak with authority—if I said that about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of its total production is of this drug.
  Mr. Parkin: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the production is 1 million tablets a week, amounting to a turnover of £125,000 a year?
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman should address his suggestion to the Home Secretary, who had close consultations with the company before framing this legislation. I cannot attempt to speak as a representative of the company and I do not consider it my duty to do so.
  One of the earliest inquiries I made was about the security arrangements, which are very strict indeed in the manufacture of this drug. I am told that all the active ingredients are kept under lock and key, that the only person who can issue them to the appropriate processing department is a qualified pharmacist, that, after processing, they are returned to the locked area and that withdrawal from stock of any supply of tablets cannot be done without authorisation. The security arrangements have been examined on a number of occasions by the police, who, I understand, are satisfied that they are effective. Incidentally, none of the company's representatives is allowed to carry these drugs around when visiting doctors in different parts of the country.
  I support the Bill, but I do have certain reservations about it. It is purely repressive legislation and the House should always look at repressive legislation with the utmost caution because prohibition so frequently has completely unforeseen and unexpected results. One has only to remember the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. It was
  614
  introduced to curb addiction to alcohol, but it resulted in corruption, gangsterism and about 20,000 cases, in the Mid-West alone, of paralysis through illicit distillation. The Bill introduces an entirely new type of criminal offence.
  Schedule 4(b) of the Poisons Regulations includes amphetamine. The Home Secretary has power at present to prosecute the illegal sale without prescription of amphetamine drugs. Presumably, what is happening is that he is finding it impossible to secure convictions and, indeed, his drug squad is, I expect, finding it impossible to enter into the clubs where these drugs are being distributed. So, instead of legislating, as in the past, against an illegal supplier, he is forced rightly, to legislate against the consumer.
  I say that this is an entirely new type of offence because, in the past, both in international law and in our national legislation, we have always drawn an absolutely clear line between drugs of addiction and drugs of habituation. The drugs of addiction are those highly dangerous drugs, like morphine and heroin, which are associated with painful physical consequences when one attempts to withdraw from them.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Is the hon. Member aware that there are a good many chemists who regard "purple hearts" as being in quite the same category?
  Lord Balniel: I am aware of that, but I should like to develop my argument, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  The definition of a drug of addiction, in very broad terms, is something like this: a drug of addiction is a drug which creates an overpowering need to continue to take it. It creates a psychological and, this is the key word, "physical" dependence upon the effects of the drug. A drug of addiction results in persons progressively increasing the dose because they become more tolerant to the drug, and it results in physical consequences when they are being withdrawn from the drug.
  Habituation to a drug is quite different. There is a desire, not a compulsion, not a need to continue to take the drug, because of the general sense of well-being which it creates. There

  615
  can be a psychological dependence on the drug, but there is no physical consequence on the person being withdrawn from the drug. That is the difference between the two types of drug.
  I am aware that quite a number of young people become chronically intoxicated by these drugs. They take amphetamine drugs to give them a sense of abandon, a sense of release, a freedom from fear and a sense of energy. Then they take barbiturate drugs to sober them down and, having sobered down, they take amphetamine drugs to give them the sense of energy and abandon which they want.
  I am not in any way opposing the Bill, and I am not in any way opposing the inclusion in it of drugs of habituation. But in departing from what, in the past, in international and national law, has been an absolutely clear defined limit, my right hon. Friend is, in fact, embarking on an entirely new type of legislation which is completely open-ended.
  There are many other drugs of habituation—alcohol, caffeine, nicotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has already said that, in his opinion, alcohol is a far more dangerous drug of habituation. I see, for instance, that the Medical Officer of Health to the Ministry of Health, only today announced that one-third of all middle-aged men entering psychiatric hospitals in Scotland are, in fact, alcoholics. It is very probable that alcholic addiction is far more damaging to the physical health of people than addiction to these amphetamine drugs. Of course, without any question at all, tobacco smoking is far more damaging to physical health than amphetamine drugs.
  The point that I want to make is that my right hon. Friend is embarking on legislation which is completely open ended. He is taking, under Clause 5, powers to add any substance to the Schedule of restricted drugs. Is it right that these very wide powers should be given to my right hon. Friend by the negative Resolution procedure of the House? I believe that he should be given the powers to add to this list, but only by means of a positive Resolution of the House.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member quoted from a speech
  616
  by a medical officer on the question of alcoholism in Scotland. That medical officer said this problem was, in terms of numbers, negligible, 210 per 100,000 of the population in Scotland, and that the figures there were almost twice those of anywhere else in Britain. This is relevant to the point that the hon. Member is making, because if alcoholism is as serious a problem as he suggests, one would hope that the House would treat it in a purely pragmatic fashion.
  Lord Balniel: I accept that in terms of numbers it is small, but it is infinitely larger in terms of numbers than the drugs that we are dealing with in the Bill. Alcoholic addiction is physically damaging. Amphetamine addiction—and there are innumerable reports which bear this out, including reports from the Ministry of Health—is not physically damaging in the sense that a drug of addiction is physically damaging.
  Mr. Parkin: I hope the hon. Member will not leave this point about addiction and habituation before developing his idea whether it is not the case that we are concerned with drugs of habituation which can lead to addiction to things far worse than the pills involved. This involves not the troubles of middle-aged men here and there, a small proportion of the population, but a large section of the youth of the country at a particular age when they have enough troubles of their own to get over. Will the hon. Member do what the Home Secretary obviously cannot do in sneaking to a brief on the points in the Bill, sketch the framework in which this approach will play an important rôle?
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Those who take regularly amphetamime drugs are, in fact, likely to be those persons who frequently go on regularly to take marijuana drugs and those who take marijuana are persons who not frequently, but in certain cases go on to the read drugs of addiction, morphine and heroin. I am saying, let us look, when we create a new criminal offence, at the legislation with the utmost caution. There are certain side-effects which are almost inevitable as a result of the Bill. We are creating a new criminal offence. One side-effect almost certainly will be an extension of blackmail. Almost certainly, in these very

  617
  shady circles which we are talking about, there is a substantial amount of intimidation at the moment. When consumers of these drugs are themselves committing an offence the ability of pushers and peddlers to intimidate the consumers is greatly increased. We shall also be giving to these drugs a scarcity value which is equivalent to the scarcity value of drugs of addiction. This might well make them even more attractive to the crook, because there will be a penalty not of £1,000, not of 14 years in prison, but a small penalty of only £200 or three months' imprisonment.
  My last reservation is of a rather wider and slightly more intangible nature. Repressive legislaton, by itself, almost never achieves the object which it sets out to achieve. In the Bill what we are doing is closing an escape route, an admittedly dangerous escape route, which a number of young people are taking to escape from a world which they regard as unrewarding and unconstructive and unsatisfying and unexciting. In doing this we are taking a purely negative step. We are doing nothing to make their world more rewarding, more constructive and more exciting.
  I know that my right hon. Friend has set up a Royal Commission to consider the problems of juvenile delinquency, I welcome this most warmly, hut what is needed today is not only more academic studies, although they are welcome. There are many hypotheses as to the causes of juvenile delinquency. What we need today is that some of these hypotheses should be tested and that we should spend a little money testing them.
  We know, to put it in very simple terms, that many of these people take to drugs for excitement. They take to drugs because they are bored. To use their own language, they take them for "kicks", for a "laugh", for a "giggle". They get the excitement of flouting the law, flouting the rules at school, flouting society. What they are seeking is a sense of excitement and we are not providing them with a socially acceptable field of excitement.
  I realise that I would be very far out of order if I went further along those lines, but this is my reservation. When a problem arises, the speed with which
  618
  negative prohibitory repressive legislation can be introduced is great. But if any of us goes to the Government and asks for very small sums of money to support the voluntary work which is beng done to channel the idealism and energy and vigour of young people into constructive and satisfying channels, our demands seem to fall between the Home Office and the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and the Minister responsible for sport.
  My reservation about the Bill is a sense of regret at how quickly we introduce prohibitory legislation and how slow we are to give financial support to much of the good work which is being done by the voluntary societies.
  4.42 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Stross: I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I always find his speeches attractive—or nearly always—and this I thought particularly attractive because I agreed with almost everything he said. In particular, he stressed that this was a fragment of repressive legislation and the negative side of what we were trying to do for our young people, and that there was another face to the problem. In other words, he asked what we were to do to see that they did not need to get their kicks in this way.
  I was surprised that he thought that be would be going wide or out of order by saying that we should take some very strong positive steps to help our youngsters. Everybody in the House is agreed about this and it is not out of order. It is not in the Bill and we have every right to complain that it is not in the Bill and, if necessary, to talk about it in some detail.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had to say about addiction to this particular drug and the way it might lead to crime. We ought to be careful about this and understand what sort of drug we are talking about. What is its physiological and pharmacological effect upon the human brain, tissues, muscles and nerves compared with some other drugs, both of habituation and addiction? I shall compare it with only one drug, alcohol, which is a very common drug commonly in use.

  619
  The difference between this drug and alcohol is as great as the difference between the North Pole and the South Pole. Amphetamine stimulates the higher centres of the brain. This is of importance, because over-stimulation can be very dangerous and very bad. With alcohol the result is that layer by layer the latest acquired characteristics of the human personality are removed. Alcohol is therefore a depressant and not a stimulant at all. Amphetamine, like cocaine, is a stimulant, while alcohol is the exact opposite.
  The youngster who takes too much alcohol is easily led into crime, because he can no longer control himself. The stupid young person who takes too much amphetamine, in which ever form, whether with phenobarbitone added or not, is stimulating himself, but not making a fool of himself in the sense of behaving in the sort of way that he might have behaved in another age in his original ancestry of a million years ago.
  Some people become fighting fit when they take too much drink. The amphetamine addict does not grossly change his personality. What happens to him is an heightening of his personality. The alcoholic loses shyness and can be brutal and completely uncontrolled. The amphetamine addict, the silly boy or girl who takes five or ten or fifteen tablets of this type, does it in the first place because he does not want to eat or sleep. Mainly these youngsters cannot afford to eat and do not have time to eat if they are to sit up all night. They cannot afford to drink to the extent of getting kicks in that way. This is the cheapest way of sitting up all night and escaping from their original selves and their shyness and their feeling of inferiority. But this is terribly temporary.
  This is why this habituation is in heart of our great cities, mostly in London. We do not want it to spread, and that is why I shall support the Bill wholeheartedly. Although, like the noble Lord, I feel critical because it is a repressive piece of legislation and in this fragment of legislation there is nothing very positive to help these children, I shall support the Bill.
  620
  We can compare this drug very well with caffeine. Medical students—and I was once a medical student—know all about these drugs because we have tried them on ourselves. Amphetamine is very similar to caffeine but is more convenient, because caffeine affects the kidneys and amphetamine does not, and so one has more time to enjoy oneself without having to run round the corner.
  I have already said why youngsters fall into this foolish habit. They want to get away from themselves; it is exciting; and as long as the tablets are reasonably cheap they can afford to take them. They find that life is exotic and strange. They want to understand it and taste it, and how better than to sit up and talk the night through! They do not start to take these tablets because they wish to become criminals; but it is true that they run into great danger, because they sit and talk about their problems all night and discuss what they think about the world in general—certainly in Metropolitan London—in places where semi-criminals and the murky underworld congregate.
  Let us remember that they are not drunk. Their minds are working fast and in a most exciteable fashion, but they may well be tempted by and, if they are weak, they may well succumb to people who want to offer them other things and lead them into a life of crime and into the use of drugs which are infinitely more dangerous than those which we are now discussing.
  I member that in 1939, when mobilisation came and when I was still in practice in Stoke-on-Trent, I was called upon to assist the Territorials who that evening were driving somewhere to the South Coast to a place unknown to us but known to them. Straight from work, they were to drive all night long. I examined every one of them to make sure that no one was unfit to go. To the driver of every vehicle I presented a tablet of benzedrine and made him swallow it with a glass of water before allowing him to get into his vehicle and drive through the night. To those who had to stay up all night at headquarters planning what was to be done—after a day's work—I sent a handful of tablets telling them to use the tablets, with care, in order to prevent themselves from falling asleep. That is a reasonable way of using a drug of this

  621
  description, and I am happy to say that all those who drove through the night arrived at their destination at 11 o'clock the next morning safe and sound. No one was ditched, and every vehicle arrived there safely.
  Mr. Marsh: No doubt they were very tired the next day.
  Sir B. Stross: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. One cannot misuse the human frame without paying a penalty, but under certain circumstances it is right to use a particular drug for a certain limited purpose.
  That does not mean that students are wise in using this drug to enable them to sit up all night and cram for their examinations. I think that they lose by it. I am trying to make it quite clear to the House that we are not dealing with cocaine, morphia, hashish or Indian hemp. We are dealing with benzedrine and amphetamine. I have no personal experience of this, but I am horrified when I read of youngsters taking 20 or 30 tablets a day, or over two days, or over a weekend. I tremble when I think of their condition. It must be terrifying to recover from the effects of the drug. I presume that most of these tablets contain a modicum of barbiturate, and that, of course, makes them more dangerous. It enables people to take the tablets without feeling too ill in the early stages.
  I applaud what the Home Secretary has done by bringing in this Bill. I do not for a moment blame him for not being able to make it anything but repressive. That cannot be helped; but what has happened is our fault, because we have not cared enough for our children. As a society we have not given them opportunities for kicks, excitement, exhilaration and spiritual uplift, with the result that they resort to drugs of this kind.
  Let us be fair. When a pupil commits murder, one should hang the schoolmaster, and in this case we are the schoolmasters. Society must accept responsibility for all our youth. The majority of young people today are very much better than the youth of my boyhood days, but, because a small group of them can afford motorcycles, and because we have radio and television, everybody hears about what happens when some of these young boys, with
  622
  young girls as pillion passengers, go to some seaside resort and behave stupidly. Youth has always behaved stupidly. We always did when we were young, but it was localised, and not even the local newspaper took any notice of us.
  Nowadays everybody makes an awful fuss about what these youngsters do, and we are apt to forget what magnificent youngsters most of them are. We subject our youngsters to stresses to which we were never subjected when we were young. We subject them to beastly and foul stresses of an erotic and stupid sexual nature by advertisements and literature of the type that was not available to us, and the way they stand up to these strains and stresses surprises me. We should not take too seriously what happens when some young people go into these devious by-paths to obtain fresh experiences.
  For my sins, yesterday I spoke at a conference in Croydon. It was attended by, amongst others, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The meeting was held to discuss how we should provide public entertainment for our citizens, and followed an exciting report published only this week—I do not know whether the Home Secretary has seen it—"A Survey of Municipal Entertainment in England and Wales." It is the first analysis that we have had of the situation since the 1948 Act when Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Housing and Local Government. At long last we knew roughly—and I say roughly because I am sure that there are some inaccuracies—what is happening in every part of the country.
  About £7½ million gross is spent by local authorities. The net expenditure on entertainment is £2½ million. Under the present rating valuation, that is a little more than ¼d. out of a 6d. rate. Of that ¼d., only 7½ per cent. is spent on cultural activity. I appreciate, of course, that education, too, does a great deal for our young people, so far as sport is concerned, but the fact remains that only 2 per cent. of £2½ million is spent on sports activities.
  Speaking in Aberdeen for the Conservative Party in Scotland, the Minister without Portfolio made a most attractive speech on this subject, and yesterday I gave the conference at Croydon the full details of what he said.

  623
  The right hon. Gentleman had given figures of an official Government investigation into what is happening to our citizens. Our greatest addiction is gardening. Statistics show that 19 million of us are gardeners. Next in popularity is golfing, with 1 million people partaking in this sport. Fishing attracts 400,000 people, and 250,000 people have boats, most of which they have built themselves. From those figures it is obvious that we are not entirely a nation of gamblers, bingo merchants, and decadents, but there is another side to the picture.
  It is not enough to have merely 1 million golfers and 18,000 young people under instruction at any time. In England and Wales there is only one municipal golf course per 350,000 people. We have about 300 cinder running tracks, whereas Sweden, with a population of only 7 million, has 8,000 such tracks, and in Finland there is a track in nearly every village and town. We have only two indoor swimming baths with 10 metre diving boards. That is why when one sees a television programme on swimming it always comes from Blackpool, because, apart from the bath at Cardiff, there is no other indoor bath where it is possible to hold Olympic diving contests.
  Before we blame our children too much for what is happening, we must ask ourselves whether we have done enough for them. We must ask ourselves whether we are providing enough facilities for them, especially in the centres of our great cities. The problem does not arise to the same extent in smaller towns and rural areas because there is the open countryside and there are all sorts of ways in which youngsters can enjoy and exercise themselves. What facilities are available for people who live in Paddington—and we shall no doubt hear about this later—or in Kennington, or even in Kensington? If youngsters cannot afford to get away from those areas, they have to find some means of occupying their time.
  Although the noble Lord referred to this as repressive legislation, I support the Bill. We must protect our young people against dangers of this sort. I hope that we shall never forget that we have not done all we should for
  624
  young people, and that we are at least partly to blame for the trouble in which they find themselves today.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Dance: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross). I agree with practically everything that he said in his most charming and delightful speech.
  I, too, support the Bill. I disagree with the hon. Member to some extent, in that I connect pep pills with hooliganism. One had only to read of the unfortunate affair which occurred at Clacton—where, as far as I know, there was very little alcoholism, and where the young people taking part were "lit up" with these pep pills—to realise the connection. It may be that these pills brighten their brains, as opposed to dulling them, but they seem to brighten them just a bit over the top. In my opinion, there is a definite connection between pep pills and hooliganism.
  Sir B. Stross: This has not been proved. All that we can be certain of is that the highest parts of the brain are stimulated by these drugs whereas alcohol removes the influence of the highest aspects of our personality and brain.
  Mr. Dance: I am sure that the hon. Member knows more about this than I do, but I have been given evidence which leads me to conclude that these pills have an effect.
  I very much agree with the hon. Member about the need to provide recreational facilities for our youth. This is vital. But, here again, I am a little frightened. I know of youth clubs, where young people are being brought along and cared for quite properly, which have been not only broken into, but broken up by bad elements among the local youth. Many parents will not allow their children to attend even the better type of club, especially if it is a mixed club, because they are frightened of what may take place.
  Two years ago the appalling effect of thalidomide on unborn children was brought to my notice. As a result, I put down various Questions, and I was fortunate enough to win a place in the

  625
  Ballot for an Adjournment debate, when I raised the whole question. I have also appeared on television in this connection. I mention this because appearing on television with me was a manufacturing chemist who represented a big firm with a very high reputation. As a result of the programme he asked me to visit his factory to see exactly what went on there.
  I was extremely impressed with the trouble which was taken there to see that all the drugs which were produced were properly tested. I know that mistakes do occur, but the firm was doing all that was humanly possible. The only thing that worried me was the question of security. I have always wondered where these vast quantities of drugs come from. They obviously cannot be obtained by means of the odd stolen prescription. They must come from somewhere in bulk. At this factory I was shown everything. Incidentally, the factory manufactured "purple heart" tablets. All the ingredients are carefully checked before they are issued to the big manufacturers, and the manufacturing process starts in huge vats, rather like those in a bakehouse. The various powders are poured in and mixed together, then various processes go on. At the end, "purple heart" tablets are produced.
  What struck me was the fact that these tablets appeared out of a pipe at the far end of the production line, and I could not see how anyone could be certain that the girls who were filling bottles with them did not put a few into their pockets and go out with them. I am not saying that this is what did happen, but it could have happened.
  Lord Balneil: In the factory in my constituency internal and external audits are carried out of all materials which come into and leave the factory. The audit is of a scientific nature. It pays due regard to human fallibility. The various materials are weighed as they leave the processing areas and also when they enter them. It is a scientific check, and I believe that it is absolutely foolproof.
  Mr. Dance: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that information, but it seems to me that the procedure could be rather haphazard.
  626
  In any process there may be waste, one way or the other. I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend the Minister would consider instituting a procedure something like that which takes place in distilleries, so that police inspectors could go round. I do not mean that they should be resident on the premises, but they could carry out spot checks, to see what is happening. I certainly cannot understand where these large quantities of drugs come from.
  How can these tablets get into people's hands at the rate of 30 and 40 at a time? There must be a leakage somewhere. It cannot be through the odd stolen prescription, and I do not believe that it can be through the odd dishonest pharmacist. They must be coming from somewhere in bulk.
  Sir B. Stross: Is it not obvious that they could easily be smuggled in from abroad?
  Mr. Dance: I suppose that that is possible. Perhaps that point could be investigated.
  I understand that most manufacturing chemists put their own brand name on their tablets. Anyway, we shall have to be more careful at our ports and airports in order to prevent these tablets coming in. We must make certain, as far as is humanly possible, that these drugs are not made available in bulk to the public. Security is the keyword to the whole question.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: In a debate of this character, where all he the speeches favour the Bill, it is exceedingly attractive to take up the various points which have been made.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has persistently asked where these large quantities of drugs or pep pills come from. That is exactly the question which is exercising the minds of the Glasgow police. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is also worthy of reiteration. He raised the whole question of importation and the extent to which the Home Secretary could control that facet of the business.
  Those who witnessed an incident which took place not long ago on television, when a group of between seven

  627
  and 10 young people, and subsequently, two pushers, were interviewed, could not help but share the apparent loathing and contempt with which the interviewer plied the pushers with his questions. In this connection, the penalties suggested in Clause 1 might be considered not only in respect of the persons upon whom pep pills or drugs are found, but in respect of those who quite deliberately go outside the law and sell these pills at fantastically inflated prices.
  As with so many other things, whether it be bingo or the commercial interests behind, for example, the boys in the Beatle Group—or any other group—it is the dirty commercial interests lying behind them that the Home Secretary has to seek out. Much of what I wish to say has already been said by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). Like him, I have a firm in my constituency which manufactures drugs and, for the same reason as he gave, I have not gone near that firm. I should support this Bill wholeheartedly and I did not want to give the impression that my views had been influenced in any way. Having interviewed the police authorities the previous weekend on this matter, it was, to me, ironic that the premises of this firm should have been broken into and several thousands of pounds worth of drugs stolen. I am told that these drugs can be manufactured at a cost of 1s., 1s. 6d. or 2s. a hundred tablets and are sold at the rate of 9d. or 1s. for each tablet. I heard of a case in Glasgow where a chemist was openly selling every two weeks bottles containing 200 tablets for £3. These are the people whose activities will, I hope, be curbed by the provisions in this Bill.
  Mr. Dance: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said about a Glasgow chemist. Did he discover from where the chemist got his bulk supplies?
  Mr. Hannan: I must correct that. It is not a chemist, it is a place where the tablets are manufactured such as is covered by the provisions in the Bill.
  I propose to deal with the categories of people who will have extra duties, or rather responsibilities, because of the activities of others. These people try
  628
  to conduct their businesses properly and their reputations are above question. But, because of the actions of other undesirable people, these respectable citizens have to face more responsibilities. The Bill confines the legitimate possession of the substances set out in the Schedule to those persons mentioned in Subsections (1) to (4) of Clause 1—doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons, registered manufacturers or wholesalers, ships' captains carrying cargoes of medical stores, and the captains of other ships where the crew does not include a doctor. Extra responsibilities will have to be borne by these people and by those who manufacture and store the drugs, as well as by those who prescribe and dispense them. There are some people who have received prescriptions from doctors in order to dispense drugs but have abused the prescriptions.
  There has been exaggerated and sensational newspaper publicity, and many respectable parents who have had the experience of seeing their own children take these drugs have gone to the authorities only to find that there is little that the authorities can do unless they have information about the sources of supply. I think that it will be within the experience of those at the Home Office that this is so. I do not accept the charge of carelessness which is sometimes made against professional people such as doctors, dentists and others. I agree that sometimes criticisms can be made. Like my hon. Friend. I think that one or two questions could be put with advantage, if they were put in a most kindly way.
  One criticism which I have of the Bill—it was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East—is that here an opportunity has been missed. It was suggested in a leading article in The Times that perhaps a consolidating Measure should have been introduced so as to bring some order into the existing "jungle" of Acts and regulations relating to drugs. Only recently, the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) introduced two Private Members' Bills relating to drugs, and there are the various Poisons Acts which I will not recite.
  The habit of taking drugs may start at an early age. It is common for mothers to say that they have tried to

  629
  quieten a child by giving him an aspirin or some such sedative. When I was a schoolboy it was seldom that this sort of thing was encouraged. It would assist in dealing with this problem if some newspapers were more helpful in providing information for the authorities. Only recently three articles appeared in a Glasgow newspaper which stated that terrifying facts about Scotland's newest teen-age problem would be revealed. Incidentally, I am very glad that the Home Secretary was able to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland is associated with the Bill.
  The newspaper articles said that an ounce of hemp had been bought in Glasgow for £7 by the writer; that opium seeds were lying on her desk and that these had been bought in Glasgow, and that if she had had sufficient money she could have bought heroin as well. It was stated that, within a short distance of the university, flats, tenements and terraced houses were becoming smoking dens. I speak subject to correction, because I have made no inquiries and it may be that the newspapers do furnish the police with this information. If that is not so, it should be the public duty of those concerned with the production of such newspaper articles to convey their information to the proper authorities. So often it is a case of the writers in the newspapers shedding "crocodile tears" while making some denouement about the white slave traffic, or some other undesirable and seamy side of life. They then give the most salacious details, under the pretext of helping the public to eradicate these evils. But in how many cases do they supply those details to the police?
  Mr. Dan Jones: In view of the criticisms which my hon. Friend has made about the Press, it is only fair to say that the Evening Standard has spent thousands of pounds and employed some of its most earnest and experienced journalists to bring this matter to the attention of the public.
  Mr. Hannan: I do not dissent from that. I merely pose the question, and I hope that the information which appears in the newspapers is also given to the police. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the activities of the newspaper which he mentioned. When complaints are made to the police by parents,
  630
  they are too often in the position of having to say that they are helpless in the matter. They know that some of the young people are not, in fact, telling the truth. I agree with the noble Lord who said, I think, that the availability of these pills and drugs was more widespread than it was thought to be.
  There is one practice to which I want to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. I understand, for example, that there are many housewives who become addicted to this habit and who are not above making misrepresentations in order to receive supplies. They sometimes plead that they are in temporary residence from some other town. It is possible for such a person in London to go to a doctor and get a certificate, and, of course, to get a supply of the drugs. It is further possible to have a certificate supplied in London and then to proceed to, say, Glasgow, where some more of the drugs can be obtained.
  The co-operation of doctors and chemists could help in these matters. It is true that when a chemist receives a prescription from the doctor he checks the dosage and, if he suspects that there is something wrong, he usually telephones the doctor. At that point, some doctors will say to the chemist that he, the chemist, should inform the police, but in more cases than not a doctor asks for the prescription to be sent back to him and says that he will speak to the patient.
  As I understand it, there is the possibility—I w as actually shown a number of prescriptions which had been forged—that figures on prescriptions can be altered by adding a nought or two at the end or a figure one in the front. These are some of the little practices that go on, and while it would be wrong to say that this is a widespread practice in Scotland—indeed, until comparatively recently there was very little of it—there is apprehension among teachers and social workers generally that the practice could increase.
  Some surprise was expressed, I thought, by hon. Members opposite when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East suggested that the principle included in Clause 5 of the Bill could be extended to alcoholism. Why should surprise be expressed at that? If the principle is a good one,

  631
  why should it not be extended to alcoholism, particularly when other Government Departments are perturbed about drinking by drivers of motor cars? Alcohol is a poison and is causing increased suffering to many people. Why should alcohol not be regarded in the same way as drugs are regarded in the Bill?
  To correct an impression given earlier about figures in respect of the number of patients diagnosed as suffering from alcoholism—I am speaking not only of Scotland but of England and Wales as well, and I should think that the ratio would be about the same—on 22nd April I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to
  "…state for each of the years 1956, 1959 and 1962 the number of patients diagnosed as suffering from alcoholism who were admitted to mental hospitals; what percentage such patients comprised of the total admitted to such hospitals; and whether the readmission rate of alcoholic patients was higher than that of all patients."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 173–4.]
  The figures that were given certainly did not seem to be in accordance with those mentioned earlier because I learned from the reply which I received that the number of those suffering from alcoholism who were admitted to mental hospitals was 732 in 1956, 921 in 1959 and 1,617 in 1962, which constitutes 7·1 per cent., 7·3 per cent. and 11 per cent. of total admissions to mental hospitals. I hope, therefore, that that will go a little way to clearing up some of the misunderstanding which existed about the matter earlier.
  Mr. D. Jones: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I wonder whether he has analysed the figures in order to find out how many of the people admitted to institutions because of alcoholism had, in fact, been drinking methylated spirits of one form or another.
  Mr. Hannan: What the term "alcoholism" includes, I am sorry I cannot inform my hon. Friend. However, I think the fact should be noted that in America alcoholism is now rated as the third highest killer next to cancer and thrombosis.
  I am very glad that this Bill has been introduced. It shall certainly have my support. I wish it well and I hope that
  632
  the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East will be paid regard to when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Roots: I am an exception in the general course of the debate in that I welcome wholeheartedly the introduction of the Bill. I also welcome the emphasis which has been laid by several hon. Members on both sides of the House on the need for a constructive approach to the probems of youth. However, in one respect I differ, and that is in the emphasis which I place on the object of the Bill, because I should be extremely disappointed if the result of the Bill were simply to be a handful of teen-agers were fined for having a few "purple hearts" in their possession.
  As I see it, the Bill is aimed at one of the most cruel and bestial activities of the underworld, at people who are deliberately, for purposes of gain, promoting an evil which will destroy many young people. In that context, I do not think one can be too strict. I was particularly interested in the aspect mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), namely, that it seems improbable that the total supply of these drugs which are getting into wrong hands is coming simply from errors in prescriptions or petty thefts. It seems very probable that there are some major sources of supply which should be tackled.
  One aspect which surprises me is that in Clause 1 where the penalties are set out, the maximum penalty is either a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. For a first offence imprisonment would clearly be quite inappropriate for a teen-ager, but for the professional pedlar a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment seems to be totally inadequate, and, indeed, in many respects for some of the people concerned scarcely a deterrent.
  I would have thought that, while in no way suggesting that heavy penalties should be imposed for first offences, where the court has before it a person who has a record in this field a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment, which merely means that the criminal will enjoy Her Majesty's hospitality for only four months, may be

  633
  totally inadequate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look at that aspect again.
  Another aspect with which he may care to deal is where the court has before it someone who can be shown to have become addicted but is not a criminal obtaining drugs for commercial purposes. That person may be someone who is innocent but has been found on several occasions to be addicted to this sort of drug. May it not be that in due course in certain circumstances a term of imprisonment ensuring adequate treatment and the breaking of addiction might be valuable to a person who is otherwise innocent?
  I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I wanted to add those two aspects and to impress on the House, in case it were overlooked, that this Bill is directed to a particularly vicious type of criminal. I hope it serves its purpose in stamping the traffic out.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: It is indeed a pleasure to follow an hon. Member who does not distract one from one's own speech by saying something which me feels obliged to answer. I was delighted to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) say emphatically those two things.
  It is now nearly a year ago that I was investigating various interesting consequences of the very convenient death of Rachman and began to learn a great deal about the activities of this type of criminal. The London criminal world is very small and overlapping. Quite well known to the police, individuals who were in the property racket are also in the club racket. Part of the devices they have for protecting themselves against the law is to make themselves landlords and extract rents for the occupancy of premises. One of the ways in which they extract high rent for a sleazy basement is to give advice to a wretched man who says that he cannot make enough money out of soft drinks and coffee to pay that rent. He is put in touch with someone who shows how he can make something out of a sideline such as selling these drugs.
  This is a case for a deterrent, and a thumping hard deterrent. This is not
  634
  the moment to talk about reformation and re-integration. This is the worst kind of exploitation, a moneymaking racket battening on the ordinary anxieties and difficulties of an adolescent who is growing up. Of course I support the introduction of this Bill, for which I have been asking for a number of months. The only regret I have is that it has been introduced fairly late and that the Home Secretary did not find time—although that is understandable in work on this kind of subject—to say that this is only part of a much bigger and far-reaching project.
  The right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to discuss the problem with various interested parties. I think he has had very good co-operation from those who know and understand this problem and know the dangers of this traffic. I do not think one can be other than grateful for the help of the Press. All types of newspapers have dealt with the subject wisely and responsibly. Reference has been made to the Evening Standard. That remarkable series of articles, by Miss Anne Sharpley, well documented and showing compassion and understanding, was an outstanding piece of journalism. It did her and the editor credit. This investigation, done at short notice, has been most helpful.
  The Pharmaceutical Society has also been most helpful. In February it sent out a statement on the subject. One of the things said in that statement should be adopted as a key for dealing with this problem. It recalled that in August, 1959, it made representations which led to the strengthening of the Regulations in regard to prescriptions. The Society said that:
  "the indiscriminate supply of drugs of this type encouraged the belief that by their use the problems and stresses of life can be escaped or evaded instead of faced and surmounted, and drugs which stimulate or depress the central nervous system should be made available only On prescription."
  That is good, sensible, political stuff. It went on to say:
  "Although these measures are needed, the Society considers that the main safeguard against abuse is a much greater sense of responsibility in the public towards medicines of all kinds."
  The public is anxious about drugs of all kinds, pesticides and medicines, which may bring unforeseen dangers and even

  635
  horrors in their wake. This was a statement by a society of people who depend on selling pills for a living. Their helpfulness and responsibility contrasts very strongly with the attitude of the manufacturers who have been almost entirely unhelpful in this matter.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has had to leave the Chamber. He obviously had a fairly well-documented brief from the manufacturers' side. It is extremely unfortunate that they dodged the recommendation that they should deglamorise a pill by altering its shape, its colour and its name. Doctors asked that drugs should be identifiable because they do not like to have to go into a bathroom wondering which kind of white pill a woman has taken, but there is all the difference between that and the psychological attractiveness of the name, shape and colour of this pill which is doing so much harm.
  I have not been very happy in my contacts with the manufacturers. I do not like being told by American pill pedlars that they have better contacts with the Home Office than a Member of Parliament can have, still less that they have better contacts with Scotland Yard than a Member of Parliament can have. I do not like being told that I have whipped up a Press campaign. I have some reason to be irritated with them but I shall try to put the point as reasonably as I can. They take the view which we have heard even from the Front Bench today that this is a very valuable drug when used in the right circumstances. They say it has don immense good and has been misused only by thieves and crooked people. That is not strictly true.
  I know of one important mental hospital where the head and the whole of the medical staff agree that this kind of drug ought never to be manufactured, has no therapeutic value whatever and is one which they would never prescribe in any circumstances. I do not say that they are right but this is the difficulty we are in. This ought to be a matter of debate with an equal balance of argument, but the balance is unequal. When doctors have stated something in a learned article or a book there it rests but when the other side has skilled
  636
  teams of representatives repeating propaganda about the excellent value of this product the argument struggle is unfair.
  Somehow or other we shall have to come to terms with this problem of how to designate research on drugs and how the medical profession can indicate the sort of drug required to deal with what sort of ailment. It ought not to depend on the drive for profit which can urge and switch the argument away from whether the drug is good or bad. Without referring to any firm, I merely wish to point out that this is the problem which both sides of the House, all parties, will have to tackle in the near future.
  I am glad that the Home Secretary has introduced into the Bill the provision about the control of imports. I have been convinced for some time that there existed a clear way of reimporting a product manufactured in this country. I regret that the Home Secretary has not gone further in his control over wholesalers. I must not tell to many atrocity stories, although there is one that comes to mind—one case, well-documented, where a shady piece of work took place and where some young men managed to gain control of the shares of a long-established, rather small family wholesaling business in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. Hon. Members will know the sort of firm I have in mind; one which sold a few drugs, combs and sponge bags and which operated from an old warehouse in a cellar.
  I leave to the imagination of hon. Members what a wonderful opportunity that was. That opportunity was certainly taken and used, very much to the detriment of the firm's customers, but very much to the profit of the people in question. Suffice to say that there has for long been an open door here and I hope, therefore, that the reference in the Bill to the Secretary of State having the power to refuse to register a business will be carefully followed up and that inquiries will be made.
  I am also sorry that there is no proposal in the Measure to control distribution between wholesaler and retailer. It would have been one of the most helpful things had the Home Office done something in this direction, although I appreciate that it is not anxious to be

  637
  burdened with the same kind of meticulous paper work which is rendered necessary by the Dangerous Drugs Act. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if chemists who lose tablets knew that there were likely to be inquiries. It would be equally helpful if wholesalers had to keep books and had to have them available for inspection, a sort of spot check, if the police or Home Office thought that to be necessary.
  Steps along these lines are vitally necessary, because I can assure the Home Secretary that I have plenty of evidence from chemists who have told me that it is all too easy, when a mistake has been made or when they have found that they are a tin short, merely to phone up the wholesaler and say that something is short. The warehouse usually says, "We will send it along on the next delivery". This happens in the ordinary course of business, whatever the drug, and when one considers the scheduled poisons it is obvious that a gap exists.
  I turn to the question of penalties, and this is where we come up against a great deal of difficulty. I regret that the Home Secretary has not been able to introduce something along the lines hinted at by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South because, in my view, it is on the question of penalties that there exists the most important gap of all. I should like to tell of a case which stimulated me earlier this year into intense anger and which made me determine to do something about it.
  I refer to the case of the 16-year-old son of a perfectly well-known native Paddington family with enough little troubles of their own without having to go around looking for "kinky" ones. The boy left school at 15. This is an important point, because I am speaking of those youngsters who were probably damned from the age of seven when they got into the wrong stream in the primary school, as a result of which they never even got a smell at the grammar school stream.
  Upon leaving school at the earliest possible date, from the bottom stream of the school, this boy was placed in employment by the local Youth Employment Service. I have no doubt that the officers of that service thought that
  638
  they had done a splendid job. They put the boy in a solicitor's office. Let us understand the picture, of a boy who has been taken out of one environment—a way of life, a standard of values which were perfectly adequate. In his own family, let it be clear, there was no crime or delinquency. They just got along quite well in their own rough and ready way and respected each other's standard of values. Then suddenly he was put into a completely different environment. He moved into a strange, cold world. He had to swim in chilly waters, all the chillier since he did not know how to mix.
  He had not been at his employment, in the solicitor's office, for long when he was invited by one of his young colleagues to a party in Hampstead. He went along, and he told me, "They was fun, but they got a bit boring", That is all that happened. Nobody started to introduce him into any vicious practices. It was a harmless enough meeting of youngsters who were discussing exciting things they had discovered for the first time, things which their elders knew nothing about—like sin, Socialism and sex.
  The trouble for him was not so much that he could not keep his end up in the conversation but that he could not keep his eyes open. He should have been in bed with a glass of warm milk. A member of the party gave him a pill and said that it would keep him awake and interested. From then on, so the boy felt, he could keep his end up in the conversation and was able to talk more and more.
  It was not until later when he had become a victim of the pill that this youngster began to stay away from work. Perhaps I should leave the story there, because later in my speech I have some recommendations to make. Surely, for example, the Youth Employment Service must come back into the story somewhere? We cannot let these children escape into the world without some further protection. Under any other section of our education system, right up to the age of completing a university degree or taking a commission in the Guards, more protection is given and—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir. W. Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member but he is getting rather far from the Bill.
  Mr. Parkin: That may be true, but I hope that I am entitled to complain and to use the device of saying that I am regretting that this subject is not included in the Bill. I am about to suggest ways in which some aspects of this can be introduced into the Bill because there is all the difference in the world between these penalties, if applied ruthlessly and instantly to the criminal traffickers, and the situation that is created by the activities of the youngsters, particularly the sort of boy about whom I have been speaking.
  I hope that one assurance in particular will be given by the Home Office, and that is that the penalty for this offence will not be used by the police—and I hope that there will be a directive issued by the Commissioner of Police to this effect—merely as another of those sort of vagrancy charges when it is convenient for someone to be brought in for questioning in an effort to find out something else. I hope that the fact that some pills have been found in someone's pocket will not be used as a device by the police when they want to question someone and when they might be tempted to use the threat of this penalty when what they really want is for someone to become a little more talkative.
  If the subject before the police is a youthful addict or habitué different treatment should be accorded him. The first thing to be done is to deglamorise this thing altogether and kill the idea that to take these pills is something clever. This is the problem of every older generation. It does not understand that the young rebels can be driven into a position where they accept as honourable, defiant and creative the task of demolishing the tenets of the Establishment.
  I thought that the noble Lord rather missed the point when I asked him to develop the distinction between habituation and addiction. I suggested that teenage habituation to these drugs led to addiction to other things that were much more terrible. I was not thinking of heroin, and the rest—I do not think that that is a very common danger, although it is a possible one. I was thinking primarily of such addictions as those to lying, stealing, and deceiving one's employers and parents which arise when the youth cannot get any more pills
  640
  except by becoming the victim of whoever can make him behave in a certain way. Unfortunately, the things that he is tempted to do are glamorous to him in that they are a rebellion against the culture of the elders.
  We have to kill that idea. What we should do is to show that this not a crime, but a sickness—which it is. If we can indicate to these people that they are sick and need treatment, that they will be compelled to have treatment and will not have the satisfaction of going to prison and defying the whole of society, we may get a different atmosphere. Therefore, before the Bill reaches the Committee stage, I hope that the Home Secretary will take serious advice on this aspect.
  I suggest that a person found in possession should first be detained for observation to see if he is habituated to the drug himself. If he is, I hope—and I do not know quite how these matters are formulated in law—that for a first offence the penalty will be a probation order, including compulsory medical treatment and "drying out".
  I apologise if I am straying outside the immediate scope of the Bill, but I conceive it to be the duty of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department that he should be the creative leader in all matters concerning the welfare of Her Majesty's subjects, and not concerned only with locking up those same sub jects. As a senior member of the Cabinet, it should be his duty to consult the Minister of Health, for instance, as to the extent to which treatment can be made available and, if it is not available, to make provision for a compulsory course of treatment at the nearest mental hospital clinic.
  As I have said, this is a sickness. It is not, however, a sickness particularly brought about, in the circumstances we have been studying for the last year or so, by weaknesses of character or physique in individual people. Those who resist reforms by saying that we cannot change human nature cannot have it both ways. If the graphs show that behaviours have altered, and if human nature has not altered, something in the social environment has altered.

  641
  I have great sympathy with the head of a mental hospital who, keenly disappointed at not being able to get a sociologist to work on a project connected with the hospital, said, "What's the use of receiving patients for the most modern treatment of mental illness unless we know the social background that creates the strains that have caused these breakdowns?" I know of another mental hospital where they have psychiatric social workers to inquire into the conditions in the home—and who very often find that they have the wrong member of the family in bed in hospital; that the person in the hospital has suffered the nervous breakdown because of confused tyranny on the part of another member of the family.
  That is what social medicine means. It does not mean giving consultations for free, or pills for free; it means studying the social causes and the geographical distribution of the ailments for which the pills are prescribed. It is perhaps right to get the doctor's advice about the sort of employment an asthmatic school leaver should take up. It is perhaps reasonable that one should seek the advice of a doctor before taking oneself and one's family to a job in a steaming jungle. But we do not need a doctor to tell us that 15-year-old children leaving school and going into the outside world will there find social conditions, created by us—or allowed to develop by us—which produce greater strains than they ever did in past generations.
  Some hon. Members say that we do not do enough for our youth, and I am sure that others will say that we do too much, but we must recognise that the growth of society in great towns has taken away from growing children many of the opportunities for self-education, for taking risks—for learning to swim in this cold water bit by bit—which they could have had as recently as 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago. The tempo has changed so much that these children are put into conditions that they do not understand—much of which, indeed, we ourselves do not understand.
  From time to time we discuss in this House the comparative problems of transport, or of housing, or of old people—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is travelling too wide on this Bill, which is, in fact, to
  "Penalise the possession, and restrict the importation, of drugs…"
  The hon. Member is going much further than that.
  Mr. Parkin: I was discussing the remedies and the penalties, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. One Clause says that someone found in possession of a drug should be sent to prison for six months or fined £200 which, in its bleak printed terms is absolute nonsense, and if it meant what it said I would be speaking against it, with your concurrence. I have pointed out that it cannot possibly mean what it says; that it is a formula that is intended to apply to the trafficker in drugs, and should not, in any circumstances, apply to his victim.
  I suggest that the Home Secretary should accept that this Bill will be nothing but a sweep-it-under-the-carpet Measure unless it is part of an understanding of the wider problem. Just as the Rachmanite episode, with all the crooks and rascals involved in it, floodlit a process that had been going on with a macabre inevitability for a century, so the bringing to light of this danger—which seems to have blown up so much in the last year or so and to which the Government now pay attention—flood-lights a process which is inevitable, in view of the present tempo of society. It is not industrial inefficiency but social inefficiency that is the great challenge of this day and generation.
  If we took the Shakespearean concept of the seven ages of man, we would find that from one age to another the difficulties are intensified, and we get a special problem for each age group. We are now discussing one facet of that problem—something most tender, delicate, exposed, the snake that has just cast its skin, the butterfly that has just come out of the chrysalis, that needs protecting for a very short time. It should not be beyond our skill to extend that protection.
  When I referred to the youth employment angle in a Parliamentary Question, the Ministry of Labour gave an entirely unhelpful reply by saying that at all times the Youth Employment Service was available for those who chose to seek its help-

  643
  How can we expect a 15-year-old boy to go to the labour exchange and say, "Please, I have lost my job because I took to not turning up on Mondays and I raided the petty cash to buy some more pills"? The employer who sacked the boy should be compelled to send the file to the Youth Employment Service and there should be some co-ordination between the education service, the parents and the employers, under the broad direction of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that is how the right hon. Gentleman sees his job, and if the Bill is only part of a programme of that type, I welcome it unreservedly, but if it is not I am sorry to say that, although I hope it cuts off the drugs, I do not think that it will help the youngsters.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The Motion has produced an interesting debate, at least until late this afternoon I find myself in agreement with most of the speeches made and particularly with that of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), except only in their conclusions. I suppose that this is really a matter of balance and that, in the words of The Times leader, it is a question of whether we have yet reached a point where a Measure of this kind is justified. I find myself, not with great confidence but definitely of the opinion that we have not yet reached a point at which a Measure of this repressive character is justified.
  Let us be clear what we are doing. As my noble Friend the Member for Hertford said, we are taking a great step. We are making the possession of drugs an offence whereas hitherto it has been, generally speaking, only the unlawful selling of them that has been an offence. It is true that the most dangerous kinds of drugs, which I believe are derivatives of the poppy, like morphine and opium, have been singled out for special attention and that it is an offence to possess them as well as sell them, but those are in a very restricted class.
  I do not propose to make a fine distinction between addiction and habituation. It is enough to say that
  644
  they in drugs of the utmost seriousness n their effect on the human body, and they have been picked out for special attention. Where the Bill goes so far is that in the Schedule it adds to that class not the drugs next lower down in seriousness but drugs, as it has clearly emerged in the debate, which are of an extremely mild and trivial character.
  What has made them serious as a social problem is the great doses in which they are taken, apparently up to 30, 40 or even 50 tablets. It should be remembered that if young men and women were to take 30 to 50 tablets of aspirin they would suffer considerable damage. I am no medical expert, but I am sure that they would suffer some kind of physical and possibly mental damage from such heavy and habitual doses of such a harmless drug as aspirin. The drugs in the Schedule, which are, in effect, benzedrines and amphetamines, are drugs of that degree of mildness.
  The question for the House, therefore, is whether we are justified in making the mere possession of them without a doctor's prescription a criminal offence. It is a criminal offence already for a chemist or anybody else to sell or peddle them without appropriate authority. In some degree that answers the question which some hon. Members have asked about penalty. The penalty in the Bill is very heavy indeed, and we should remember that the penalty is directed against the person who is found in possession, because the person found selling is already covered by penalties in existing poisons legislation.
  We are therefore thinking of the new ground covered by the Bill, which is the consumer, the taker of the drugs who is found in possession of them. I admit that one aspect of the Bill, which is the prohibition of importation, is important and that the penalties in the Bill are appropriate, but for the person who is merely found with some in his or her pocket a fine of £200 or six months' imprisonment is disproportionate.
  This really is an enforcement Bill. Nobody could justify by the gravity of the drug which is being considered, benzedrine or amphetamine, a proposal

  645
  of this character. It is simply because the police are finding it difficult to get convictions.
  Mr. D. Jones: Will the hon. Member—
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member has made many semi-sedentary speeches and I think that I ought to get on.
  Mr. Jones: Yes.
  Mr. Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with that sentiment, at any rate.
  As the Home Secretary has said, the police when asked said that these powers would help. I do not want to be unkind to the police. They do not always answer the question in the affirmative. I have known past cases where the police have said that they did not particularly need powers which it was proposed to give them. The Public Order Act was such an occasion, but, on the whole, the police say that extra powers would be useful, and extra powers of this extremely wide kind are useful in the sense that they make it very easy to obtain convictions. But what are the consequences of this sort of legislation?
  The drug benzedrine is very common. I must not claim any kind of expertise in natural science which I do not possess, but do not ordinary inhalants contain benzedrine? Is the possession of benzedrine in an inhalant, except on doctor's prescription, to be an offence exposing one to these extremely severe penalties? It seems to me a little odd that we should be taking such a measure.
  Under Clause 5, the Home Secretary will have powers to add to the Schedule any drug he cares to add. I am using too restrictive a language. He can add any "substance" which he may think fit to add to it. When the Bill is having its Second Reading, people cast a glance at such a provision and say that it is very dangerous, but they make that remark only by way of reservation and they pass on and say that, of course, we must have the Bill. But the danger is only too clear. The hon. Member for Maryhill, in a part of his speech with which I did not agree, said that alcohol should be added to the Schedule in due course. Alcohol, of course, is a more dangerous substance and drug than the one we are talking about. My noble Friend the
  646
  Member for Hertford made that point. Both alcohol and nicotine are in their nature much more dangerous and deleterious than those named in the Schedule. They do greater social damage and greater physical damage. There is no doubt about that Already one hon. Member in the Second Reading debate has advocated the addition of one of them to the Schedule.
  Can we really be sure that, if we pass the Bill, there will not be such additions to the Schedule? The Home Secretary will have power to make a Statutory Instrument, as soon as the Bill comes into force, to add a substance to the Schedule, and this will then be part of the law. All we shall have will be the ordinary right to pray against it within 40 days.
  Have we, reached such a point in our affairs, because of all the Press talk and wireless talk about purple hearts, when legislation of this character must be put on the Statute Book? I am always disposed to cast a suspicious eye upon any Measure which severely restricts the freedom of the individual. Always I ask myself whether such a Measure is really unavoidable. I do not often have many allies in that, but on this occasion I seem to have the support of the Editor of The Times. I hope that that does not make my own attitude suspect. Nevertheless, I think that it was a fair comment to suggest that this was a piece of "hastily conceived restrictive legislation".
  Mr. R. T. Paget: May I ask the lion. Gentleman one question, for my own information? Is it his understanding of the Bill that anyone who happens today to have a phial of benzedrine in his medicine cupboard becomes a criminal on the passing of the Bill unless he happens to have found it and disposed of it first?
  Mr. Bell: No, because the Bill would not come into force until three months after receiving the Royal Assent.
  Mr. Paget: But the moment it does?
  Mr. Bell: The moment it does come into force, that would, I believe, be the effect. I imagine that that is the reason for the three months' delay, to allow people to get rid of these dangerous substances—I mean dangerous to them in their relationship with the law.

  647
  I do not wish to deal with what I might call Committee points in my speech, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has raised one such point. Unless I have misread the Bill, it appears that a person who under the existing poisons legislation is lawfully in possession of drugs will, or may, when the Bill comes into force, be in breach of Clause 1 because, under the existing poisons legislation, a person may acquire these drugs or poisons by leave of the Secretary of State, and, if he has not got the permission of the Secretary of State, he must have one of the other subordinate permissions, so to speak, a prescription from a medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon, or whatever it may be. But the need for those does not arise at all until he has not the permission of the Secretary of State, and it appears to me that, under the Bill, if he has the permission of the Secretary of State but has not a doctor's prescription, he commits an offence. A rather odd situation, which may indicate somewhat hasty drafting. However, it could, no doubt, be put right in Committee.
  I was about to turn to the part of the debate which concerned itself with the underlying causes of the situation. While I agree with a great deal of what has been said, I invite the House to look at the matter in this way. It may be true that what young people are seeking to escape from by taking these pills is a sense of boredom, a sense of lack of excitement in society, to use the phrase most commonly adopted in various speeches, or, as I think someone said, they wish to escape from the society in which they live. But is it not true that what these young people are really trying to escape from is precisely the kind of thing which this sort of Bill brings into existence?
  Why is modern society unexciting? It is, surely, because the State goes broody over its young people, looks after their welfare to a very great extent and insulates them from dangers, risks and perils to such an extent that there is no excitement left. If we take away personal responsibility from our young people, we give them a dull world. If we fence them off from all the dangers which might prey upon them, they seek other dangers.
  648
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) compared the taking of these pills with the riding of powerful motor cycles, quite a good comparison. It gives them the edge of danger which they want. I think that one will not find the same young people who ride dangerous motor cycles also taking "purple heart" pills. They want their danger in some way. They want to escape from the sense of claustrophobia which a too pervasive society gives them, and they seek their excitement by going to Clacton and knocking the place about by riding motor cycles too fast or by taking drugs.
  I did not think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, made a very fortunate comparison, however, when he said that if we spent more money, for instance, on running tracks, we might avoid this consequence. I am all in favour of spending money on running tracks, a very good thing indeed, but the hon. Gentleman went on to say that we had about 350 running tracks for 50 million people whereas Sweden had 8,000 for 3 million people. The rate of suicide and the rate of addiction to drugs of habituation in Sweden—alcohol, of course, will be one of the greatest of them—is not one which we should wish to have in this country.
  It is just the opposite remedy which we should seek. We should leave young people exposed to danger, to the ordinary dangers which the vicissitudes of life bring to them, and, above all, to the danger of temptation, including the temptation of such drugs as these, which, I say again, are among the most trivial of drugs. I know that, taken in wild excess, they can cause damage, at least mental damage but it seems doubtful whether they can cause physical damage. If we fence young people or, for that matter, older people from such risks as these, what right have we to talk about their sense of a lack of excitement in life?
  I feel, therefore, that a Bill such as this defeats itself. It will defeat its own object. The immediate gain, of course, is fairly obvious. The police will be better able to seek out these benzedrines and amphetamine drugs and bring more successful prosecutions perhaps stamping out for the time being this particular temptation to which young people are succumbing. But we shall do this by

  649
  a sacrifice of principal brought about by the Bill which I, for one, am not willing to accept.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that the Bill contained a principle which he regarded as dangerous but which he was willing, for this one occasion, to accept, the principle that the State is entitled to interfere with what people do in order to protect them from doing themselves harm. I regard this as about the most dangerous principle in politics. Of course, one should interfere with people to stop them doing others harm, but when one starts to interfere with them to stop doing themselves harm one begins to take the fun and adventure out of life.
  I have never hesitated to speak in the House when I have considered that that principle was at stake. I do not think that I am one of those people who defend freedom in the belief that we can get freedom free. Freedom always imposes a very high price. One can usually measure the price of freedom. One can measure the immediate gain which results from sacrificing it. The advantage of freedom is much more intangible and much more difficult to assess, and for this reason it is quickly a casualty when something like this "purple heart" controversy blows up. People say, "Pass a Bill. Do something about it. Clean up this mess. Never mind about the abstract principles". Only too often is this kind of legislation thought up because of some passing need of the moment, and it remains on the Statute Book for ever and does not become less but grows as time goes on.
  I venture the guess that if we pass this Bill, as, of course, we shall, the Schedule attached to it will grow steadily as the months and years pass. I am sure of that. I wish that I could take the contrary view. There is a power to remove as well as to add to the Schedule, but does any hon. Member really believe that it will shrink, or does he believe that once this power has been brought into existence the Schedule will steadily grow because it is convenient to those whose function it is to enforce the law?
  That is why I think that a principle is involved today. I fully recognise the nature of the evil which the Bill is intended to eradicate, but I do not feel
  650
  that it yet justifies the extremity of the measures proposed in the Bill. Although I shall not have the opportunity to vote against it because not enough people will think as I do, I take the opportunity to say that I cannot support the Bill.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I was pleased to hear the last comment of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) because I thought that his speech would be similar to that of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and that, after saying all the things which he did not like about the Bill, he would say that he proposed to support it. However, he has said that he was speaking against the Bill.
  Of course, I profoundly disagree with practically everything that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said. He took up one of the main streams which has run through this debate. Quite a number of hon. Members have pointed to the fact that, as well as the problem of habituation or addiction, there are other problems in society and, therefore, why pick out this particular one? I reject this argument as being wholly unjustified because if we ever adopted it we should do nothing a bout anything. Until we had complete perfection we would not move.
  I do not give the Home Secretary credit for very much in this House, but I give him credit here for trying to deal with an extremely difficult problem. I accept the contention of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South that there is a lot in the Bill that we might want to consider in Committee, but at least we have something on the stocks and something to consider. This is an honest attempt to deal with a problem which I believe to be very serious and about which every parent in this House must feel deeply.
  I always object when I hear leaders of society pontificating about teenagers and the youth of this country. What they say is usually far removed from reality and is nauseating in that it is patronising to young people, who have distinctive personalities of their own. We have been spared that by hon. Members on both sides. What has distressed

  651
  me is that, while we have not pontificated, and while there has been on both sides of the House a definite attempt to try to understand and grasp what it is that makes our young people tick, the longer the debate has proceeded, the more it has been obvious that there is a huge gap between the generations and that we are still only fumbling about in the dark in trying to find out what it is that makes large numbers of young people sit in a dark cellar on Saturday nights while a terrific cacophony of sound goes through their ears, where the smoke gets denser and denser and where in order to keep awake, it is necessary for them to take "purple heart" tablets because otherwise they are not "with it".
  To them, it means something, but the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, especially in the last part of his speech, was rather like an analytical chemist, putting the teen-ager on a slab, looking through a microscope to see what it was and in the end rejecting the specimen although he wanted it to have liberty to go to hell in its own way if it so desired.
  We have been trying to grasp the way in which by legislation we can form some protection around young people, who are driven by society, or whatever it is that drives them, whilst they grow up, from the pernicious profit-making which goes on when pushers, pedlars and unscrupulous people are able to play on the circumstances in which these youngsters find themselves in order to make a huge profit.
  One of the points which has been made several times this afternoon is from where do these pills come? What is the source? We all welcome very much the fact that in the Bill there is provision for stopping the importation or reimportation of pills which were probably manufactured in and exported from this country in the first place. It would be interesting to know the National Health Service quantity involved. The last figure which I could obtain related to 1959 when 5½ million prescriptions were given for these amphetamines. This represented 2½ per cent. of the total prescribed under the National Health Service. It would be interesting to know what has happened
  652
  since 1959. If we cannot be brought up to date in that respect when the Minister replies to this debate, I hope that we will be informed of the position in Committee.
  There has been considerable discussion about the problem of addiction or habituation. A number of hon. Members have, more or less, said, "As this is only a drug of habituation, it is not as bad as a drug of addiction". I cannot agree with some of my hon. Friends in making this distinction. If a thing is bad, it is bad, even though something else might be worse. I have some information from my local hospital on the general medical opinion of the results of this habituation. It gives feelings of well-being and confidence, increases alertness initially, and is followed by a state of fatigue, irritability and depression. Tolerance rapidly develops.
  This is an important point. It means that if one starts taking five pills, one rapidly wants 10, then one rapidly wants 20 and then one rapidly wants 50. The dose must be increased to get any effect at all. "Purple heart" intoxication includes symptoms of agitation, restlessness, sleeplessness, profuse perspiration, flushing of the skin and occasionally a toxic psychosis with paranoid ideas and hallucinations. Whether or not this is as bad as addiction, it is still pretty bad and we must do something about it.
  I differ on one point from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) whose medical knowledge far surpasses that of the rest of us in the House. I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend, but I disagree with him on the short-term danger of "purple heart" pills, because they release the person who has taken them from fear for a limited period. For about two or three hours a person who is under the influence of "purple hearts" has no fear that the consequences of his act will catch up with him. This can be lethal in the case of a person driving a motor car and feeling on top of the world. He has no fear about whether he will be able to get through the gap between the bus and the kerb, because for two or three hours this fear is eliminated. It can have disastrous consequences. If a person has taken a "purple heart" pill

  653
  and then gets into a fight he has no fear of the consequences of what will happen if he hits the other fellow. He has no fear about whether the other fellow will take a jagged bottle and hit him back again. Therefore, this aspect, although it has nothing to do with addiction, makes the Home Secretary's action in introducing the Bill extremely necessary.
  The point has been made that in drinamyl especially, the addition of the barbiturate means that there is an easy step towards going from habituation to addiction. The first step away from the "purple hearts" is marijuana, and the second step is heroin. There are many cases in which this has been shown by medical people, especially general practitioners, who deal with patients. If the Home Secretary is seeking evidence on this, I invite him to go to the College of General Practitioners, whose members have had considerable experience of dealing with patients outside hospitals and institutions, to ascertain some of the effects that this habituation has had.
  Perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill is the realisation that the availability of the drug leads to its extensive use and habituation. To give an example of addiction, which is another thing entirely, of the 359 addicts who were registered in 1957, 70 were doctors. This is not because doctors are more neurotic or are any different from anyone else in society, but merely because proximity and ease of access made it easy for them to become prey to the drugs concerned. An important feature of the Bill is the Home Secretary's desire to reduce availability and, therefore, the consequent danger from it.
  The House has been a little divided concerning the penalties that are provided in Clause 1. I share very much the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) that when a youngster gets caught, the last thing anybody wants to do is to make a criminal of him. When all that happens is that a youngster has been up to town for kicks and has had two "purple hearts" in his pocket or has taken some, surely it is the intention neither of the Home Secretary nor of the Bill that he should find himself serving a sentence of six months' imprisonment. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that the pushers and the
  654
  pedlars who make a huge profit are not able to ride off by an insignificant term of imprisonment or a fine which merely means that they raise the price from 6d. to 1s. and from 1s. to 1s. 3d. to take care of the added risk which they take in peddling the pills.
  It is interesting to see how, on the more serious side of addiction to narcotics in the United States, the American Act makes mandatory provisions. I am, of course, only making a parallel, because we are talking of habituation and addiction. Nevertheless, there is a similar kind of approach in America in seeking to get, not the addict, but the person who causes and creates the addict. I notice that in the 1956 American Act, for the first offence there is a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. For the second offence, there is a minimum sentence of five years with a maximum of up to 20 years, and for the third offence a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 40 years. That is really a deterrent.
  I hope that in Committee we will be able to make a distinction so that instead of stipulating an overall fine of a certain amount or a certain period of imprisonment for anybody who is found in possession of the drugs, with the assistance of the legal experts who are at the Home Secretary's disposal it will be possible to elaborate the Clause to distinguish clearly between the addict and the pedlar. In those circumstances, I should be prepared to make the penalty for the addict much less and the penalty for the pedlar very much more.
  The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South suggested that one of the reasons for the Bill was that the police seek more powers. It is extremely difficult to get to grips with this problem in the teen-age world. I could give the Home Secretary, or anyone else, the names of three clubs not two miles from here where he could go on a Saturday night and see the youngsters lying down on the benches, provided round the walls where they are "out", under the influence. I could, in fact, give him the names of another 10 clubs. Unfortunately, however, the Home Secretary would not be admitted: neither would I. We are too old. The doorkeeper at the club would take one look at us and

  655
  merely say that it was full up. That is a masterpiece of understatement, because if one were to get in it would be found that the place was not merely full, but over-full, with room hardly even to stand, much less do anything else. One certainly could not jive, twist or do the "dog" or any of the other modern dances that go with the fashionable music.
  But those are not the only places. I know of no more respectable dance-hall circuit than the Mecca dance hall circuit. It is well run and caters for thousands of teen-agers throughout the country. I guarantee, however, that if the Home Secretary likes to go to any Mecca dance hall, within five minutes I could put him in touch with someone who would sell him "purple hearts" at the current rate. It is this extent of the problem which has probably prompted the Home Secretary to bring forward the Bill, which, I hope, will find its way to the Statute Book without too much delay in its various stages, so that we shall be able to do something about this menace.
  The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South was quite right in saying that we must not cotton wool our young people. What we must do, surely, is to ensure that they are not simply live bait for the predatory sharks who inhabit their world at this time. At least, if we cannot protect the youngsters, we can do something about the sharks. I believe that the Bill, with all its imperfections, seeks to do something in that direction and for that reason I welcome it.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Holland: My information about the effects of the drug drinamyl coincides so closely with the information given to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that my conclusions naturally coincide very much with his. That is hardly surprising, since the large general hospital in the hon. Member's constituency also serves my constituency, with information as well as medical care.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the intention to introduce this legislation in a Written Answer to an Oral Question which I put down on 27th February, but which was not
  656
  reached, I am grateful to be able to speak on this occasion to express to him my gratitude for the reply which he then gave and also so that I may welcome the Bill on Second Reading. I express the hope that it will go through all its remaining stages with expedition.
  My attention was first drawn to the seriousness of the drinamyl menace in my constituency of Acton by a letter which was sent to the local paper by the distracted mother of two teenage children, a boy and a girl, who had both become—if I may use the term in view of what has been said in this debate, because I believe it to be an addiction—addicted to drinamyl.
  The letter was published in the Acton Gazette of 13th February, and I should like to quote an extract from it. It stated:
  "I have a son and daughter who take them".
  That is, "purple heart" pills.
  "I have found out by the way they have changed."
  This is significant.
  "The girl has turned into a trollop, and the boy…gets into terrible rages."
  Those words indicate more graphically than any elaboration of the theme can do the heartbreak and despair that such adolescent folly brings in its train.
  It is human nature for the weaker-minded youngsters who want to show off to try to do things that make them look big in the eyes of their friends. It is also true that a lack of self-confidence in the immature encourages them to seek artificial stimulants to help them face what are, for the rest of us, the everyday realities of life. Real vice comes into the picture when attempts are made to exploit those human failings purely for financial gain and with total disregard of the consequences in terms of human misery.
  Nevertheless, once a youngster succumbs to the guile of the salesman, who, significantly again, is called the "pusher", his rate of intake rises until drinamyl ceases to satisfy and he turns to Indian hemp or marijuana, as it is officially called. The cafés and the coke bars peddling the one so often eventually provide a source of supply for the other. One such café in Acton was recently closed for extending its sidelines to the supply of Indian hemp. The proprietor

  657
  is now in gaol. I am told that the café is to reopen shortly under new management. I sincerely hope that, if the old clientele drifts back, the new proprietor will not be so misguided as to allow himself to be tempted to indulge in the same vicious trade.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to impose reasonably severe penalties for possession, except in certain clearly defined circumstances, because, although the weak-minded may be the dupes of the vicious, it is rather difficult in law to distinguish between the purely weak-minded and the vicious, and it is better to make the dupe subject to a heavier penalty than might be necessary as a corrective than to allow the vicious, the corrupt, to get away too lightly.
  On this point about getting away too lightly, I tend to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots), in wanting to see rather stiffer prison sentences available for the vicious. Perhaps it is some small comfort to my hon. and learned Friend that I agree with him, because I am one of his constituents.
  I hope that the Press will co-operate with my right hon. Friend by publicising the fact that under the Bill anybody caught in possession of either "purple hearts" or "black torpedoes", which I understand contain the same amphetamine and barbiturate drugs, will be liable to a fine of £200 and six months in gaol unless they have been properly prescribed by a doctor. I hope that magistrates will use the powers contained in the Bill to the full.
  I am glad that under Clause 4 the importation of this substance is to be severely restricted, because I understand that a noticeable supply of these drugs is being imported by individuals. I am told that Malta is one source of supply for this type of unauthorised entry.
  I am particularly pleased to note that under Clauses 5 and 6—here I differ from some of my hon. Friends—any other drug that may on some future occasion be misused can be quickly and effectively brought within the scope of the Bill by means of a Statutory Instrument. I should have thought that Clause
  658
  6 would provide a measure of safeguard to my hon. Friends who are a little perturbed about Clause 5, because there is at least the possibility of the House discussing the matter before it passes into law.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: That is surely not the case. There is a power to pray against it. This is the negative procedure. Can my hon. Friend tell me on how many occasions in the past few years a Statutory Instrument laid by the Government of the day has been annulled on a Prayer when it had the support of the Whips?
  Mr. Holland: I am not sure whether it was my hon. Friend or another hon. Member who said that it would be better if this were by affirmative Resolution rather than by a Statutory Instrument lying upon the Table. Can my hon. Friend provide any better record as to the number of affirmative Resolutions brought forward by a Government which have not been passed? The fact remains that they are there to be discussed. They may be fully discussed by the House. If the feeling is strong enough, the Government take notice of the views made known on a Prayer. This is the measure of the safeguard. The negative procedure is just as positive as the affirmative procedure.
  All Home Secretaries, by the very nature of their responsibilities, customarily receive far more brickbats than halfpence, and my right hon. Friend has been no exception in this case. On this problem he has moved promptly and effectively, as he has done on far more occasions in the past than he has ever been given credit for. I congratulate him most warmly on introducing the Bill and on bringing it forward so quickly. I also express the hope that the Bill will go through all its stages smoothly and swiftly, and that it will be well supported by the whole House.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I support the Bill. I could not do otherwise, because about two months ago I put Questions to the Home Office asking for such a Measure. I am somewhat surprised that some hon. Members can regard the Bill as being an interference with the freedom of citizens. I do not want to stray outside the scope of the

  659
  Bill, but I believe I am entitled to say that some hon. Members should try to define the difference between freedom and licence. What has been going on in this country recently has been a licence for people to peddle these malicious drugs to young people, making good profit out of them and in the process prostituting young people.
  I definitely support the Home Secretary. I ask the House to pay some attention to one of the observations he made. He is probably the only Member of the House who has seen the effects of these drugs at first hand. I tried to, but I could not. My escort was not available, or I should have done exactly the same. I have no doubt that the experience would have disturbed me, because I am given to understand by those who have made a study of this that these young people when stimulated are really very dangerous.
  I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden. West (Mr. Pavitt) in the observations he made, so thoughtfully, about these young people. I ask hon. Members to think of the effect on society when these young people, stimulated by these drugs, take charge of a motor bicycle or a motor car. Then there is the effect when the reaction sets in. I have been given to understand that then these people are truly pitiable creatures. Consequently, if anything, this is a very necessary Measure, if somewhat belated.
  Some hon. Members have said that some young people are taking these drugs because in some way society has let them down. I ask the House to be careful. I believe that, on balance, youngsters today get a rather better living than youngsters in my time. I am not asking for any sympathy from the House, but I was a member of a bunch of teenage lads who worked for eight, nine or ten hours a day in a coalmine. We never sought any of these fads to get some excitement in life. We played rugby and soccer. I believe that such sports, pastimes and pursuits should be encouraged again.
  Although I agree that society could possibly do more, I do not think we should allow the impression to get abroad that the House has gone on record as saying that it is possible that these youngsters have taken to these
  660
  drugs because of the defects of society. I am not prepared to subscribe to that view. Youngsters today have just as good an opportunity to lead a good life as ever youngsters had. I believe that this should be emphasised.
  I repeat that I support the Bill. I firmly believe that there are occasions when matters of pure political partisanship should fall, and this to me is one such occasion. I am quite ready, as far as I am able, to give the Bill all the support I can, but I must ask the Home Secretary why it is necessary to wait for three months after the Bill becomes an Act before its provisions are put into effect. Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to believe that, even from this moment onwards, the pushers, who have no regard for these youngsters and even less for society, will be harvesting as many of these dreadful drugs as possible and will not be able to be caught by the law? Does not he reach the conclusion that the sooner this Measure is on the Statute Book and the sooner its provisions are put into effect the better? This Bill will be one of the additional safeguards which we can give to the younger generation, and the House should endorse it with all possible speed.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The Home Secretary must be gratified by the general approval given to the Bill, and I would not wish to dissent from it. But, nevertheless, it has been an approval on balance because there is no doubt that the Bill represents a considerable extension of police powers by imposing penalties for posession and granting new powers of search and, as such, represents a substantial decrease of civil liberties. That is the conclusion to which most hon. Members have turned their attention.
  Most of them came down in support of the Bill. One exception was the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) who made a passionate speech in defence of liberty and libertarian issues and reminded the House of the number of occasions on which he has stood for libertarian issues of this kind. It occurs to me that perhaps his libertarianism is a little selective because, as I recall, when I introduced a Private Member's Motion early in this Parliament approving Part II of the Wolfenden

  661
  Committee's recommendations, the hon. Member voted against me. Yet that issue always struck me as being essentially one of libertarianism.
  Most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have testified to their experience that amphetamine addiction has become very widespread, particularly in the London area. In my constituency there have been a number of court cases and there have been more in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). I do not think that our constituencies are untypical in that respect.
  Differing views have been expressed as to how dangerous amphetamine addiction is. I use the word "addiction" but the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) tried to draw a clear distinction between addiction and habituation, as did one or two other hon. Members. I felt, however, that he got into rather deep water over it. For my part, I would rather not try to draw a sharp distinction of this kind. I regard habituation and addiction as perhaps two parts of the same continuum, representing perhaps, a difference of degree and not of kind.
  If one must attempt to draw a distinction it may lie solely in the one factor that the withdrawal symptoms in a strongly addictive drug are very different and very much more unpleasant than the withdrawal symptoms in a drug of the amphetamine type.
  Nevertheless, this has become a serious social problem. No doubt we have all done our researches. I have made inquiries in my locality. Last night two or three members of a youth club in my constituency came to see me at their own request in order to tell me their own experiences concerning friends who had been members of the club from time to time and who were "purple heart" addicts.
  First, they made it clear that this kind of addiction leads, if not to crime, at any rate to violence because these young men came into the club, completely disrupted it and damaged it seriously on more than one occasion. I think that this ties up with what my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said about amphetamine temporarily eliminating fear.
  662
  These young people told me that drinamyl tablets were taken by teenagers from the age of 15. They were taken mostly by boys, but a few girls also took them, so they claimed. They said that the girls were very largely responsible for the boys taking them, that they encouraged them and dared them to do so. I gather that the motives are mixed. Probably the most important one was that most frequently mentioned in the debate—the desire to keep awake all night. There is no doubt that the drinamyl tablet is effective in doing that. It is a practice which no doubt seems more attractive to teenagers than to hon. Members who are faced with it willy nilly on occasion.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a weakness in it. If the girls encourage the boys to stay awake all night, how is it that they themselves stay awake all night without these tablets? There must be another explanation.
  Mr. Robinson: I am not suggesting that this is a logical process. I was going on to say that another reason is to provide a bogus self assurance for young men, and perhaps young girls, who are immature and timid by nature. There is also the factor of imitation. Young people in gangs see the gang leader, or some dominant personality, taking the drug and feel that they must keep up with the teen-age "Joneses" and take them also. Obviously, this a fatuous, expensive and demoralising habit, at best. At worst it may be seriously dangerous, and I am sorry that some hon. Members have tried to play down the dangerous aspect. It can lead to serious mental disorder and it is certainly in some cases a stepping stone to really serious addiction which, I imagine, would incur the disapproval of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South—morphine and heroin addiction.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I hope that I did not say anything to imply that even this mild form of addiction had my approval. The question is whether we should proceed in this way against it by law.
  Mr. Robinson: I agree that that is what the hon. Gentleman said, but he did play down the seriousness of the thing in trying to draw up his equation.

  663
  The fact is that these things are being distributed in large quantities. I asked the youngsters who came to see me where they got them. They said that they could be obtained in West End clubs and coffee bars, but they also mentioned a café much nearer my constituency than that, and nearer to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency,
  This was a café of which I had heard before. They said "We all know they got them there". I imagine that the police must know of the café, but nothing has been done. It may be that the police claim that, under existing legislation, they do not have necessary powers. But certainly the name of the café was known to the Evening Standard reporter who did the series of articles on this topic. Indeed, it is difficult to find someone who does not know this café from which one can acquire supplies of "purple hearts."
  I suppose that a great number of these pills are stolen and a certain number obtained on forged prescriptions, but there must be either illegal manufacture in this country or imports on quite a considerable scale. I believe that some of the difficulties faced by the Home Office and the police could have been minimised at least if the manufacturers had complied with the recommendation—I do not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman was in touch with them—that they should make the pill a little less attractive and distinctive in appearance. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), I am very sorry indeed that they did not see their way to comply with that request.
  Mr. Holland: Does the hon. Gentleman really feel that a change in the shape or colour would deglamorise these pills. There are such things as "black torpedoes" which are used equally but which do not strike the newspaper headlines because they have not quite the same glamour, and teen-agers still take them.
  Mr. Robinson: So far as I know, they do not take them in anything like the quantity that they take "purple hearts". My own impression was that this would do something to deglamorise them, and this was certainly the view of the
  664
  Pharmaceutical Society which first put the proposal forward. I understood that at one time the manufacturers were going to do this, but, according to my information, they have not done so. Perhaps, the Joint Under-Secretary could tell us what is the position and whether the Minister has brought any persuasion to bear on the firm in question.
  I am sorry that nothing has been done about this problem before. I have a feeling that there has been a certain measure of complacency on the question of amphetamine addiction for some time. Indeed, I have had occasion previously to suggest that, on the whole, the Home Office is a little complacent about drug addiction generally. I think that to some extent this attitude is generated by the official figures which the right hon. Gentleman puts out from time to time, and which, I think, no one believes except the Home Office. These are the statistics of official drug addicts and I am quite sure that they bear little resemblance to the real social problem in this country. I know that they are viewed sceptically by other countries which produce statistics of a very different nature.
  Even so, I understand that even the official figures for 1962 show a very disturbing increase. I think that I heard mentioned the figure of a 30 per cent. increase on the previous year and a far higher increase in drug addiction among the younger age groups with which this Bill is particularly concerned. Possibly the Minister can confirm that when he replies.
  There are also, I think, some grounds for past complacency about amphetamime in the Report of the Brain Committee on drug addiction which was published in 1961. Amphetamines were discussed by this very distinguished committee, and in paragraph 60 it said:
  "An analysis of some 214 million National Health Service prescriptions in 1959 indicated that some 5,600,000, or approximately 2½ per cent., were for preparations of the amphetamimes and phenmetrazine. Since the indications for the use of these substances are not clear cut, it may be that such prescribing is excessive, though hardly to an extent that could give rise to concern. We have formed the impression that, while serious cases of addiction arise from time to time, such abuse is not widespread."
  I think that it was pretty widespread then, and it has certainly become more

  665
  widespread since. The Brain Committee went on, in the last of its recommendations to the Government, to state:
  "There has been a substantial increase in the use of drugs affecting the central nervous system, which are potentially habit forming. While the position requires careful watching, no further statutory control, beyond that recommended in our Interim Report, is needed at present."
  I suppose that would be the right hon. Gentleman's excuse for not having brought a Measure of this kind before the House earlier.
  In July, 1961, shortly after the appearance of this Report, I asked the Minister of Health what research was being carried out into this question of amphetamine addiction. I understood that the problem had been placed in the lap of yet another advisory committee, but with what result I do not think we have been told.
  I come to the Bill itself. I should like to protest that we have here yet another ad hoc drugs Measure. It seems to me that piecemeal legislation has been common form for a very long time in the matter of drugs and medicines. We are constantly getting relatively minor Bills to meet this or that gap in existing legislation. I am sure that the House will recall the schoolboy definition of a net—a lot of holes tied together with pieces of string. That seems to be a fair description of our drugs and medicines legislation in its existing state. New holes are constantly appearing and new pieces of string, like this Bill, have to be produced to tie them up again.
  I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary once again to this failure to amend, bring up to date and codify the whole of our law on drugs and medicines into a single Statute, and, I would hope, under a single Minister, but in that case I do not think that it would be the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly this operation is long overdue. A working party sat on it, I think, not under the right hon. Gentleman's Department but the Ministry of Health, or it may have been a joint one, which reported two years ago and we have still no action. There is plenty of Parliamentary time between now and October and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might get in touch with the Minister of Health and bring in this long-awaited Measure.
  666
  The need for this Bill, as various hon. Members have said, is because we lack a halfway house between the rather mild control of the poisons legislation and the very stringent control of the Dangerous Drugs Act. I can quite understand that it has not thought that penalties up to 10 years and £1,000 for each offence provided for in the Dangerous Drugs Act would be appropriate for the offences of the kind dealt with in this Measure. Some kind of intermediate legislation was clearly necessary. I would have thought that, on the whole, the penalties in this Bill were about right.
  The Bill has been criticised in principle really on two grounds. One that it is unnecesary or, in the words of The Times, premature. That is a value judgment, but for my part I happen to disagree with it. The second criticism about which we have heard rather less in this debate is that it is altogether misconceived. The argument goes that it is psychologically wrong to make possession of drugs of this kind an offence, that it gives a kind of added spice of danger, an extra kick, which these perhaps rather pathetically inadequate characters who are addicted would find an added attraction.
  This is a dangerous argument which could be carried far wider and into the criminal law generally. The people who take this view say that what these addicts need is not a spell in prison or a fine, but psychiatric treatment. They go on to say that psychiatric treatment is not something about which the young teenager would be likely to boast. With that I must agree, but I should have thought that it was first necessary to create the offence of possessing these drugs in order to be able to bring the addict to court.
  Having got the addict in court, I am sure that the court would be able, if it had medical evidence that psychiatric treatment was needed, to deal with the case by making a hospital order. It could also deal with the matter by placing the offender on probation conditional on having some kind of medical treatment. It is certainly possible under the Mental Health Act to make a hospital order to ensure that such offenders get treatment in a mental hospital, or in a unit dealing with drug addiction. I

  667
  should have thought that this was a far more appropriate way of dealing with these offenders than sending them to prison merely for possession, although I entirely agree that we want prison sentences for the pushers who, we are told by the police, cannot be caught under existing legislation. I am speaking for my hon. Friends when I say that we do not support these objections in principle. We regard this as an experimental Bill, but certainly one worth trying and we shall watch carefully to see how it works.
  I have some criticisms of detail, most of which can be left to the Committee stage, but I will mention two now. The Bill seems to fail to exercise control at the level of distribution, both wholesale and retail, in the way that the dangerous drugs legislation exercises control. I should have thought that this was a very dangerous gap to leave open. It is surely at one of these points, or between the two in transit, that thefts must occur. One would have thought that some kind of control such as is comprised in Section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act might be worth considering.
  My second criticism has been mentioned by several hon. Members. I entirely agree that, as drafted, Clause 5 is far too wide. I am sure that it is not the intention of the House to give the right hon. Gentleman power, nor do I think that it was his intention to seek power, which might enable him to add bread, beer, or even alcohol, to a Schedule which at the moment consists of the amphetamine group of drugs. The drafting must be tightened and I think this is probably a case for the affirmative rather than the negative procedure which is set out in the Bill.
  With those reservations, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and agree that it, or something very like it, is necessary to meet this problem.
  7.12 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): It has been quite clear from this very instructive debate that, on the whole, the House is sympathetically inclined towards the Bill; but a number of criticisms have been made and a number of questions asked with which I should like to deal as briefly as the
  668
  very complex nature of the subject allows. The criticisms have been directed partly to questions of timing and partly to the detailed contents of the Bill.
  I agree that, in cases of this kind, the Government are bound to find themselves between two fires. There will be those on the one hand who consider that the Government should have acted sooner, perhaps even before there had been time for proper consultation with the legitimate interests affected by the legislation, and those on the other hand who consider that before the Government take any action they should pause to collect every kind of statistic and information until the case has been established beyond all conceivable doubt. This is a dilemma with which any government is familiar, and the Government have to decide what is the proper time to act. In the estimation of the Government, the proper time to act to curb the misuse of these drugs is now, and I am very glad to have had the support of most hon. Members who have spoken in that decision.
  For reasons which have been amply elaborated in the debate, it is clear that the misuse of these drugs has given rise to a serious social problem and that the problem is being daily intensified. Having reached the decision that action should be postponed no further, the Government have taken steps to get the Bill drafted as quickly as is compatible with proper consultations with the various interests who will be affected by the legislation and concerned in its administration. Having played some part myself in the drafting process—not in any expert way, but in the way that Ministers do—I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that this is certainly not a Bill which has been hastily or casually prepared.
  The question of timing is related to the more fundamental question of whether the necessity for the Bill has been proved. This line of criticism was trenchantly pursued by The Times and has been mentioned with both agreement and disagreement by hon. Members. The essence of the criticism resolves itself into questions. What evidence is there that hooliganism is due to taking pep pills? What evidence is there that legislation like this will have any effect on hooliganism? What other evidence

  669
  is there of the extent of the problem? These are questions which could not be completely answered without a full-scale sociological study, although I am bound to say that many of the contributions to the debate today have provided a good substitute for such a study. I think that I can make some points about it now.
  The first is on the connection, both alleged and denied, between the taking of pep pills and what is known as the Clacton type of hooliganism. In that episode alone there is no more than slight evidence in one or two cases. For instance, the police report that a 16-year old youth, who was arrested and charged in Clacton, had on him five "purple hearts" and admitted that he had been taking them. Another 16-year old, who was arrested for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, told the doctor that he had been taking "purple heart" pills, although in fact he had none on him. That is the extent of the evidence in that case. But in others there is ample evidence that the same people have been both guilty of hooliganism and habituated to pep pills. I am not asserting any causal connection, but this conjunction is a fact. It is hardly surprising in view of some of the symptoms which my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have described. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South that this is certainly a far more serious conjunction of symptoms than arises for instance from the taking of a large number of aspirins.
  This leads me to the second part of my answer, which is that my right hon. Friend did not present hooliganism as the determining reason for introducing the Bill. This is not a Bill against hooliganism, which can be left to be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law. But there is clear evidence, both of ill-effects on individuals from repeated over-dosage with amphetamines and of the increasing spread of their misuse. In parentheses, I can confirm to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that there is an undoubted increase of drug addiction in the true sense in recent years, though I think that this lies a little outside the scope of the Bill.
  To go further than this would entail more elaborate sociological research, but if we were to wait for that—and this
  670
  was very well put by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—by the time we had the results of the research, the evil might have got seriously out of control. I should like to tell my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) that the information I have from the Chief Constable and Senior Proctor about undergraduates in my constituency is that the stories are greatly exaggerated, and probably greatly exaggerated by the undergraduates themselves.
  I should also like to correct what I believe to be a misunderstanding of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). The Bill will not make it an offence to be an addict, because it will still be permissible to obtain these drugs legitimately on a prescription, just as it is with drugs controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, which is what most addicts do in the case of such drugs as have a therapeutic value of any kind.
  The Bill, though admittedly it entrenches on the freedom of the subject to a certain degree, is perhaps not so repressive in its effect as some hon. Members fear. The libertarian critics, if I might so bracket together the editor of The Times and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, have also said that rather than legislate we ought to operate through doctors and pharmacists and seek their cooperation. We regard that as right, and that is what we have done.
  Last August the Home Office wrote to the Pharmaceutical Society and to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry asking for their assistance in ensuring that amphetamines and similar drugs should not be misused. The Home Office letter has been brought to the notice of all members of the Association, and the Pharmaceutical Society had already issued warnings to its members about the serious consequences of selling these drugs without restrictions and warned them to keep a sharp watch for forged prescriptions. The Society has continued to impress the importance of these matters on its members, and we, through the Ministry of Health, have taken steps to bring to the notice of doctors the importance of acting responsibly in relation to patients.

  671
  I think it is right to add at this stage that there is no evidence to justify the suggestion that, in general, doctors, or pharmacists, or manufacturers, or wholesalers, in this country have treated their task lightly or irresponsibly. I agree with what has been said by several hon. Members on this point and I should like to add in answer to the criticism which has been made of the manufacturers of "purple heart" pills that that firm is still considering the possibility of changing the shape and colour of these pills. It is not unto-operative in this respect.
  Sir K. Robinson: It is slow.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think that it is fair to say that it is slow, because, as has been recognised, there can be arguments on both sides in this matter, but I shall not go into them in detail now. The firm has consulted the British Medical Association, and it is expected that in the course of the next month the B.M.A.'s views will be known to it.
  Another line of criticism pursued by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), is that we have not dealt with this problem on a sufficiently wide front. The allegation of ignoring social and medical aspects, which was voiced in some periodicals, was answered by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. To that I would only add that it is true that the Bill does not do anything positive to ensure that people dependent on these drugs receive medical or sociological treatment, for the very good reason that legislation is not appropriate to the purpose.
  Effective treatment must depend on a good relationship between the doctor and the patient, or between the social worker and the person needing help, and such an association needs to be voluntary. The facilities of the National Health Service and social services are available for this purpose, and we have been anxious—and we took the decision deliberately for this purpose—not to embarrass those services by introducing an element of compulsion here, but I shall touch on this point again when
  672
  I come to the question of penalties, which was raised by several hon. Members.
  There is also the question why we have singled out one problem for special treatment. The suggestion is that if the Government were going to act they should have done so with comprehensive legislation for the control of drugs over the whole field. But I think that that misses the real issue. What we are concerned with here is the limited and abnormal use of drugs, which has nothing to do with the much wider question of the use of drugs as medicines. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with their interest in the medical use of drugs, have recognised that the present fragmented legislation is unsatisfactory and possibly inadequate, and there is no question of complacency on this subject.
  They are at present at work on a review of the statutory control of drugs as medicines. This, inevitably, is a long and complicated task which cannot be dealt with properly in a short time. In the meantime, what the Bill does is to deal with the quite different problem of the misuse of amphetamine-like drugs. As my right hon. Friend said in introducing the Bill, it is not concerned with the legitimate use of drugs for therapeutic purposes. Its purpose is to give additional powers to deal with misuse, and we see no objection to dealing with this limited question in a separate Bill.
  I should like now to deal briefly with the whole series of practical, technical, and legal questions which have been put to me. The first question is why the dangerous drugs legislation itself cannot be used in this context. As the hon. Member for Islington, East adumbrated in his speech, this is because the term has a specialised meaning corresponding to the term "narcotic drugs" used in international conventions. The distinctive feature of narcotic drugs, from which these are different, is that they are liable to produce addiction of a particularly dangerous kind. That is why there are international agreements for strict control over them. These agreements do not extend to drugs of this type.
  The question of bringing amphetamines and barbiturates under such international conventions has been examined on more than one occasion by the United

  673
  Nations Narcotics Commission, but it has invariably recommended against doing that. It has preferred that it should be left to national legislation. Moreover, whereas narcotic drugs are used only in limited quantities for therapeutic purposes, drugs of the type with which we are concerned are prescribed in much larger quantities. The hon. Member for Willesden, West gave figures which I have no reason to question. They show the large scale of legitimate use for these drugs.
  Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, a much stricter kind of control is necessary. Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and others are required to keep precise and detailed records. I do not think that such an elaborate and restrictive system could effectively be applied to these drugs which are used in such large quantities.
  They are, of course, listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Poisons Rules, which means that they can be sold only upon prescription, and they are listed in Part I of the Poisons List, which means that they can be sold only by an authorised seller of poisons on premises registered under Part I of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, and the sale must be effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist. But these requirements apply only to retail sale. The only offence is a sale which does not comply with those requirements, and there is no restriction on importation.
  Those provisions clearly have substantial loopholes in them, and several hon. Members have asked what is the nature and extent of the loopholes which we are seeking to plug. There are many, and I do not think that they can be put in any particular order of priority. The order would probably vary from time to time. There are thefts from wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers. There is the sale of drugs by a few unscrupulous pharmacists, without a prescription. There is the alteration and forgery of prescriptions. There are patients who pass on to others drugs prescribed for themselves by doctors, and in some cases patients may obtain drugs from more than one doctor at the same time, or use a false name. There are also, as I have said, imports from abroad on which there is no restriction. It seems to us that the only simple way
  674
  of plugging all these loopholes is by making unauthorised possession or importation an offence.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East suggested that there should be a total prohibition on importation. In the case of the Dangerous Drugs Act there is no statutory prohibition on importation, though in the case we do not licence the importation of drugs which are manufactured in this country. But, for reasons which I have already stated, it is not appropriate to apply exactly the same restrictions to amphetamines which are used on a vastly larger scale than dangerous drugs. There is a considerable international trade in non-narcotic drugs not subject to international agreement, and to prohibit this would disrupt the international trade and adversely affect the export trade of our pharmaceutical industry. There is a large legitimate demand for these drugs, which must be met, and cannot in all cases be met exclusively from our own industry. Nonetheless, it would be possible to limit the quantities of drugs which could be imported under licence should that prove desirable.
  I turn finally to some technical and legal points about the proposed controls which hon. Members have put forward. The hon. Member for Islington, East asked about the policy that would be pursued in the registration of manufacturers and wholesalers. Our intention is to register all existing bona fide manufacturers and wholesalers, and in order to establish their bona fides we would make inquiries, as in the case of a licence under the Dangerous Drugs Act, through the police and the Board of Trade.
  Some questions were asked about the difficult subject of penalties. The question here is whether it is right and practicable to have the same penalties for those who are dependent on amphetamines and those who are traffickers in amphetamines. In the first place, the penalties described in the Bill are maxima and they do not fetter the discretion of the courts. In a suitable case a court could make use of other powers—for instance, the powers contained in Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948—and put the offender on probation, with the condition that he had medical or psychiatric treatment This is the kind of procedure which I

  675
  hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) would regard as proper in the case of a new offender, as distinct from the hardened trafficker.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked whether it would be possible to make an order under the Mental Health Act. This would be possible, provided a doctor certified the need for mental treatment in a particular case.
  These are the alternatives which are open in the case of the relatively less serious offender, but hon. Members generally have in mind the question of the proper way to deal with the hardened trafficker.
  Mr. Parkin: Several of us have tried to make a distinction between the money-making trafficker and the innocent new habitué, but the fact is that the most dangerous trafficker—the person on whom the large scale trader depends—is a proselyte, a lad who will get further supplies for himself only when he needs his 50 or more tablets, and will sell others in sleazy cafes. There is in him the very difficult combination of criminality and sickness which needs something a little more vigorous than a gentle recommendation that he should see a doctor about it.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. Member has put his finger right on the difficulty with which we are faced—the difficulty of drawing an absolutely clear and distinct line between cases. His own suggestion was that there should be compulsory committal to suitable institutions for psychiatric or similar treatment. This suggestion was considered by the Brain Committee on Drug Addiction, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred. If the hon. Member for Paddington, North would study the report he would find Paragraph 28 instructive although not very encouraging on this point. Perhaps I can give one brief quotation from it. It says:
  "We are not convinced that compulsory committal to such institutions is desirable. Good results are more likely to be obtained with co-operative rather than with coerced patients. At a time when the compulsory treatment of the mentally sick is being steadily diminished we see no grounds for seeking new powers of compulsion for the treatment of drug addicts."
  676
  I wish to do no more than to draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that there is a real difficulty here, in establishing who is the truly hardened trafficker, as distinct from the mere user. As my right hon. Friend said, it is difficult to obtain evidence that a person is a trafficker. He himself is generally the only person who is in a position to give the necessary evidence. It has been found in other countries—and this is not a very cheering observation—that the only way of making this distinction is to place upon the accused the onus of proving that he is not in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. This is contrary to the usual presumption of innocence which is a standard principle of our law, and I would hesitate to recommend its adoption in this case, although it is a matter that we could consider further in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) raised questions about the timing of the operation of the Measure. It would not be possible to require manufacturers and wholesalers to register before the Bill becomes law or to require importers to be so licensed. Since we cannot take this action until after the Bill becomes law a reasonable time has to be allowed for them to go through the necessary processes and for us to accommodate the necessary processes, and our feeling is that three months is the least that could be fairly allowed for this purpose.
  My noble Friend the Member for Hertford touched upon the distinction between addiction and habituation. I have the material here for a lengthy lecture on this subject, but I shall not make use of it. I just want to tell the House that the World Health Organisation has recently adopted changed definitions of these terms, and has recommended them to national Governments. The new definitions do not preserve this distinction so clearly, and the Government are considering what they should do about the proposed new definitions.
  My noble Friend also raised the question whether yeast is included in paragraph 3 of the Schedule. Touching on the Schedule, I should say, as I said on a similar occasion earlier, that I wish I could say that all these names were Greek to me. Unfortunately, they are

  677
  not. I shall therefore not attempt to refer to any of these substances by their official names. There is some doubt whether the present wording might apply to amino-acids, which are present in many foodstuffs, and in tonic or other tablets in which yeast happens to be one of the ingredients. It may be necessary to move an Amendment later to paragraph 3 to deal with this. We will consider this in Committee.
  Another difficult substance was benzedrine. Benzedrine inhalers were at one time exempt from the Poisons Rules, but they had to be withdrawn from exemption because we found that they were being abused, in that their contents were being extractcd. It is not now possible to obtain inhalers containing benzedrine.
  The debate has ranged over a wide field, and I have done my best to cover all the relevant questions.
  Mr. Dance: My hon. Friend has not referred to the question of security. The whole point is that we are talking about trafficking in these drugs. Where does the bulk come from? If it is imported, are we going to clamp down on the imports? If it comes from illicit factories, are we going to clamp down on them? These drugs are being manufactured. I realise that the question of their distribution is important, but the vital thing is to see that they are not available to the public in bulk.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I agree with my hon. Friend on this question. I did not go into it in detail because I listed the various loopholes which are known to exist and I indicated that it is our belief that the provisions contained in the Bill will serve to block up those loopholes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in the case of virtually all the people of whom we have been talking—the reputable drug firms, pharmacists, doctors and so on—there is no question of deliberate trafficking in these drugs. It occurs only in a small minority of cases.
  Deliberate trafficking takes place on a very small but a very dangerous scale, and it is this that we are seeking to block out. It is our belief that the simplest and most direct, as well as the most comprehensive, approach to this problem is by law to limit the supply of
  678
  drugs to those who legitimately need them. That, quite simply, is the purpose of the Bill. I hope I have shown that there are real difficulties in the present situation. There is a real problem to be met and a real need for the Bill which is the most effective way to meet it.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has dealt faithfully with almost every point which was raised. But there was one other point raised by a number of hon. Members, relating to the blanket nature of the powers given to the Secretary of State under the present wording of Clause 5, and also the use of the negative procedure.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I apologise for omitting that. I turned over some of my notes in rather a hurry.
  Clause 5 provides that the Secretary of State can make additions to the Schedule only after consultation with the Poisons Board. The Board is a very responsible body, and I can assure the House that it is not likely to seek to add frivolous or futile items to the Schedule. It was suggested that alcohol or cigarettes might, or indeed ought, to be added to the Schedule. The House should recognise that before one could even contemplate doing so, one would first have to put them on the same footing as amphetamines and other poisons under the Poisons Rules. In other words, one would have to make it impossible to buy them except on prescription from a pharmacist—something which, clearly, the House would not contemplate. As to the point about the necessary procedure for adding to or subtracting from the Schedule, I think that some interesting points were made about it in the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and one of his hon. Friends regarding the relative merits of procedure. I undertake that we shall look at that point again before the next stage of the Bill.
  Question out and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.45 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is yet another measure of law reform and a further step in the steady process of improving our laws which has been carried on by this Government continuously over the years. It does not represent something attempted in intervals when they could not think of what to do or how to do it. Since 1959 this House has passed 34 substantial Measures of law reform covering a wide field, from the administration of criminal justice to charities, matrimonial proceedings, magistrates' courts and legal aid.
Even in this Session we have dealt with, or are dealing with, such topics as support for successful unassisted litigants, the power of the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial, the order of speeches in criminal trials and compensation for victims of crimes of violence. Each Measure must of necessity be limited in its scope, but their cumulative effect over the years is very substantial in the modernisation of our law.
Hon. Members will realise although others may not, what are the pressures on our Parliamentary time and the difficulties of fitting such debates into the legislative programme when so many other matters require the attention of the House. I should not wish to appear complacent in any way, but while I recognise that the law will always require reform and bringing up to date with changing conditions, it is the case that the present Government, in their long series of law reform Measures have made an important contribution to the modernisation of the law.
This Bill represents a very real step forward in the modernisation of property law and is not an unimportant matter for conveyancers. The House has been talking about drugs and I hope that I shall not drug the House by talking about this Bill. It is a very complicated matter and one which is technically very difficult, but it does
680
illustrate the value of the Law Reform Committee which is available, at the invitation of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, to examine any aspect of the law which seems to require attention. The Committee is able to apply a great wealth of legal learning and practical experience to complicated problems and to call on the services of experts in any particular field. Its Reports are invariably closely reasoned and a valuable contribution to the cause of adapting the law to the conditions of modern society.
If this Bill becomes law, it will mean that eight out of 11 Reports of the Law Reform Committee will have been implemented. The only exceptions will be the Fifth Report, on conditions and exceptions in insurance policies, in which no action was recommended; the Seventh Report, on the effect of tax liability on damages, when the Committee was unable to agree and the majority recommended no action, and the Eleventh Report, which was made only in April, 1963, on the loss of services, in connection with which legislation has not yet been introduced.
It may interest the House to know that the average length of time between the submission of a Report by the Law Reform Committee and its implementation, in respect of the eight Reports which have been implemented, was two-and-a-half years. I am sure that the House will join with me in recognising the importance of the work done by the Law Reform Committee; in paying tribute to its members for their splendid efforts and in recognising their work to be very difficult indeed when dealing with matters of this nature. It would be hard to find a better committee to deal with such matters.
The Bill gives effect, with some minor modifications, to the recommendations made by the Law Reform Committee in its Fourth Report in which it dealt with the rule of property law known as the rule against perpetuities. It has for centuries been regarded as undesirable, and contrary to the public interest, that the owner of property should, when he comes to dispose of it, fetter to an unreasonable extent the future enjoyment of that property. While the property is his he may deal with it as he will; but when, during his lifetime or

681
at the time of his death, he wishes to hand it over to another, he must not impose, for an indefinite period, restrictions on its future devolution. A system of rules has therefore been evolved to prevent this from happening.
One of these is the rule against remoteness of vesting, which invalidates any disposition of a future interest in property which might possibly fail to vest within the period consisting of a life or lives in being at the date of the disposition and 21 years thereafter. The rule is, of course, concerned entirely with possibilities. The disposition will be void from the outset if it is possible for it to vest outside the period, no matter how unlikely this possibility may be, and no matter whether it actually happens or not. In other words, the disposition is valid only if it is clear from the start that it must necessarily vest within the committed period. This is the present rule as it exists.
The Law Reform Committee considered this rule and decided that it was still basically sound. The Committee accepted without question that it was still necessary to place a time limit on the vesting of future interests, and came to the conclusion that the length of the period, which had been evolved by our courts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at a time when the traditional forms of family settlements were taking shape, should not be altered. The Committee then examined the body of working rules which have grown up round that rule and it decided that sometimes these rules create anomalies and defeat, quite unnecessarily, the intentions of the testator or settlor. Accordingly, the Committee recommended a number of modifications which are now embodied in this Bill.
Clause 1 gives effect to the first recommendation by allowing a settlor or testator to choose a fixed number of years, up to a maximum of 80, as the period within which his disposition must vest, as an alternative to the present period of a life or lives in being and 21 years thereafter. The Clause does not change the perpetuity period in general, but it does provide an alternative, which, if it is to apply, must be expressly provided for in the disposition. The use of this alternative will, I suggest, give draftsmen the opportunity to
682
stretch the perpetuity period simply and with certainty.
It will, I hope, no longer be necessary to rely on the device known as the "Royal lives" Clause, whereby the draftsman, in an effort to stretch the period to its limit, provides that the disposition is to vest within 21 years after the death of the last survivor of those descendants of either his late Majesty King George V or some other chosen monarch, who are living at the date of the disposition. "Royal lives" clauses are however not invalidated by the Bill and may therefore still be used.
The Committee considered whether such clauses should be prevented and whether it might not be possible to provide that the period of limitation should be confined to such lives as were connected with the trust or which might take an interest in the property, but concluded that the difficulties of doing this would create more troubles than they would cure. If one looks at the Report of the Law Reform Committee one sees that this would create very great difficulties and the ingenuity of conveyancers would no doubt be able to impose shadowy interests of royal personages which would enable them to employ the "Royal lives" clauses.
This provision is to allow the procedure to be used more simply but not to alter the general nature of the length of period for which the trust can now be created by employing the "Royal lives" clauses. Although I recognise that there may be an argument now for having nothing like the "Royal lives" clauses and for connecting the period of the possible vesting date to interests under the trust, it would be difficult to define what those interests may be and to limit the circumstances in which other lives might be brought in.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 adapts the new 80-year rule to the exercise of special powers of appointment. Broadly speaking, the exercise of a special power is valid only if the interest granted thereby must necessarily vest within the perpetuity period as measured from the date when the disposition which created the power took effect. The subsection therefore provides that an interest granted by the exercise of a special power will be valid if it vests

683
within 80 years of the creation, and not the exercise, of the power.
Clause 2 abolishes one of the most arbitrary and unreal presumptions of the present rule, namely, that nobody is incapable of having children, whatever his or her age. The effect of this presumption is that a disposition is sometimes rendered void for perpetuity because of the faint theoretical possibility that parents of advanced age might have a child, however improbable that might be in practice. The Clause therefore substitutes a presumption that for the purposes of the rule against perpetuities males over 14, and females between 12 and 55, can have children, but that persons not falling into these categories cannot. This presumption will be capable of being rebutted by evidence to the contrary in any particular case. The Committee recommended that 14 should be accepted as the lower age limit for women as well as for men, but the House may agree that in taking 12 instead of 14 as the lower limit for women, the Bill is in greater accord with practical possibilities.
Clause 3 gives effect to what is perhaps the most important of the Committee's recommendations. At present, as I mentioned earlier, the validity of a disposition has to be tested once and for all at the outset to see whether it might possibly offend against the rule against perpetuity. A settlement or will may therefore be invalidated on the grounds that it is possible that the interest might not vest within the permitted period, even though in the event the possibility does not occur and accordingly the interest would—if it had not been invalidated—have vested within the period. The intentions of the settlor or testator are thus sometimes frustrated quite unnecessarily, and to prevent this the Clause introduces the principle of "wait and see".
This provides that a disposition is not to be void for remoteness until such time—if any—as it is established that the interest in question can only vest outside the perpetuity period. In the meantime the disposition is to be treated as if it were not subject to the rule against perpetuities, and trustees may properly exercise all their normal powers of advancement of capital, maintenance
684
of infant beneficiaries out of income, and the like. Of course, if it is apparent from the outset that the interest cannot vest within the permitted period, then the disposition is void ab initio. But otherwise it is to be valid unless and until it is established that it must vest, if it vests at all, after the end of the period.
The introduction of a "wait and see" rule creates one problem which is dealt with by subsection (2) of Clause 3. At present there is no great difficulty in ascertaining the life or lives in being for the purpose of determining the perpetuity period, but under the new rule there will be no obvious means of ascertaining what are the relevant lives. The subsection therefore lists the classes of lives which may be taken for this purpose. Of course, if the draftsman chooses the fixed period of 80 years, there will be no need to take lives into account at all.
Clause 4 provides two more methods of saving dispositions which would otherwise be void for perpetuity. Firstly, where there is a disposition to a person at a specified age over 21, and it becomes clear that the disposition is void but would have been valid if the age of 21 had been specified, then the specified age is to be treated as reduced so far as is necessary to save the disposition. If, for example, there is a gift to the first son of X to reach the age of 30, and X dies when the son is only 8, the disposition would, even under the "wait and see" rule, be void, as it would be established that the interest could not vest for a further 22 years. But if the specified age had been 29, the disposition would be valid, as it would necessarily vest within 21 years of X's death. The effect of the subsection on this example is therefore to reduce the age at which the son takes to 29, which is the nearest age to 30 necessary to save the disposition. This is in effect an extension of a provision in the Law of Property Act, 1925, which provides that in such a case the age of 21 is to be substituted for the specified age. By reducing the age only so far as is necessary to save the disposition, the Bill gives closer effect to the intentions of the settlor or testator.
Secondly, subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4 provide for validation of a disposition by the exclusion of members of

685
a class. Under the present law a class gift is totally void if it is possible that the interest of even one member of the class might not vest within the perpetuity period. It is now provided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee, that in such a case the class gift is not to be invalidated, and the disposition is to be construed as if it was only to those members of the class who comply with the perpetuity rule.
The combined effect of Clauses 3 and 4, where all their provisions are applicable, is that the "wait and see" rule is applied first, and if in the light of the events which actually happen the whole disposition is valid, there is no need to look further. But if the "wait and see" rule does not save the whole disposition, the "age reduction" provisions are applied in the hope of giving effect to the gift even if some of the beneficiaries take at an earlier age than was envisaged by the settlor or testator.
Finally, if neither of the preceding rules can save the disposition, class members are excluded so far as is necessary to give at least partial effect to it. This is the order of priority favoured by the minority of the Committee in the only recommendation over which there was any disagreement. The majority thought that there would be practical difficulties in applying this solution, and recommended that the order should be first age-reduction, then the "wait and see" rule, then exclusion of class-members. But the minority view seems preferable because it does less violence to the wishes of settlors and testators and the difficulties envisaged by the majority did not, on further examination, turn out to be very grave ones. I think in the House of Lords the adoption of the minority view was generally welcomed. Indeed, Lord Gardiner was one of the members of the minority whose view has now been adopted and he was able to welcome the fact in another place.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill give effect to other recommendations of the Committee. They are designed to reduce the occasions on which dispositions of property will fail by reason of the operation of the rule against perpetuities. Most of the Clauses deal with situations which arise comparatively rarely and I
686
do not think that hon. Members would wish me to enumerate them in detail at this stage. There are, however, one or two of the provisions which I think I ought to mention.
Clause 9 deals with options relating to land. Subsection (1) provides that the perpetuity rule is not to apply to an option conferred on a lessee or his successors in title to purchase the freehold or other reversionary interest, provided the option is exercisable only during the currency of the lease or within one year thereafter; while subsection (2) deals with all other options to purchase land, to which the rule against perpetuities will continue to apply.
It provides that the perpetuity period applicable to such options is always to be 21 years. No "Royal lives" clause can be used to extend the period; nor—since Clause 1 is expressly excluded—can any 80-year clause. The reason for this provision, which was recommended by the Committee, is that the grant of options to purchase, other than those dealt with in subsection (1), connected with leases, tends to discourage the maintenance and development of the land; an owner who has such an option hanging over his head for any length of time will be unwilling to spend money on land which he may lose if the option is exercised. The Clause therefore allows the land to be tied up in this way for the comparatively short period of 21 years only. If the option is not exercised within that time, it is to be treated as void in all respects.
The proviso to subsection (2) does, however, make special provision for churches. A special problem is posed by the fact that churches generally require to own the freehold of the land on which they build, while local and public authorities generally only grant leases of their land to developers. This problem is at present met by the use of a conveyancing device adopted with the general agreement of the institutions representing the churches and the local authorities, whereby the local authority conveys the freehold of the land to the church subject to an option to repurchase the land if it ceases to be used for religious purposes. The proviso enables this practice to continue; but, of course, as hitherto, the right of pre-emption will need to comply with the ordinary perpetuity rule; in

687
other words, the option will remain valid during the period allowed by, for example, a "Royal lives" clause, or the 80-year period permitted by Clause 1 of the Bill.
Finally, Clause 13 adds two new periods to the existing four periods for which income of a trust can be validly accumulated. The two new periods added by the Clause are 21 years from the date of the disposition and the minority, or respective minorities, of any person or persons in being at the date of the disposition. These will be additional to the four statutory periods already set out in Section 164 of the Law of Property Act 1925: the Committee recommended that their addition would be a considerable convenience to persons making settlements inter vivos.
With one exception, the Bill will apply only to instruments taking effect after the Bill becomes law. The Committee examined the possibility of retroactive operation but found that it could only be achieved at the price of more capriciousness and complication than seemed justifiable.
The Committee pointed out that in many cases property will already have been disposed of on the footing of a prior limitation being void for perpetuity and that it would be quite impracticable to reverse this process in cases where the new rules would have saved the prior limitation. It considered a suggestion that it might be possible to except such cases from a general retro-active provision, but decided that this would cause unfair discrimination between a person who had already received property on the basis that a prior limitation was, under the former rules, void for perpetuity, and a person who, on the same basis, was entitled to some property but had not yet actually received it.
If there were to be limited retroactive operation in the way suggested, the former would be allowed to keep the property, but the latter would be deprived of his right to it. The Committee decided that it was preferable to exclude any retro-active operation and, in accordance with its recommendation, the Bill will apply only to settlements executed, and to the wills of testators dying, after it becomes law.
688
The exception arises out of Clause 8, which provides that the rule against perpetuities is not to invalidate the exercise by trustees of their administrative powers of dealing with trust property in the interest of beneficiaries. That Clause is to apply to powers conferred by instruments taking effect before, as well as after, the Bill becomes law. The proposal involves no disturbance of beneficial interests, and there is no reason why trustees of existing trusts should not be able to exercise such powers in the future, whether or not they have done so in the past.
Those are the principal provisions of the Bill which, as I have said, implements to a very large extent the recommendations made by the Law Reform Committee. I fear that the provisions of the Bill may not be very inspiring, and are certainly most difficult. They are, none the less, of considerable importance to all concerned with the law of property and the administration of trusts and settlements.
The House will be interested to know that quite a number of countries in the Commonwealth and states in the United States have legislated on this topic in terms not entirely unlike those in this Bill. If the Measure assists in carrying out more truly the intentions of settlors and testators it will be welcomed by the House. In the famous words of Lord Atkin:—
"I anticipate with satisfaction that, henceforth, the group of ghosts of dissatisfied testators who, according to a late Chancery judge, wait on the other bank of the Styx to receive the judicial personages who have misconstrued their wills, may be considerably diminished."
I commend the Bill to the House.
8.8 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General certainly achieved one remarkable purpose in the course of his speech. He began his discussion of the Bill on a controversial note and launched out into what I thought was a touching apologia for the Government's record over their 12 years in office in the sphere of legal reform. It occurred to me that possibly his conscience had been stung when he read some observations made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a notable speech which he recently delivered to the Society of Labour Lawyers.

689
I will not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I hope he will allow me to say that it seemed that his apologia was far from adequate, and if he will be so good as to reread that speech, which certainly seemed to have moved him deeply, he will see that it touched on a large number of important topics to which the present Government have not addressed themselves but to which the Government who will, no doubt, he in office after October this year will certainly address themselves. I hope that I have not been trespassing on the rules of order, but it seems to me that possibly the comments I have made have not been altogether uninvited by the no doubt laudable efforts of the Attorney-General to wrest himself free from the leaden bonds of this rather dreary Bill.
Having made that attempt to get his head above water, the right hon. and learned Gentleman lapsed back into a tone which seemed to be more appropriate to the abstruse and remote subject of this extraordinary Measure. He proceeded to recite, no doubt from a carefully prepared script, the objects of the Bill. It would be a hardheaded hon. Member who would criticise him for reciting from a script and for reading his text. Normally the House is indulgent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he reads his Budget statement and the Foreign Secretary when reading important announcements on foreign policy. I think that the House would certainly be ready to admit a third ex-ception to the rule against reading speeches; in the case of the unfortunate Attorney-General of the day when explaining to such hon. Members as are present on both sides of the House the contents of a Bill of this sort, which is difficult to understand and difficult to expound—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my describing it as an explanation which was rather dreary to listen to.
With those preliminary observations—which are made, I can assure the Attorney-General, in the best spirit and with all good will towards him—I must say in regard to the content of the Measure that I accept, as does the Law Reform Committee, that it is clearly in the public interest that there should be some limit in time to the period for
690
which dispositions of property can extend. It is not in the public interest, except, perhaps, in the case of charitable trusts, with which we are not dealing, that individuals who own property can limit and settle their property in perpetuity. It was for that reason that the rule we are discussing was evolved by decisions dating back certainly to the eighteenth century, probably earlier, and settled, I think, in a case as early as 1685. We are, therefore, discussing a rule of considerable antiquity.
I am most comforted when I see present before me the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), possibly the only hon. Members among us able to swim easily and comfortably through the various intricacies of the proposals contained in this Measure. We common law practitioners must find our way rather gingerly through them.
Having so far begun my speech on that note of accord with the reasoning of the Law Reform Committee in its fourth Report, I join issue with the members of the Law Reform Committee on some points which are made in the course of their review of this subject. Before referring to those, however, I must say that I am in wholehearted agreement with the proposals in the Report in so far as they make for the removal of uncertainty and seek to prevent gifts, settlements and limitations of property from failing to take effect owing to some unexpected event.
Among the Clauses which are designed for that purpose and which, therefore, would have my support, I would list the Clause which, for example, introduces what I think is called the "Wait and see rule", an obviously sensible rule. Then there is the Clause which relates to the situation of a settlement of property on a man and his wife, and then on children of the survivor of the two. It seems unreasonable that a settlement of such property should be defeated because of the circumstance of the husband marrying a lady who, at the time of the settlement, was not yet born. This would obviously be an accident on the part of the draftsmen and it seems unreasonable that that sort of situation should present itself and that the settlement should fail.

691
Equally obviously in the public interest is it that uncertainty should be removed by the qualification as to the presumption that a woman of any age can have children. The new presumption inserted in Clause 2 as to the capacity to have children is a clear improvement. It makes for certainty and prevents long periods of waiting which otherwise must elapse. I would commend that and, equally, I would commend Clause 4, which relates to dispositions to persons over the age of 21, along with the subsections of Clause 4, which relate to the exclusion of members of a class who may present themselves and defeat the gift, contrary to the intention of the disponor and settler.
I also consider that the case is made out for the changes made in regard to the options to purchase land and property as contained in Clause 9 and the distinction between the case in which a lessee has an option to purchase the freehold and other options in relation to which the perpetuity rule is to apply under the terms of Clause 9. These sort of things represent a distinct improvement in this ancient branch of the law.
I rather join issue with the proposals of the Law Reform Committee in this. There must be a limit in time and at the moment that limit is a life in being and 21 years thereafter. The members of the Law Reform Committee propose an alternative limit of time—of 80 years. It seems to me that it is not altogether easy to justify that proposal. If one looks at the ground for this proposal set out in the Committee's Report, so far as I can see—and I do not wish to do injustice to the Report, which has been prepared as a result of devoted and valuable work on the part of the members of the Committee—for which we are grateful—is that the habit of using "Royal lives" in settlements is a wide-spread habit and the drafting device of "Royal lives" may produce the consequence that a very long period indeed may elapse during which a settlement may be valid.
It seems that conveyancers resort to that device and, in that way, enlarge the period to what may be not far short of a century. Whatever the period, it is certainly longer than one life in being and 21 years thereafter. I wonder if
692
that is an adequate reason, by itself, for proposing the alternative period of 80 years? I should have thought that there were serious objections to incorporating that alternative period as one which could be used by settlors of property. I say that because—and the hon. Member for Hendon, South will correct me, a common law practitioner, if I am wrong—it seems that if one provides the alternative period of 80 years one is giving almost carte blanche to those who draw up settlements which contain discretionary trusts for a period of 80 years.
Broadly speaking, though I agree that there may be exceptions to the general proposition which I am about to advance, I should have thought that the discretionary trust is not a trust which conduces to any really useful public purpose. I should have thought that it was the general experience of lawyers, that discretionary trusts operate often for the purpose, in the first place, of defeating creditors. In the second place they operate for the purpose of setting at defiance the Inland Revenue, avoiding payment of Surtax, and for purposes of that sort.
I should have thought that there was no really corresponding advantage to be gained by the use of a discretionary trust, a trust under the terms of which trustees can at their discretion pay income to persons who may not be able to manage their own affairs as they ought to manage them. They may in certain circumstances be useful, but I should have thought that the anti-social use of discretionary trusts very greatly outweighs the advantages from the general public interest point of view which are to be derived from the use of discretionary trusts.
It seems to me that the Bill says, in effect, to draftsmen, "Here you are, you can easily now create a discretionary trust for 80 years", with all the undesirable features attendant on it. If the answer is that they can do that already by using the "Royal lives" device it seems to me, with great respect to the Attorney-General, that that is not an adequate answer. It is a case of saying that two blacks make one white, and because one can use that device it does not seem to me that there is any case for providing an easier alternative

693
method of achieving a purpose which fundamentally should not be encouraged.
I would join issue therefore with the Law Reform Committee in its proposal that there should be this alternative 80 years' period which can be used by settlors of property. It seems to me that the case is not made out for that. I should have thought that we would want considerably greater justification for that proposal than we have had hitherto. I would say, in general, with regard to the findings of the Law Reform Committee in its Report, that we should look at the rule against perpetuities and accumulations, not so much in the setting in which it was evolved when it related to large landed estates in the eighteenth and nineteenth century but in the setting of today, when I suppose that there are a considerable number of people with modest fortunes, which they have secured by their labours in their working lives, who want to make provision for their widows and, when their widows die, for their children. I should have thought that a life in being plus 21 years thereafter was the appropriate period.
The Attorney-General, when dealing with the "Royal lives" device, pointed out that the Law Reform Committee had come to the conclusion that it was difficult to limit by definition the lives in question, by reference to which the period is to be determined, in such a way as to connect them in some way with the trust or disposition in question. No doubt there are serious difficulties of definition. If, however, these difficulties of definition could be overcome I should have thought that this would be a better Bill if the lives in question could be limited in some way to the beneficiaries of the trust rather than that we should provide this alternative period of 80 years.
These are all matters which, no doubt, we shall examine more closely in Committee. I would not advise the House to refuse the Bill a Second Reading, because it seems to me that the improvements which the Bill makes very easily outweigh the defect in it of providing the alternative 80 years' period. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to look at it rather more closely in Committee and that we shall then
694
examine individually the proposals in the separate Clauses rather more minutely than we normally do on Second Reading. If that is the right approach, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
8.23 p.m.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I agree with both my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that this is a disgustingly technical Bill. As it is now nearly a quarter of a century since I had the honour of addressing a Chancery judge, I do not find it any easier to read or understand the Bill. I would prefer to describe it as "caviare to the general" rather than as an ocean of boredom, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. But though it is technical, the Bill is of great importance because it is concerned with the individual's power to dispose of his property freely. I should have thought that that would be one of the most important things that we could discuss in the House.
Many men desire to extend their control over their property into the future, and even long after they will be dead. That wish is perfectly natural and perfectly proper, and it is of great value. I believe that nothing does so much to stimulate and guide the economic activity of many men, and particularly of able men, as the dual wish to perpetuate their life's work and to provide for their family. It is true, of course, that this kind of wish can be excessive. It has certainly been curbed since 1894 by the provisions of the Finance Act, importing Estate Duty. Recently, the effect of inflation has also tended to prevent this wish being so present in people's minds as it used to be, but I think that its influence remains, and remains important.
The Bill deals with fundamental principles of our law in this connection and we must look at it very carefully for that reason. In the preface to the leading work on this subject, Gray on Perpetuities. the following passage is to be found:
"The doctrines derived from the feudal law…have passed away. Of all that forest of learning there remains here and there only a stump over which the unlucky

695
testator may stumble. But the Rule against Perpetuities is in full vigour. Where the Legislature has interfered, it has been to increase its stringency. Indeed, the Rule is substantially, at the present day, the law of future interests."
Later there is the passage:
"In no part of the law is the reasoning so mathematical in its character: none has so small a human element."
Those words were written in America in 1886. I think that they are still true in England at the present time.
I certainly welcome the intention of the Bill to make the law more sensible and less rigid, more human and less mathematical, but there are criticisms which can be made against the precise proposals of the Bill. Under Clause 1, as the right hon. Member for Newport has said, the new power to tie up property for as long as 80 years seems to me to be for a very long time. I do not believe that anyone at any time can cast his mind forward to consider what the position will be like 80 years from the time of making a particular disposition. I do not believe that anyone desiring to give property can contemplate the merits of any gift which is only effective to take place 80 years hence.
I know that the provision in the Bill is based upon the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee's Report, and particularly on the sentence in paragraph 9 on page 7:
"It is necessary to specify a substantial period such as 80 years in order to attract draftsmen away from the 'Royal lives' clauses…"
The Committee was clearly uneasy about the length of the period of 80 years which it itself suggested. The Committee is defending that period, saying that, in effect, it is defensible only because, if there is some shorter period, draftsmen will go on using the "Royal lives" clauses and not this new proposed provision.
I myself think that that is a bad principle. I object to encouraging people to think that they should make trusts for fixed periods of time. I am perfectly happy that some trusts should go on for long periods. Where a very small child takes a benefit, the trust may well need to run for a very long time. But the perpetuity period has so far been based
696
on the principle that a person can give a benefit to another person for his or her life, and this is introducing an entirely new principle, that it is proper to tie up property for as long as 80 years.
For my part, I should prefer to leave the law in this respect as it stands. I should prefer us to leave draftsmen who wish to make long trusts and testators or settlors who wish to give instructions to draftsmen to have to contend with these devices. The mere fact that one has to use devices is, at least, some warning to those concerned that what they are doing is not really proper and is not really countenanced by the Legislature. In my view, if we are to have a fixed period somewhat longer than the present 21 years, it should be at the most about twice that, say 40 years. At all events, I should like something substantially less than 80 years.
The troubles to which the rule against perpetuities has given rise are not altogether due to the absence of such a power as is given by Clause 1. They are almost all due to inadvertence. Sensible people do not wish to tie up their property for long periods, certainly not in the age in which we are now living. Sometimes, of course, long periods are desirable. The case of the spendthrift child is one example. Perhaps the strongest is the case of the young daughter married to a spendthrift husband. I am not for a moment saying that one should not ever make trusts extending over 40 years, but I am saying that those are essentially trusts for particular lives. People make wills and settlements with their actual families and the actual circumstances of the time in mind, and they forget that circumstances may change. Draftsmen are capable of making mistakes.
It is these misadventures or inadvertancies which have led to undesired and sometimes even disastrous results. But such results will not in any way be prevented by the power given by Clause 1. That power will merely enable trusts to be made for very long periods, possibly, as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport suggested, long discretionary trusts not really intended to benefit particular individuals in the mind of the donor or testator but with a view, rather, to perpetuating his own personality over a long period to come. In my view, that is wrong in principle.

697
The best use of a long fixed period would be, I think, by way of a saving proviso, something validating all dispositions actually taking effect within the period of 40, 50 or 60 years, whatever it might be. In my view, it would be better, if we are to change the law here, that we should import into every trust some such saving proviso as that which could be ousted in case of need by express provision within the trust instrument.
I think that the "wait and see" principle introduced by Clause 3 is quite acceptable. It gives more flexibility. On the other hand, the House should realise that, while giving flexibility, it will take away a good deal of simplicity. I shall give a specific example. Suppose that a will gives property to be divided among the children of the testator and it then provides that, in the case of a daughter, she shall take only a life interest, and, after her death, then to the children, say, at the time of their marriage. That gift over would at present be invalid for perpetuity, because, of course, the children might not be born or might not be married within 21 years. So, the further provision being bad, the present law provides that daughters are to take the original interest given to them, namely, the absolute interest, and they will take an absolute share in the property from the date of the testator's death. That is the principle which, I think, was laid down in Hancock v. Watson.
As I understnad it, that disposition will be upset by Clause 3 because it will be possible that, if one waits and sees, none of the daughter's children will be married outside the perpetuity period so that such a daughter, instead of taking an immediate absolute interest, will have to wait until the day of her death until it is known whether her interest is absolute or merely a life interest.
I think that this will create considerable difficulty, and I am not sure that the problems so created will be altogether outweighed by the advantages of the flexibility which the Clause gives. On the whole, my inclination is to think that the principle of the Clause is right, but certainly as regards such cases as those coming within the Hancock v. Watson rule, we shall have to look at the Clause again.
698
There are many technical matters to be discussed during the Committee stage. I hope that the points which I have mentioned can be dealt with and that the Bill will be improved. Subject to that, it has my warm support.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Report on which the Bill is based is signed by people of extreme distinction and is of unsurpassed elegance. I am amazed that great people with such needle-sharp brains should ever have found the time to come together to write this elegant and admirable Report. I thoroughly support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his defence of the Government's record in law reform, but I wonder whether we will be able to rely for ever on such distinguished people being able to do such distinguished work in their spare time. I do not understand how this miracle was achieved.
The important and somewhat revolutionary treatment of the perpetuity rule in this Bill finds its kernel in the wait-and-see provisions as opposed to the present and ancient ab initio approach. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that this will in any way conduce to certainty. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that it will in many cases lead to uncertainty. What the Committee has done, and what the Bill does, is to prefer fairness to certainty. Always in the law and in the reform of the law one has this balance, which is so difficult to strike, between the demands of certainty and the demands of fairness. As present, when the matter is decided ab initio, the moment the instrument speaks one gets certainty, although often the results are unfair.
I think that now we shall get much greater fairness but that the passage of time and the applications to the court which will be made many years after the death of the testator or settlor, as the case may be—and only then will any certainty emerge—will provoke in future rather more difficulties of administration and of expectation, and indeed of decision-making by the courts, than has been envisaged.
Sir F. Soskice: I did not express myself clearly. I did not rely on that particular Clause as increasing certainty, but I commended it as a Clause which prevented gifts failing. I believed that that was its value
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I thought that that was probably the case. It does not lead to certainty, but it leads to fairness, particularly in the matter which the right hon. and learned Member has mentioned—the capricious failure of gifts owing to some error in drafting the instrument. I believe that this uncertainty and the need for greater numbers of applications to the court is a price worth paying. I think that that has been the experience in the State of Pennsylvania and other States in America which have fairly recently adopted this approach instead of the old approach. It is, I think, to be welcomed.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained that the Bill is not to be retroactive. That must surely be so, because a great many interests have now become vested in every sense of the word and it would be quite wrong to upset them where the consequences of the old rule are clear. I think that the old rule is much clearer than some hon. Members have suggested. It would therefore be very unwise for any practitioners, from the day that the Royal Assent is given to the Bill, to throw away their editions of Gray, or Morris and Leach, or Snell, or Cherry or any important works like these, because they will need them for a long time. Even after 80 years or more they will always be able to sell them in Dublin, or British Guiana, or in some place which has retained the old law, as we often find to be the case.
The Bill is retroactive with regard to trustees' administration powers, but there is a further respect in which it should be retroactive because the law is not clear. Where the law is clear, I see the very strong argument for it not being retroactive. A recent decision of Mr. Justice Cross, which will be familiar to all hon. Members, dealt with the future easements of sewers and drains. This has thrown many fluttering feathers into Lincoln's Inn. Briefly, the decision was that the grant of easements for drains and sewers and other such common
700
appurtenances which have not yet been created but which are to be built are void for being a perpetuity.
This at one time provoked a certain amount of trouble in the Law Society, although my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor persuaded their lordships that the Law Society had rather withdrawn its objection. The law, however, is by no means clear, in spite of the great eminence of Mr. Justice Cross, because in a decision in Sharpe v. Durrant in 1910, Mr. Justice Warrington, of equal eminence and distinction, who later became Lord Warrington, although holding that such easements were void, nevertheless said that he was prepared to grant an injunction to restrain not only the original contracting parties but also their assignees, against doing anything which would infringe the covenant, which, of course, was part of the easement. Therefore, the same result would be obtained as if the easement was not void for perpetuity.
I could give a quite interesting lecture on the point, but it would take a long time. All I am seeking to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that the law on this point is in confusion. That being so, it would surely be a good idea to take the chance of the Bill to clear it up. At present, the decision of Mr. Justice Cross, although great authority must be attributed to it, is only that of a court of first instance. There is the slight conflict with Sharpe v. Durrant, and in any event, whatever the rights or wrongs, it is surely desirable that people should be able to grant easements not only of drains and sewers which exist at present but of those which are contemplated and are liable shortly to be created.
There is a precedent for that. Section 162 of the Law of Property Act, which was passed at a time when there was doubt whether easements even of existing sewers, drains and the like might not be void for perpetuity. It provided "that for removing doubts"—and if ever there were doubts, they exist now—the rule against perpetuities did not apply and should be deemed never to have applied to certain easements, namely, the working of mines, the felling of timber, the execution of repairs or

701
alterations on adjoining land and constructing and maintaining sewers, watercourses, drains, gas pipes, electric wires or other like works.
The learned authors of the second edition of Morris and Leach go on to say:
"This does not apply if the sewers are to be constructed at some time in the future after the easement is granted."
I suggest that it should apply and that we ought to make it apply in the Bill, because, as so often happens in commercial realms where the law against perpetuities was never expected to apply, it produces the most ludicrous results.
My other two points on the Bill, which otherwise I entirely welcome, are, first, a slight doubt upon altering the presumption relating to childbearing. It is wrong to have a presumption either way. It seems to me to be quite wrong that it should be presumed—and, indeed, conclusively presumed—that any woman of any age is capable of bearing a child for the purpose of ascertaining the perpetuity period. But it also seems to me to be wrong to presume the opposite. I say this not because I think that they are likely to do so but because under the Adoption Acts which the House of Commons has recently passed an adopted child has exactly the same status as a natural child. Therefore, if any sort of presumption that women over 55 are incapable of having children is made, we shall get into some difficulty, even though that presumption is rebuttable, if the question of the adopted child is ignored.
It is true to say that it is very rare for children to be adopted in the United Kingdom when the adoptive parent is over 55, though I do not think that it is impossible and I do not think that it has never been done. It is quite often done abroad, particularly in France. The life, the 21 years, and all the provisions relating to evolution, apply just as much to foreigners or to British citizens domiciled abroad who can adopt over the age of 55 as it does to those in this country. I should very much like my right hon. and learned Friend to look once again to see that he has not gone too far in altering the presumption round the other way.
It seems to me that no presumption is necessary either way and under the "wait
702
and see" procedure, which we all commend, it should be possible for the court to look at the matter in a commonsense way, irrespective of presumptions.
Finally, Clause 9 is somewhat out of keeping with the rest of the Bill, The rest of the Bill, as the Long Title shows, seeks
"to modify the law of England and Wales relating to the avoidance of future interests in property on grounds of remoteness…"
In other words, it seeks to reduce the incidence of the perpetuity rule. In Clause 9(2), however, it does the opposite; it seeks to enlarge the perpetuity rule, if indeed it can be properly so described in this connection.
The perpetuity rule, strictly so called, has nothing to do with Clause 9(2). It is used in Clause 9(2) in the sense of a law against the duration of an interest. Some of the argument which took place between the right hon. and learned Member for Newport and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South seemed to regard the perpetuity rule as a rule dealing with the duration of an interest. That is not a strict definition of the perpetuity rule. The perpetuity rule deals with the commencement of an interest. It is when the interest concerned shall first begin, and not how long an interest shall last. However, in Clause 9(2) it seems to me that the laxer, and, in my view, debased, definition of the perpetuity rule has been adopted.
As to options in gross, which are what Clause 9(2) deals with, the provision is this:
"In the case of a disposition consisting of the conferring of an option to acquire for valuable consideration any interest in land, the perpetuity period under the rule against perpetuities shall be twenty-one years…"
The rule against perpetuities, strictly, under the re Chardon decision and according to Mr. Gray's authoritative work, to which reference has been made, does not deal with the duration period at all. It deals with the vesting of an interest. Under the effect of Clause 9(2), an option in gross—that is, an option in a personal covenant between two people—shall be able to last for only 21 years, whether or not it is assigned, whether or not it is devolved.
This seems to me to be a misuse of language. It may be that it is only that.

703
It may be that the combination of Clause 10 with Clause 9(2) makes it clear that the rule against perpetuities is being used in a wider sense than the correct, classical sense. But it should be cleared up. I have heard doubts expressed by eminent lawyers on the subject, and if the rule against perpetuities is being there used in the sense of a period of duration and not of a method of discovery when the interest first bites, that should be made much clearer.
I ask myself one question. Even assuming that the effect is as the Government say it is, and henceforward a duration period of 21 years shall be the maximum creating an option in gross of this sort, is that the right public policy? I do not quite see why one should fetter the freedom of contract in this way.
Supposing two neighbouring land-owners agree to give each other first refusal on their land, should either ever wish to sell, at a price to be agreed by arbitration. They both live for longer than 21 years. Why should the agreement not continue in force? What is wrong with that? Yet it would be caught by these provisions. Why should not two neighbours agree to grant each other options to purchase each other's land for a longer period than 21 years? It does not seem to me that it is essential to interfere with the freedom to make a contract of that sort, and if it is not essential then it is essential not to, under the philosophy of these benches.
I do not see why it is necessary to do this and I think we shall get into trouble. Indeed, trouble has already been got into. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, there is to be an exemption because Lord Silsoe, in another place, discovered that it would cause great trouble for churches in new towns. But there are similar instances—schools in old towns, for example—in which it is convenient to grant options either to purchase or repurchase for periods of longer than 21 years.
I therefore ask myself whether we really need this provision. It is out of accord with the rest of the Bill, which
704
does not seek to make the rule against perpetuities more rigid but less rigid. Suddenly, here the Bill would make it tighter. We are not relieving the dead hand of its grip, but are actually putting the living hand on with a firm grip, and that is wrong.
I do not feel that this is either such an abstruse or dull subject as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport suggested. We are doing something to modernise the property laws of the country, which is something that we surely all should welcome. For that reason, I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has done what he has done tonight.
9.0 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I merely wish to emphasise that every speaker in the debate has, in general, welcomed the Bill although there have been one or two criticisms of some of the Clauses. I can foresee that in Committee there will be plenty of caviar for those who have the privilege of attending to these fascinating problems and that we will be able to embark upon the important—from the point of view of those involved—and interesting—from the point of view of lawyers—technical problems about the property law and how it can be improved.
It would not be appropriate at this stage for me to embark upon a discussion of the very interesting points raised. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for the helpful criticisms they have made. I will certainly consider them. Obviously, we will consider them in Committee and, therefore, I do not think it would be appropriate for me now to take up the further time of the House in dealing with the details. As the Bill has had a general welcome, I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]

  Clause 1.—(POWER OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL TO ORDER NEW TRIAL.)
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
  (3) No retrial by virtue of this section shall be directed where by reason of evidence received by the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 there is a reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty as charged.
  It is said that if a prisoner applies for a new trial there ought to be power in the court to order it. This Bill now gives that power but only by reason of evidence received or available to be received by the court. If the Bill gave that power where an appellant specifically restricted his appeal to a request for a new trial, I would certainly be in favour of it. But what it, in fact, does is to alter the position that exists today.
  Today, if an appellant appeals against his conviction upon the ground that there is fresh evidence available which will show, or help to show, that his conviction is wrong and the court admits that evidence, the court hears the evidence and if there is reasonable doubt the court allows the appeal, quashes the conviction, the appellant is released, and that is an end of the matter.
  If the Bill becomes law as drafted, on any such appeal the court may well say that there should be a new trial, with all the unsatisfactory consequences of a new trial. I move the adoption of this new subsection because it seems to me that that entails a clear departure from a well-established and well recognised principle of our law.
  In Committee, in moving a similar Amendment, I quoted a passage from a judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, in the case of Harding, reported in the Criminal Appeal Reports, Vol. No. XXV, and I should like to inflict it once again on the House. Lord Hewart used these words:
  "The question for this Court to consider is whether, if that evidence had been given before
  706
  the jury, it might have had the effect of raising in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt. The function of the prosecution is, of course, to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it tails to fulfil that condition, the prisoner is entitled "—
  I emphasise these words—
  "to be acquitted. The burden of proof is never upon the prisoner. Acquittal must follow if the evidence is such as to cause a reasonable doubt, because that is only another way of saying that the prosecution have failed to establish the case."
  That principle—that if there is a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof upon it and the accused person should be acquitted—is one of the most important in our criminal law.
  In Committee, the Solicitor-General said that he recognised the importance of that principle. He sought to distinguish between what he called a clear doubt and he went on to say that it must have this power
  "when it conies to the conclusion that a jury might have had a reasonable doubt. That is the case when the Court of Criminal Appeal would apply the new powers provided by this Measure."
  I ask the House to note the words he added:
  "I want there to be no doubt in the mind of the Committee that this extended power to he given to the Court of Criminal Appeal will, in my view, be used by the Court to a certain extent to qualify—if one likes to call it that—the principle in Harding's case".
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) used these words which are very appropriate to my argument:
  "Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is any risk that if we pass this Clause we shall, by implication, introduce some amendment into the principle stated in Harding's case? Will the Court of Criminal Appeal, now being armed with this fresh power, be bound to say to itself, 'Until this Clause became law we were bound by the principle in Harding. The two are inconsistent. They will not stand up together. Therefore, we must henceforth regard the principle in Harding's case as, to some extent qualified '".
  That is exactly what the Solicitor-General said. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
  "In that case, might it not lead to the dangerous result that the Court of Criminal Appeal, being left in doubt whether the conviction would have stood had the further evidence been given, will say, 'We will not act on that doubt, but will send it back to a new jury to see whether or not our doubt

  707
  is well founded'? If that is the case, is it not rather an unfortunate situation to bring about by this new legislation?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 11th March, 1964; c. 103–16.]
  It is because I feel that there should be no departure from the principle set out in the Harding case that I move the Amendment.
  I ask that the principle in our criminal law—that if the prosecution fails to discharge the burden of proof upon it, the accused person shall not be convicted—shall still stand as a fundamental principle of our law, unqualified, as it has stood for centuries.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) moved an identical Amendment in Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, replied to it, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman did not withdraw his Amendment he did not divide the Committee on it. On this occasion I will seek to reply to him. I cannot tell whether I can convince him, but I hope that I shall be able to convince the House. I am, of course, maintaining my record in that I am the only non-legally qualified hon. Member to have spoken on the Bill at any of its stages through this House.
  The purpose of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to ensure that the Court of Criminal Appeal will direct a verdict of acquittal, not only in cases when it is satisfied that, having regard to the new evidence, the jury would have had reasonable doubt, but also in cases where it concludes that the jury might have had a reasonable doubt.
  There is a distinction between them, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was right in saying that the Bill does to some extent qualify the Lord Chief Justice's judgment in Harding's case. Indeed, it is part of the purpose of the Bill to give a wider discretion to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Under the present law, if the C.C.A. considers that the fresh evidence that it has heard would be bound to have raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
  708
  trial jury, it will direct acquittal. If, on the other hand, it is satisfied that the evidence would not have persuaded the jury to any other conclusion, it will dismiss the appeal.
  Those are the simple cases. Between those extremes there is a wide range of circumstances in which the court has the very difficult task of assessing whether the jury's verdict might or might not have been affected. But, having heard the whole of the evidence given at the trial, and without knowing what weight the jury attached to various parts of it, the C.C.A. must now decide what effect the new evidence would have had. If as a result of this very difficult assessment the C.C.A. concludes that the jury might have been led to a different verdict, under the existing law it would allow the appeal and enter an acquittal.
  But there are cases in which the C.C.A. finds extreme difficulty, on the limited material before it—not having heard the original trial—in deciding whether the jury's verdict at that trial might have been affected had the new evidence been before it. It is in these borderline cases that the evaluation of the evidence can best be done by presenting all the evidence to a new jury. This is what the Bill will permit. It seems to the Government that it is desirable that the C.C.A. should have this wider discretion.
  I do not want to be too severe on the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seems to me that if his Amendment were written into the Bill, it might be a wrecking Amendment. Indeed, some words that he used in Committee made me wonder whether he intended it to be a wrecking Amendment, but I am not going to treat it as such.
  I rest my case on this: there are cases in which the C.C.A. feels quite clearly that there would have been a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury had the new evidence been before it; there are other cases in which the C.C.A. feels that there would be no doubt even if the new evidence had been presented to the jury; and there are these intermediate cases in which the C.C.A. feels that there might have been some doubt. But the Court itself, not having been present at the original trial, cannot, with certainty, assess what would have been the verdict of the jury

  709
  had this additional evidence been available. These are the cases in which, in the view of the Government, the C.C.A. should have the discretion to order a new trial.
  Mr. Weitzman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us quite clearly that the intention of the Bill is to alter the law as laid down in the words of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Harding?
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I do not want to prolong the debate, but my hon. Friends and I feel real anxiety about this matter. We are dealing with the Court of Criminal Appeal, which is the linchpin of our administration of justice. The Home Secretary has struggled with the legal problem with great skill and courtesy, as he always does, and he has done his best to help us, but I do not know whether the Attorney-General has had an opportunity of considering the point, and whether he could give us some help in addition to that which we have already received. We should have this quite right.
  I put this to the Home Secretary: there may be cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeal says that the further evidence could not have influenced the jury. Those cases are out; we are not dealing with them. There may be cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeal says, "This further evidence would have influenced the jury." We are not considering those cases and we can leave them out of account. Then we come to the intermediate case, about which I am not sure that we are clear where we are going.
  The Home Secretary has said that that was the case in which the Court of Criminal Appeal said, "This is a case in which the further evidence might have influenced the jury." As I understand the existing law, if that were the view of the Court of Criminal Appeal it would have resulted in the allowing of the appeal. That is the effect of Harding's case. The Home Secretary then said that there is a further sort of case in which the Court of Criminal Appeal says, "This evidence might or might not have affected the jury." I may be wrong, but logically I cannot distinguish that case from the case in which the Court of Criminal Appeal says,
  710
  "This is a case in which the evidence might have affected the view of the jury." There is no distinction between the two.
  If it is said of a case, "In the circumstances of this case the jury might or might not have been influenced by the fresh evidence," it is said, ipso facto and automatically, "This is a case in which it is possible that the jury's verdict might have been different." That is another way of saying, "This is a case in which the jury might have been influenced by the fresh evidence." I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the distinction that he is trying to make between the case where a jury might have been influenced or might not have been influenced is a non-existent distinction.
  If that is logically right, I ask for a little more guidance from the Government as to what we are doing by the Bill, which is now almost an Act. We are raising this question in this debate, as we have raised it before. Although the Bill is now almost an Act this point is none the less important. Therefore, I hope that we may have some clearer thinking about this. I say that with due respect to the Home Secretary. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has had an opportunity of going into the matter in order to see whether he can clarify it, but he is very learned in the law and he may be able to take the matter a little further.
  What are we doing by the Bill? The Solicitor-General said that we are altering the ruling in Harding's case. What alteration are we making in it? How is Harding's case now to be regarded as qualified by the wording of the Bill? I hope that we may be given some help on this matter, which is one of great importance. It will govern the law for many years to come, and it is possible that we are getting ourselves into a state of confusion and putting a very difficult task before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): As I see it, the Amendment would preserve the law in its present form. It would still leave the Court of Criminal Appeal as the determiner of the facts. The difficulties that have arisen in this connection have arisen not in cases where the facts are agreed

  711
  and the only question is what inferences should be drawn from those facts, but in cases where, the jury having heard a lot of evidence and the Court of Criminal Appeal having only seen the transcript of the evidence and having heard a lot of additional evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal has to make up its mind what the jury would have thought if it had heard that evidence, when it does not know what impact the witness made on the jury, or the basis upon which it came to its conclusion.
  As I see the Clause and the Bill, the purpose of it is this. If the additional evidence that comes before the Court of Criminal Appeal is undisputed, and the inference is plain that it would clearly influence a jury in coming to its decision and might have led to the conclusion that there was a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, in those circumstances, the appeal will be allowed as heretofore. On the other hand, if it is plain that the evidence is irrelevant or wholly unreliable, and would not have made any difference to any rational jury, the Court of Criminal Appeal will dismiss the appeal.
  While it is absolutely logical to say that if it might have affected a jury, then there ought to be an acquittal as heretofore, that jumps over the initial stage in which the Court of Criminal Appeal has to take a decision whether it is right that it should make up its mind about the impact of the facts. At present, upon an appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal has to look at the additional evidence and take it with a lot of evidence which it has not heard in a trial in an atmosphere of which it is unaware. It has to add that additional evidence to the transcript and determine whether the charge is made out, despite the additional evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, or whether a jury might have allowed an acquittal because of a reasonable doubt.
  All that is happening is that where the evidence leaves the Court of Criminal Appeal in a state of mind in which it says, "With this additional evidence against the transcript, we cannot say what a jury might have done" the right thing to do—particularly where there is a direct conflict in the additional evidence with the evidence on the tran-
  712
  script—is to say that a jury is the right machinery under which the whole evidence ought to be looked at again, in order that the jury, taking note of the evidence, can determine what effect it had.
  As I see it, the golden thread running through our law—that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—remains unaltered. The only question is whether, in certain circumstances, that decision must be taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal, acting partially on behalf of a jury, or whether, in those intermediate cases, it might be transferred to a new jury to take that decision. That is why the power is granted, and that is the purpose of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
  (3) No retrial by virtue of this section shall be directed where the appellant has been found guilty by a second jury after a first jury has failed to agree.
  This Amendment seeks to restrict the application of subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill. I ask that the provision contained there should not apply to cases where the appellant has been found guilty by a second jury after a first jury has failed to agree. In my view, a second trial is always unsatisfactory. If a jury disagrees, surely that means that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury, who are the judges of fact. I have always taken the view that once a jury has disagreed, the accused person should be adjudged to be not guilty, and acquitted.
  If the Bill becomes law in its present form, an accused person may be faced with three trials. He may be tried first by a jury which disagrees. He may be tried a second time and convicted. He may appeal on the grounds, of fresh evidence being available, and a new trial may be ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, so that he is tried a third time. I remind the House that if an accused person is tried and the jury disagrees, and if he is tried a second time and the jury again disagrees, the Crown recognises that it is wrong to put him on trial a third time. A verdict of not guilty is entered and he is discharged.

  713
  Why should there be power under this Bill to order a new trial in a case where it means a third trial?
  One has only to think of what it means to an accused person, of the anguish and worry that would be caused to him. One has only to think how unsatisfactory a third trial would be, especially in a case where the court says that consideration has to be given to fresh evidence. If the fresh evidence is such that the verdict of the jury cannot stand, surely it is a case of reasonable doubt and the court in those circumstances should quash the conviction and order the prisoner's release.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member moved an identical Amendment in Standing Committee and on that occasion it was I who replied to him. After had given a reply which reads to me quite logically and cogently, the hon. and learned Member was gracious enough to say:
  "I do not understand a word of what the Home Secretary has said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 11th March, 1964, c. 108.]
  That might have been my fault or his fault. May be there is a difference of opinion between us on that question, but I shall seek to present the case again.
  Nobody is in doubt, as he said, that when two successive juries have failed to agree it is the normal practice for the prosecution to offer no evidence, so that the case falls and the man is acquitted. But that is not the position here. Here there has been a trial and the jury has disagreed. Then there has been a second trial and the new jury has decided that there was no reasonable doubt that the man was guilty. The man then appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal and it is at that point that we have to consider what the Court of Criminal Appeal should do. Surely the Court of Criminal Appeal should concern itself—and Parliament and everyone should be concerned—with the fact that at the second trial a jury of 12 men or women came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable doubt that the man was guilty, and consequently found him guilty. That overrides what had happened earlier, the division of opinion among the jury at the first trial.
  It is to that situation that the Court of Criminal Appeal has to address it-
  714
  self. It has to consider, as we discussed on the previous Amendment, whether it thinks that, had the new evidence been available, the jury would have felt there was doubt as to the man's guilt; or whether the jury would have felt no doubt; or whether the jury might have felt a doubt. What happened at the first trial when the jury failed to agree is not relevant to the problem to which the Court of Criminal Appeal has to address itself in deciding whether to dismiss the appeal, or to quash the conviction at the second trial, or to order a new trial.
  The hon. and learned Members says that it is unfair that in any case there should be a third trial, but what he is proposing, as I pointed out in Committee, would also have unfair consequences. Suppose there were two men before the Court of Criminal Appeal on similar charges in similar circumstances, and in each case the Court of Criminal Appeal felt that the jury at the trial might have felt doubt, had the new evidence been available, as to the man's guilt.
  In those circumstances, under the Bill as it stands the Court of Criminal Appeal would have discretion to order a new trial. But if one of those men had gone through a trial where the jury had failed to agree and had been convicted at a second trial, the acceptance of the Amendment would take away the power of the Court of Criminal Appeal in that man's case, but not in the other man's case, to order a further trial. As I understand it, if a man had a first trial at which the jury failed to agree and had then been convicted at a second trial, the Court of Criminal Appeal, even though it wished and would have thought right to order a new trial, would, if the Amendment were accepted, be debarred from doing so.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that in those circumstances the Court of Criminal Appeal would quash the conviction?
  Mr. Brooke: Under the Amendment, because the original jury had not been able to come to a unanimous conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal would have to quash the conviction. As I was pointing out, in a virtually similar case where the jury had agreed at the first trial on a verdict of guilty, the court of Criminal

  715
  Appeal would have discretion to order a new trial. I do not think that we should take away that discretion from the Court of Criminal Appeal simply and solely because, when the man first stood his trial, the jury had failed to agree.
  I am pointing out to the hon. and learned Member that if the Amendment were accepted it would cause unfairness between two men in similar circumstances. In this connection, the hon. and learned Member said in Committee that he thought it would be unfair for the man to stand a third trial; but he did not address himself to the point I put—that it would be unfair to treat two people similarly placed differently, simply because in one case the jury had failed to agree. I am bound to advise the House, as I advised the Committee, that to accept the Amendment would not improve the Bill, although I entirely appreciate the compassionate reasons which led the hon. and learned Member to suggest it.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: Until the Home Secretary's last phrase, I doubted in my mind whether he had appreciated the point underlying the Amendment. He told the House that he is the only non-lawyer to have addressed either the House or the Committee on this Bill. To any other non-lawyer listening to the right hon. Gentleman and ignorant of the fact that the Home Secretary is a non-lawyer, he would not have guessed it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Most non-lawyers would consider the right hon. Gentleman's reply to have been a typically lawyer's answer. It sought to draw a highly technical legal distinction in answer to what is basically a simple, humanitarian issue.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said, lawyers dislike and detest retrials. It is not only lawyers but anyone who knows what is involved in a retrial who hates and detests them—although it is generally only lawyers who know that, although everyone knows or is capable of understanding that for a man to undergo a trial by jury is in itself a great ordeal. If he is innocent—and we must assume that we are discussing the cases of at least some people who may be innocent—then to have to go through
  716
  that ordeal a second time is bound, to some extent, to be oppressive.
  The law has accepted, before the Bill was introduced, at least one exception; that is, where a first jury disagrees the man can be retried, when it is thought right to see if a second jury reaches finality. However, if the second jury is unable to reach finality the prosecution offers no evidence and there is no third trial. Why not? On the argument put forward by the Home Secretary there is no earthly reason why there should not be a third.
  It might be convenient for me to borrow his argument—if it be an argument at all, which I do not think it is. It might be most unfair if there were two men in like circumstances charged with similar crimes and if one of them had the good fortune that the jury agreed the first time but the second jury disagreed. How unfair it would be if the first man who got convicted saw that his friend, in a like situation, got away with it because the soft-hearted prosecution decided to offer no evidence the third time.
  The reason I say that this is no argument is that I do not think that any convicted criminal feels any sense of resentment when another person who may have been a co-accused and, perhaps a co-criminal, got away with it. The attitude of the convicted man in such a case is usually, "Good luck to him". This shows that the argument of the Home Secretary is not realistic or even an answer.
  The reason why the prosecution do not offer evidence the third time if two juries have disagreed is simply that it is thought to be oppressive beyond the limits of what the law can stand or defend. Therefore, if two juries disagree the man is not put through the ordeal a third time. I agree that there is a distinction between the situation which we are now considering and that where two juries disagree. The distinction is very fine. It is that on the second trial we are assuming that the first jury has agreed and now we are assuming that fresh evidence has been brought forward before the Court of Criminal Appeal which is sufficiently cogent for the Court of Criminal Appeal to say, "We think that that second jury might

  717
  have come to a different conclusion if they had had this evidence before them." What in those circumstances—and I wish that there had been more non-lawyers present—does the House consider is the really fair thing to do?
  Which would give the most credit to our legal system, that in that situation we should say that he must go free a third time, or that we should say that we think it would be oppressive to put him through a third trial and that we do not think that in those circumstances it would be right to allow the conviction to stand and therefore he should be acquitted? If the House does not apply the Amendment, I like to think that the Court of Criminal Appeal in its humanity will apply Clause 1(1) of the Bill and say that it does not think that the interests of justice require that he should be tried again. I should like to think that the Court of Criminal Appeal will use its discretion with such humanity that in effect the Amendment would not be necessary because it expresses the viewpoint which would be that of the Court.
  But I cannot be certain in my mind that that is how the Court of Criminal Appeal would do it and I sincerely hope that the House will take that view and will press the Government to reconsider the matter and to think whether the Amendment would not improve the Bill and that the Amendment is truly in the spirit of it. The Home Secretary knows that in Committee I have supported the Bill and that I have supported a further exception to the rule that a man should not be put at his peril twice, but my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment greatly appeals to me, as I hope it does to the House.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I think that the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) is quite right in saying that the Court of Criminal Appeal, in its humanity, might decide that it was not right in a case such as this to order a new trial. But surely this is the sort of discretion which can be and should be left to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That court might feel very strongly that this was exactly the type of case where a new trial was desirable. Yet if we accepted the Amend-
  718
  ment, the court would be debarred from doing what it thought to be right. I am firmly of the opinion that it would be better to leave this to the discretion of the court than to debar that court, ab initio, from doing what it thought would further the ends of justice in a particular case.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end to insert:
  (4) Any reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference thereto as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.
  Since the earlier stages of the Bill, some of the statutes referred to in it have been amended by or under subsequent legislation. The particular case which I should mention is that under the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964, which is operative from the beginning of this month, the Defence (Transfer of Funcions) (No. 1) Order has been made, and it has amended a number of statutes which are mentioned in the Schedules to the Bill. The Amendment simply makes clear that any reference to a statute in the Bill is a reference to that statute as extended or applied, by or under any other legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1.—(PROVISIONS AS TO NEW TRIALS BY COURT-MARTIAL.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out "Admiralty" and to insert "Defence Council".
  Mr. Speaker: I suppose that it would be convenient to take at least the Amendment to page 6 together.
  Mr. Brooke: If the House would agree, perhaps it would be possible to discuss the five remaining Amendments to the Bill together because the point of them is the same.
  Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
  Mr. Brooke: The effect of the Amendments is simply to substitute throughout the Bill references to the Defence Council for references to the Admiralty, the Army Council and the

  719
  Air Council. This reflects the provisions of Section 1 of the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 52, leave out "Admiralty" and insert "Defence Council".
  In page 7, line 1, leave out "Army" and insert "Defence".
  In line 4 [Schedule 1], leave out "Air" and insert "Defence".
  In line 10, leave out from "the" to second "Council" in line 11 and insert "Defence".—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: On this Motion, I wish to take what is, perhaps, a final opportunity of expressing my regret that the Bill in its present form should receive a Third Reading. I have throughout expressed my opposition to it and attempted, unsuccessfully, to modify its application.
  In my view, Clause 1 is badly drawn. It refers to
  "evidence…available to be received by that Court under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907".
  In fact, Section 9 contains no provision with regard to evidence available to be received, and I imagine that this point may well be taken when an appropriate case is heard by the courts after the Bill becomes law.
  I have no doubt also that a second and, possibly, a third trial which may be ordered by the court will be unsatisfactory. Reference may well have been made to the former trial or trials—a degree of publicity may well have been given to such trial or trials—and, on any view, these matters must affect the fairness of the proceedings. In my view, the evidence at such a trial is stale. Cross-examination cannot be effective because, clearly, the witnesses are prepared with their answers.
  The Amendments which were rejected in Committee showed, I submit, in no uncertain way the difficulties which must result from this reform. But, more than anything else, I regret the admitted qualification which the Bill
  720
  makes, the interference with the well-recognised principle that, if the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof which is upon it, the accused should be found not guilty and the conviction quashed.
  In Standing Committee, the Solicitor-General said, with regard to the new power, that the court would take the attitude of saying,
  "This should go to a fresh jury to hear the evidence in relation to and in the context of the rest of the evidence rather than that we should give a judgment ourselves as to what the effect of such evidence would have been on a jury'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 11th March, 1964; c. 117.]
  I see a real danger here. As the law stands, the court will hear the evidence, decide whether there is a reasonable doubt, and if it finds that there is, quash the conviction. Now, with the power given under this Bill, the court may well adopt the practice of sending cases back for trial without actually hearing the evidence or even after having heard the evidence.
  On Second Reading, the Home Secretary referred to a new Committee under Lord Donovan which the Lord Chancellor had appointed to review the whole procedure of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Why this power to order a new trial in criminal cases, restricted as it is to cases of fresh evidence, should be dealt with now—piecemeal, so to speak—I do not know. The number of cases to which it can refer is admittedly extremely small. According to the Home Secretary—these are his words on Second Reading—
  "For more than 100 years there have been proposals of one kind or another for the introduction of some such power, but for just as long a time there has been dispute about the wisdom of doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1964; Vol. 689, c. 584.]
  I venture to suggest that there is still considerable doubt about the wisdom of doing so.
  If a reform of that kind were contemplated, it ought not to have been introduced in this way. It should have awaited the detailed examination which Lord Donovan's Committee will give when reviewing the whole position of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I am sure that the Committee will pay due regard to the problems which will be raised by the Bill.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: The whole House recognises the sincerity of the position which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has taken throughout our proceedings on the Bill. He, for his part, will recognise that this is a Bill which has been criticised here and in another place both as going too far—that is his view—and as not going nearly far enough. All these criticisms have shown how right the Tucker Committee was in saying that on the subject of new trials there was a considerable divergence of opinion both among judges and among members of the two branches of the legal profession.
  However, the Tucker Committee was unanimous that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the power which the Bill provides to order a new trial on grounds of fresh evidence. The implementation of that recommendation cannot please everyone, I know, but it has been widely welcomed as a significant and needed reform.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman himself will agree that the issues of principle raised by the Bill have been very fully considered by the House both on Second Reading and in Committee. As he indicated, the essence of the Bill is in Clause 1(1). All hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will agree that the significance of almost every word of that subsection was thoroughly and scrupulously scrutinised.
  Mr. Weitzman: Will the Home Secretary allow me to put just one final point? Will he tell the House why it was necessary to introduce this Measure piecemeal, particularly as it can affect only a very few cases? Why, having appointed a Committee to review the whole procedure of the Court of Criminal Appeal, could he not have left it until later?
  Mr. Brooke: The Government had received a recommendation to this effect some years ago from the Tucker Committee. Indeed, we have been criticised for not implementing the Tucker recommendation. We received a further recommendation from a Committee of Justice not so long ago, and it appeared that opinion was steadily moving in favour of the Court of Criminal Appeal having the limited power to order a
  722
  new trial on the grounds of new evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North will forgive me if I do not go over again some of the interesting and important points which he raised in AmendmentS which were not carried.
  I said on Second Reading that it might well be that the availability of a power to order a new trial would lead the court to revise the principles as to receiving new evidence which it had hitherto found it necessary to apply. But the view was expressed by certain hon. Members, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that the court would have no power to do so. The Government's advice was that the court would not be bound by its previous practice in that way.
  I knew of the interest which hon. Members had taken in the point and I therefore thought it right to consult the Lord Chief Justice about it. He has authorised me to say that, while it is essential for the court to decide what evidence it will treat as admissible, it is not bound by its previous practice as to the admission of evidence, and that it can and will review the practice in the light of the Bill, the governing principle being to ensure so far as possible that there has been no miscarriage of justice.
  The Bill has thus had a direct and an indirect effect upon the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal. As the hon. and learned Member has indicated, it touches one aspect, and one only, of the law relating to criminal appeals, and the Government have recognised that the whole arrangements for criminal appeal, including the power of the Appeal Court, need comprehensive examination. It is that examination which is now being undertaken by the Committee which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Donovan.
  It appeared to the Government, however, that that it was not necessary to wait for the conclusion of the work of that Committee, which might take some time, before legislating on the matter. It appeared to us that opinion, both legal and other, had sufficiently crystallised in favour of giving the Court of Criminal Appeal this new power in the limited class of cases where there

  723
  was new evidence. It was on those grounds that the Government brought forward the Bill. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North that the Bill was given a Second Reading without a Division, which was an indication that the House as a whole, although not necessarily satisfied concerning every detail about it, endorsed and supported the general principle underlying it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

  Clause 2.—(THE LONDON COMMISSION AREAS.)
  9.56 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from "area" to the end of line 30 and to insert:
  "to be known as the inner London area, consisting of the inner London boroughs;
  (b) an area to be known as the northeast London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barking, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest;
  (c) an area to be known as the southeast London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Croydon;
  (d) an area to be known as the southwest London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Richmond upon Thames and Sutton;
  (e) an area to be known as the Middlesex area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow."
  This Amendment is designed merely to simplify the reading of subsection (1) by substituting names for numbers. When the Bill was first introduced, these new London boroughs could be known only by their numbers because their names had not yet been assigned to them. Since then, they have acquired their names and I hope that the House will agree that it is much better that they should be described by their names, which everybody will long remember, rather than by their numbers, which people would soon forget.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad that the Middlesex area has been defined in the Amendment. I am particularly glad, too, that in another place it was insisted that one of the London commission areas for the administration of justice—the North-West area, as it was originally called—should be called Middlesex. I am also pleased to note in the Bill that
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, a London commission area shall be deemed to be a county."
  Therefore, the area of which we are speaking in Middlesex is indeed thought of for the purposes of the Bill as a county. I am glad of that, because we cannot throw one thousand years of history in Middlesex into the dustbin.
  What is Middlesex in truth but the old province of the Middle Saxons, of the old Kingdom of Mercia, which was founded by Offa, the first King of the English? Although the County Council is to be abolished, Middlesex is still a geographical area and for certain purposes is still a county. Two million people will live in it and, therefore, it will still be a respected part of the country.
  For the purposes of the Bill and from the Amendment which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has moved, my constituency of Twickenham, which is now for local government purposes part of Richmond-upon-Thames, will be within the south-west area for the purposes of administration of justice. I want, however, to ask my right hon. Friend two or three questions, because Twickenham is in an anomalous position. Geographically, for the purpose of postal address, we are in Middlesex. Apparently, under the Bill, for the purpose of administration of justice we shall be in the south-west area, which was part of Surrey.
  What will happen to the petty sessional cases which at present arise in Twickenham? They now go to Brent-ford or to Feltham, both of which are in Middlesex. Are they to go to Richmond? I understand that the Richmond magistrates' court is a very small place and it is doubtful whether it could take the large number of petty sessional cases which arise in a large constituency of

  725
  over 100,000 people. Are we, therefore, to continue in Middlesex?
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ian MacArthur.]

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member be good enough to assist me? I do not for the moment follow why the question he is raising would depend on the House deciding this Amendment one way or the other. Perhaps I have missed something, but if he would help me about that I would understand.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: In paragraph (e) the Middlesex area for the administration of justice is defined as—
"the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent…and Hounslow."
Hounslow adjoins my constituency, and within Hounslow are both Brentford and Feltham. At the moment those are the magistrates' courts to which my constituents go. I am asking my right hon. Friend whether, resulting from this administration, the magistrates' courts will be in Richmond or in Hounslow.
What is the position about quarter sessions? Will they be held in Kingston upon Thames? I assume that Middlesex Quarter Sessions will be abolished. From the point of view of assizes, Twickenham is now part of the Greater London Council, the Metropolitan Police Area. Will the Old Bailey still be our assize court?
Twickenham has not got a police court at the moment. It is a very large borough, larger than Oxford. It is high time that Twickenham had its own magistrates' court. It is inconvenient to go to Brentford or Feltham for the administration of justice. Richmond may be too small a court to take all our cases. I should be very much obliged
726
if my right hon. Friend would clear up what is to happen to my constituents when they give evidence or otherwise go to the petty sessional court.
Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether I can keep in order in answering the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I can assure him that the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey will have its area enlarged to cover the whole of Greater London.
My hon. Friend is particularly interested in the Order which it will fall to me to make in due course dividing up the Commission areas into petty sessional divisions. I appreciate that the present borough of Twickenham is divided between two petty sessional divisions. So far as I can see, both these divisions will themselves be divided by the boundary of the Middlesex and the South-East London areas. It is clear that some rearrangement will be necessary. My present idea is to provide in the Order that there should be a new Twickenham division of the South-West London area, a division which will be co-extensive with the existing borough. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have to have certain consultations before making the Orders. I will naturally pay attention to anything which is communicated to me on that, but that is the proposal which is at present in my mind.
As to quarter sessions, it is proposed that the Middlesex area quarter sessions should be held at Middlesex Guildhall for the time being.
Amendment agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

  Clause 8.—(CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND OTHERS OFFICERS.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, at end to insert:
  (2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed a clerk of the peace for a London commission area unless he is a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing.
  In our proceedings in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) moved an Amendment to require that the clerks and deputy clerks of the peace for Greater London should be barristers or solicitors of five years' standing. My right hon. and learned Friend the

  727
  Solictor-General gave an undertaking that the Government would accept in principle that this was a proper qualification for the clerks of the peace but we wished to have time to consider the position of the deputy clerks further.
  The Government have considered the matter and we wish to carry out our pledge—as we are doing by this Amendment—that a person to be appointed a clerk of the peace for a London Commission area must be a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing. However, we do not feel it is necessary to impose a rigid qualification of this kind for the officer of deputy clerk of the peace. I hope that the House will fel that we have gone some way to meet the suggestion made.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the change. As he says, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) in Committee sought to have this qualification included in the Bill applying to both the clerks and the deputy clerks of the peace. The Government have gone part of the way and I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for such concession as he has been able to make.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, to leave out "the general fund of ".
  Perhaps we might at the same time, Mr. Speaker, consider my Amendment in Clause 37, page 28, line 20.
  Mr. Speaker: That appears to be acceptable.
  Mr. Brooke: The effect of the main Amendment—to Clause 37—is to make it clear that, when the expenses of the Greater London Council are chargeable only to some of the local authorities in Greater London, it is only those local authorities which will receive the benefit of Exchequer grant on those expenses.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 10.—(METROPOLITAN STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 10 and to insert:
  "A metropolitan stipendiary magistrate who".
  728
  The next Amendment, in page 9, line 13, is linked with this one. Clause 10 as it stands provides that a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate is to be, by virtue of his office, a justice of the peace over each of the London Commission areas and for the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey. It also provides that, although he is an ex officio justice for these areas, he is not to sit at quarter sessions for any of these areas. It has been represented to the Government that there is no real necessity to perpetuate the absolute ban on a metropolitan magistrate sitting at quarter sessions in London and the Home Counties. The ban is taken over from the 1839 Act, so it goes back to rather old legislation.
  The Government feel that the fact that metropolitan magistrates are ex officio justices to enable them to fulfil their duties as stipendiaries should not entitle them to sit at quarter sessions. It seems wrong that a metropolitan magistrate who has been appointed in his own right to the Commission of any of the areas concerned should be disqualified from sitting at quarter sessions. The Amendment will therefore remove the absolute disqualification which now applies to him by virtue of his being a metropolitan magistrate. It will not entitle him to sit by virtue of being a metropolitan magistrate, but he will be able to sit at quarter sessions if in his own right he is a justice in the area.
  Mr. James MacColl: Once or twice in Committee the right hon. Gentleman implied that he thought that I approached the Bill with a strong prejudice in favour of lay magistrates and a hostility to stipendiary magistrates. I do not think that that is a fair interpretation of my approach to the Bill. I want to say now only that there seems to be no earthly reason why stipendiary magistrates should not sit at quarter sessions. I am all in favour—and it should be the whole purpose behind the Bill—of genuine integration of the two limbs of the administration of justice in summary jurisdiction in London, the lay wing and the stipendiary wing. Both have different histories, but should now be merged. Anything which brings them together on terms of equality should be welcomed.
  I welcome this provision and I am sorry only that the Government did not

  729
  go further in giving more freedom for the courts to have at their disposal the very great experience of stipendiary magistrates. It seems odd that the men who more than anyone else have an intimate and specialised knowledge of the work of magistrates' courts should be the only people who do not normally hear appeals in these matters. This has always seemed to be to be rather silly. However, the Amendment is a move in the right direction and I only wish that it had gone further.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 13, leave out from beginning to first "be" in the line 15 and insert:
  "shall not by reason only of his being a justice of the peace for that area by virtue of that office—

  (a) act as a member of a court of quartet sessions for that area; or

  (b)"—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 13.—(THE COMMITTEE OF MAGISTRATES.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 11, line 42 to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
  (5) There shall be a chairman, a vice-chairman and a deputy chairman of the committee of magistrates, and the chairman of the court of quarter sessions for the inner London area shall be the chairman of the committee, the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be the vice-chairman and a person chosen from amongst themselves by the lay justices who are members of the committee shall be the deputy chairman.
  This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). As drafted, the Bill follows the recommendations of the Aarvold Committee in providing that the chairman of quarter sessions and the chief magistrate be respectively chairman and deputy-chairman of the Committee of Magistrates. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be an office of vice-chairman, to be held by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, and there will be an office of deputy-chairman to be held by a person chosen by the lay magistrates who are members of the Committee from among themselves. There will be an order of precedence—chairman—vice-chairman—deputychairman—which is already familiar to many people concerned with London
  730
  affairs, because there is a similar trio in that order among the leading members of the London County Council.
  I hope that this plan will be acceptable to the hon. Member for Widnes and to the House.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: The Amendment, as indeed was the undertaking given in Committee, is rather better than the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He harped on the happy precedent which he sees in the London County Council. I have two comments to make. First, historically it is not correct. Historically the deputy-chairman was a full-time paid member of the Council, who was responsible for the administration of the staff of the London County Council. I think that it was Mr. Firth. Later the idea came along of having the unfortunate deputy-chairman as the man in permanent subjugation to the chairman and vice-chairman on the dais. The chairman and vice-chairman are members of the majority party. The deputy-chairman represents the powerless minority.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman used that analogy, because that is precisely the attitude to the lay magistrates which I deplore. I think that there should be an integrated legal system. I do not think that lay magistrates should be regarded as inferior beings in permanent minority, allowed to choose their tribune who can speak for them, but who have no effective authority.
  That was the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not think that it is all in the Amendment, and therefore I welcome the fact that he has gone as far as he can.
  This is not a criticism of stipendiary magistrates, who are men of great legal and judicial experience. What this is about is a Committee whose job it is to carry out a very delicate piece of pure administration—the allocation of courts, looking after the problems of the staff, and so on. I believe that this job might well be done by lay magistrates as well as by stipendiaries, because, whatever we think about stipendiaries, there is nothing in their work which gives them experience of pure administration.

  731
  To put it bluntly, this is rather a farce. There may be a man who has spent his life in public administration. He may be the chairman of an establishment committee in a local authority, or he may have considerable business experience, yet he is to be regarded as inferior when it comes to the day-to-day administrative problems of running a machine, which is what this Committee is concerned with.
  My other point concerns a more immediate transitional problem. The delicate task to be performed is to bring into one service clerks of the old petty sessional division and clerks of the stipendiary court. In seeing that the centre of gravity of this Committee is on the side of the stipendiary magistrates, rather than on the side of the lay magistrates, clerks of the petty sessional division may feel that their interests are not likely to be looked after.
  The right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment in a way that made me as little willing to accept it as I could be, but it would be silly to try to make an issue of a matter of this sort. I am grateful for this concession, and I therefore welcome it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 15.—(APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES' CLERKS AND OTHER OFFICERS.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 23 to 30 and to insert:
  (6) The following provisions of this subsection shall have effect with respect to determinations under subsection (5) of this section and related matters—

  (a) no such determination shall have effect unless confirmed with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State;

  (b) the committee of magistrates shall not make or refuse to make any such determination with respect to terms and conditions of employment except after consultation with persons appearing to the committee to represent the interests of the officers affected;

  (c) any refusal of the Committee to make any such determination with respect to any
  732
  terms and conditions of employment may be reviewed by the Secretary of State and on the review the Secretary of State may confirm the refusal or make such determination with respect to those terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

  (d) in the case of any matter which falls to be determined under the said subsection (5) and.

  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment we can also take the Amendment in page 13, line 37.
  Mr. Brooke:: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  These Amendments are designed to make it clear that if the committee of magistrates for the inner London area rejects a proposal which would vary the terms and conditions of service of the staff of magistrates' courts in inner London, its decision is open to review by the Home Secretary, who may confirm the decision or, if he thinks fit, make an alternative decision with regard to terms and conditions. This provision accords with the view of the representatives of the staff of the Metropolitan magistrates' courts that if the committee rejects a staff proposal relating to terms and conditions of service there should be some means by which that decision can be reviewed. I hope that this will be regarded as an improvement, and will be acceptable to the House.
  Sir F. Soskice: This, or an analogous matter, was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) took a prominent part in that debate. The Amendment does not coincide with the proposals advanced by my hon. Friend but it goes a considerable way to meet their spirit. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for proposing the Amendment, which certainly is an improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 37, after "under", insert:
  "paragraphs (a) to (c) of "—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 18.—(LIEUTENANT OF GREATER LONDON.)
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, in page 15, line 40, at the end to insert:
  Provided that one of the assistant lieutenants shall be known as the Lieutenant of Middlesex.
  Would it be convenient if we also discuss the following Amendment, in Clause 19, page 15, line 45, at end insert:
  Provided that one of the under-sheriffs shall be known as the Sheriff of Middlesex.
  which deals with a similar subject?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is convenient to the House, pray do.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: For the purposes of the Bill Middlesex has been judged to be a county. It has a very ancient and honourable history. It was part of the Kingdom of King Offa, who lived from 757 to 796. He was one of the Middle Saxons. Offa had a very important kingdom, which was on a par with that of Charlemagne, who, in fact, suggested that one of his sons should marry Offa's daughter. Offa, in return, suggested that one of his sons should marry Charlemagne's daughter. Unfortunately, that bargain never came off, so even in the eighth century the Common Market negotiations broke down.
  Middlesex has a very ancient history, as is shown by the Middlesex arms, which include three Saxon sea axes on top of which is a Saxon crown. Not only has it had an important history as a king's realm, but it has had some famous residents. Pope, Walpole and Garrick would all have been constituents of mine if they had been alive today. It contains many famous houses, including Hampton Court, and it now has many important and well-known institutions. There is the Middlesex Regiment, the Middlesex Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association, and the Middlesex County Cricket Club. I wonder what Plum Warner, Hendren and Hearne would have said if they had thought that it might one day come to an end. It has two of the greatest football stadiums in London. There is Wembley, in my hon. Friend's constituency, which is the Association foot-
  734
  ball stadium, and Twickenham, in my constituency, which is the Rugby football stadium.
  As well as those institutions, there is London Airport, which is undoubtedly and indubitably in Middlesex. For all these institutions the presence of a lieutenant from time to time is indeed important. It would be wrong were we fobbed off with an assistant lieutenant, a deputy lieutenant of Greater London, who would, perhaps, be sent to us from time to time. When the Queen arrives back at London Airport, the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex meets her and attends on her. He is also responsible for the auxiliary forces. He attends public functions and great events such as the Football Association Cup Final at Wembley. I suggest that one of these assistant lieutenants of Greater London should be known as the Lieutenant of Middlesex, particularly as there are still 2 million people in the county and it is larger than many other counties.
  The second officer of the county is the sheriff, who has responsibilities on ceremonial occasions. Likewise one of the under-sheriffs of the Greater London Area should also be Sheriff of Middlesex. For all these reasons, because of the great and honourable history of Middlesex and its existence as a county; because of the great institutions within it and the need for the attendance of a lieutenant, I urge that there should be a Lieutenant of Middlesex.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). By way of explanation, I ought to say that I have never been keen on the idea of this reorganisation of local government in the London area and the consequent reorganisation of the administration of justice. I confess that. I am even less keen after the local government elections of a few weeks ago. But, having got the London Government Act and this Bill, I think that we must try to make it work.
  I support the plea of my hon. Friend that something of Middlesex should be allowed to remain. About 2 million people still reside there and they identify themselves very much with the old county. I prophecy that they will still do so for several decades hence. If

  735
  nothing else is done to preserve Middlesex, it will still be identified by reason of the postal services. Particularly on the outer fringes, the people living in Middlesex will remember that they are members of that county and not necessarily of the Greater London area. We ought to try to remember that it will remain geographically a county whatever other administration may come in, and it is important that there should be something retained from the past.
  Middlesex has a long and distinguished history, particularly in the administration of justice, and, as was said by my hon. Friend, it has many associations going back into history. Its lord lieutenant and high sheriff are anything but nominal figureheads. They have extremely arduous jobs to do. With the tremendous use of London Airport, the lord lieutenant finds himself in constant attendance on the Sovereign there, and he has to meet many dignitaries when they arrive from foreign countries. The high sheriff has an arduous job to do in the administration of justice. They work hard and get no pay whatever, and very little thanks.
  Those of us who represent Middlesex as Members of Parliament for the old area and those who have been associated with local government down the years in that area would like to see something retained over and above what is already in the Bill. We appreciate that changes have been made, and the other area which was to be known as North-West London is to be the Middlesex area, but we do not think that is enough. We are pleading with my right hon. Friend, who has distinguished local Government associations himself, to agree that it would be a good idea if one of the lieutenants was for Middlesex and also one of the sheriffs.
  Therefore, I support what my hon. Friend has said and hope very much that my right hon. Friend will see his way to make this one small concession. We had very few concessions during the battle over this Greater London authority, and perhaps in this case my right hon. Friend could find it possible to pave the way for this one concession which I know would be appreciated not only by hon. Members who may have a vested interest in being Members of Par-
  736
  liament but also by the population at large throughout the county.
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Russell: I wish to support the Amendment for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). I would like to stress one reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick gave. He said that he did not very much like some of the reorganisation produced by the London Government Act. As far as I am concerned, that is a complete understatement.
  Both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and myself, together with a large number of our constituents of both political parties, objected so strongly to the Bill that my hon. and gallant Friend and I voted against its Third Reading, and against several of the Amendments to it as well. We were still further annoyed when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government refused to let the present boroughs of Willesden and Wembley be called the Borough of Willesden and Wembley and insisted on it being called the Borough of Brent.
  There is still a lot of ill-feeling about that on top of the ill-feeling about the merger. As my hon. Friend said, it would be some small consolation if this Amendment were allowed and if one of the assistant lieutenants could be known as the Lieutenant of Middlesex so that we can get something of the old structure in our name and can preserve something of Middlesex.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be more flexible than was his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government. Some local feeling was generated by the London Government Act, and for that reason I support my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it.
  Mr. John Barter: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and supported by

  737
  a number of my hon. Friends who represent Middlesex constituencies. I wish to refer particularly to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). He mentioned his own reluctance in supporting the Measure dealing with the reorganisation of London government, but there was one point to which he made no reference. It was the movement, in the early stages concerning the alteration of local government, to which Middlesex, with a population of 2¼ million, a completely viable county containing the main airport for London and many other natural resources, apart from the historical connections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred, was giving serious consideration, to apply for independent status within the Commonwealth. This would have been more appropriate for Middlesex than for some areas which have received it.
  We have now reached a situation where, if this Measure is to go forward as proposed, Middlesex is to be deprived of the traditional offices, stretching back nearly 1,000 years, of both lieutenant and sheriff. I would have thought that a very small Amendment, a flexible approach by the Government, could have accommodated this very natural requirement on behalf of the residents of the county.
  Reference has been made principally to the social functions of the lieutenant and sheriff. Perhaps it would be appropriate—or perhaps not inappropriate—to draw attention to the fact that the lieutenant has an extremely important function in connection with the appointment of magistrates. This lies at the root, I would have thought, of the protection of the individual, of the proper administration of justice within a very large county. If it is to be spread over a very much larger area, an area of some 8 million population, I would have thought that it would have received rather more careful attention than it would have received for the smaller population of Middlesex. Consequently it might be reasonable to provide for the offices of under-sheriff and under-lieutenant to have a special designation related to the ancient and traditional area of the County of Middlesex. I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Aidan Crawley: I should like in two sentences, and for a purely personal reason, to support this Amendment. Having taken great pains to have two sons born in Middlesex in the hope that they might one day play cricket for the county, I wish to do everything I can to support the future prestige of the county and I urge my right hon. Friend to be as flexible as he can be in the athletic sense.
  Mr. Brooke: I should dearly like to help my hon. Friends from Middlesex who stand four-square behind this Amendment and my hon. Friend from a rival county in the County Championship who showed remarkable and commendable foresight and has come in on their side. I assure all five hon. Friends that all my bias and prejudices are in favour of Middlesex. I have been an unwavering supporter of Middlesex as a cricketing county ever since the age of 7 when I started to frequent Lords in the year 1910, and I could probably more accurately list the Middlesex XI of 1912 than any other hon. Member, but there are difficulties here.
  I think my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was seeking to argue both here and in his earlier speech that under this Bill Middlesex was recognised as a county. I do not want to be harsh, but I must put on record that under Section 3 of the London Government Act the County of Middlesex will cease to exist and nothing we do in this Measure can alter that. It is true that in Clause 2 of this Measure it is stated that a London Commission area shall be deemed to be a county for a variety of judicial purposes, but that does not re-make Middlesex a county in defiance of what the London Government Act has done.
  The effect of what my hon. Friends propose is that Middlesex should be treated differently from the other five commission areas.
  Mr. Barter: Would my right hon. Friend accept that it is not in fact the case that the suggestion is that Middlesex should be treated differently from the other five? The case is that as the Measure is now before us London appears to have absorbed Middlesex while Essex, Surrey and Kent remain.

  739
  Therefore, Middlesex is the only county in a special position for the purpose of this argument.
  Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that, in the course of my speech, I shall have to invite the attention of the House to the fact that because of various practical considerations in the earlier stages of the drafting of this Bill the Government came to the conclusion that the concept of Greater London as a unity was best recognised by the establishment of a single lieutenancy and a single shrievalty for the whole of Greater London. Special problems are involved in splitting it into five commission areas. This is recognised in the power given for the lieutenant to appoint an assistant lieutenant and for the sheriff to appoint an under-sheriff for each area. The power to appoint assistant lieutenants will ensure that a recognised standing is given to those other than the vice-lieutenant who will have to deputise for the lieutenant on occasions when, ordinarily, the presence of the lieutenant himself rather than a deputy would be expected.
  The main ground on which I am bound to advise the House not to accept the first Amendment is that it seeks to describe as a lieutenant someone who is not a lieutenant. That is not the only difficulty, although it is a formidable one and none of my friendly feelings or compassion for Middlesex can enable me to see a way round that difficulty. As I say, there are other difficulties. For one thing, assistant lieutenants need not be appointed for specific Commission areas. It may suit the lieutenant that they should be; and if to the vice-lieutenant one adds four assistants, this could give one officer for each Commission area. But the lieutenant may find it more convenient not to assign them geographically in that way.
  Another difficulty is that the Amendment, if accepted, would give a higher status to an assistant lieutenant than to the vice-lieutenant. That would be incongruous, particularly since the vice-lieutenant is intended to be the president of either the County of London Territorial Association or the Middlesex Territorial Association, whichever Association the lieutenant does not assume the presidency of. Although I sympathise with Middlesex and desire to help
  740
  the people of Middlesex, I cannot see how the difficulty could be overcome of promoting the assistant lieutenant over the vice-lieutenant in the way the Amendment would do.
  The arguments are similar in the case of the sheriff. Here, too, the second Amendment would involve calling an under sheriff a sheriff when he is not a sheriff. The sheriff of Greater London is empowered to appoint an under-sheriff in each Commission area. It will be a question for him whether he exercises that power or prefers to have one under-sheriff for the whole of Greater London. If he exercises the power to appoint an under-sheriff, it may be expected that he will appoint the under-sheriff who is currently under-sheriff covering the territory of each area, but one cannot tell.
  In a sense, the Amendment relating to the sheriff is more incongruous and more difficult than that relating to the lieutenant, and I have already pointed out the difficulties there. In the case of the sheriff, an under-sheriff does not stand in the same relationship to the sheriff as an assistant lieutenant does to a lieutenant.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: My right hon. Friend talks about an assistant lieutenant but a few sentences earlier he was talking about a vice-lieutenant. Is there a difference between the two in this respect? Does that not come under another Measure?
  Mr. Brooke: There is a difference. There will be a vice-lieutenant for Greater London, and there is also special provision for the appointment of assistant lieutenants. As to the sheriff and the under-sheriff, the under-sheriff is normally a solicitor and is concerned with the administrative work of the sheriff. The duties of the sheriff are largely ceremonial and he is normally known as the high sheriff. It is the under-sheriff who, so to speak, does the work. True the sheriff is answerable for all the acts of his under-sheriff, but the two—the sheriff and the under-sheriff—have traditionally quite distinct functions.
  I do not believe, for all these reasons, that it is possible to help the people of the present county of Middlesex by preserving the name of Middlesex in these

  741
  two connections. My two hon. Friends have been ingenious in their suggestion and I assure them that had I seen any means, without creating anomalies and incongruities, to meet their request I would have been delighted to do so. I think that they will recognise that the practical difficulties which I have mentioned, which may not have occurred to them before, create insuperable obstacles in the way of meeting their suggestions. I congratulate them on their ingenuity and on their loyalty. I wish I could help them but I am very sorry to say that I find the difficulties too great.
  Sir R. Russell: My right hon. Friend has been most forthcoming—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member was rising only to ask a question. He has no right to make a second speech.
  Sir R. Russell: I am sorry. If the title were made Lieutenant for Middlesex instead of Lieutenant of Middlesex and "for" were substituted also in the case of the sheriff, would that make it easier? If so, would my right hon. Friend consider putting down an Amendment in another place?
  Mr. Brooke: If I may be allowed to speak again, the Bill has already been through another place and it would be impossible for the Government to respond to that request.
  Mr. Barter: Whilst expressing appreciation of my right hon. Friend's congratulations on our ingenuity, which I do not think applies, I would ask him—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member's right to speak has been exhausted.
  Mr. Barter: On a point of Order. May I ask a question?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, surely.
  Mr. Barter: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that the exception made for the City of London with its ancient history should equally apply to the county of Middlesex with its equally ancient history?
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 22.—(THE PROBATION SERVICE.)
  Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 18, line 43, to leave
  742
  out "such number of the judges" and to insert "one judge".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the next four Amendments, that is to say, in page 19, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to "holding" and to insert "one judge".
  In page 19, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "metropolitan" and to insert "five".
  In page 19, line 8, to leave out from the beginning to "lay" and to insert "four".
  In page 19, line 12, to leave out from the beginning to "members" and to insert "four".
  Mr. MacColl: That would be very convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  I approach the task of moving this Amendment with a great sense of my rashness and, perhaps, impertinence, because an Amendment in the same form was moved in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), in my absence, and if he, with his great skill, could not wring a concession out of the right hon. Gentleman, my chances do not seem very good. I do not regard myself as a specialist in getting concessions out of the right hon. Gentleman. It always rather startles me if I do.
  The point at issue was not fully explored in Committee, I think. The proposal is that, instead of the Home Secretary having a discretion as to the number of members of the probation committee, the number should be laid down in the Bill. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman's argument, he made two points. First, he said that in other parts of the country this was done by means of regulation and there was no case for putting London in a special position. Second, he said that, when the work of the new integrated courts was seen, it would be easier to work out what the various contributions in numbers should be from the different elements of the judicial system.
  I make two points in reply. In the country, of course, it has to be done by regulation because there is nothing in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which lays down what the probations areas are to be. Therefore, as probation areas may

  743
  be changed and the number of people involved at the different levels of sessions or magistrates' courts may vary and there may be combinations of areas, it is necessary to have flexibility. In this Bill, however, the right hon. Gentleman is not doing that. He is reserving for London a different state of affairs.
  The area of inner London which is to be the area of the probation committee is already known and cannot be altered. It is laid down in the Bill. Therefore, the case for varying the numbers does not apply in London as it does in the rest of the country. He is defining in the Bill the area to be covered by the probation cammittee and the contributory elements, and all that is being left unfixed is the numbers. The whole situation is quite different from what appears in the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act.
  There is a second point which I find difficult to follow. As time went on, the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to see how the new system was working and, therefore, could make the alterations by regulation. I am not clear about the timetable. The existing position is that the Home Department runs the probation service in London, and the probation committee is purely advisory. Rather to the surprise, I think, of the Home Department, when the Morison Committee took evidence from London—and I was one of those who gave evidence on this matter; I gave evidence with a stipendiary magistrate, so that there is no difference of interest—we pressed, as did other people, for the taking over of administration by the probation committee from the Home Department. That is a proposal which is contained in the Bill and is highly welcome. I do not in the least question it. What I question is the degree of uncertainty that is created.
  I understand that Clause 22 comes into operation on 1st April, 1965. As soon as it comes into operation, the special position of the London Probation Service will disappear, because there is nothing to say that the matter is subject to further regulation. It is clear that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act dealing with the administration of the probation system will cease to have effect. Therefore, unless the whole thing is left in the air and nobody is to be responsible for running the probation
  744
  service, a probation committee must be set up immediately to run it.
  It is extraordinary, therefore, that such a position is created by Clause 22 and yet uncertainty remains about the form of the committee which is to be set up. Although the Home Secretary will have a year—or, to be more accurate, the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in title will have a year—to discuss these matters with the probation officers, the justices, and so on, he will not have a year of experience of the working of the integrated system, because the integrated system will not start until Part I of the Bill comes into operation. Therefore, he will be legislating as blindly as he is doing now. He might just as well put these numbers into the Bill as wait until 1st April, 1965, because he will have no more experience then of the success of the integrated system.
  The first proposal of the Bill concerning the constitution of the committee is that there should be an uncertain number of judges from the Central Criminal Court. My Amendment suggests that there should be one. If the Home Secretary says that the number should be two, I would not quarrel with him, but proportionately one seems reasonable when considering the amount of probation work which is done at the Central Criminal Court.
  We then suggest that one member of the committee should be chosen from among the chairman and deputy-chairmen of sessions. Again, the main work of the probation service is not done at sessions. We then suggest five stipendiary magistrates, because they come from a field in which a good deal of probation work is done. We suggest that there should be four lay justices who sit in adult courts and four from juvenile courts. I emphasise that these are quite different. The organisation of the juvenile courts is being kept out of the integrated system. It will be a separate service. But the juvenile courts probably use the probation system more than any other courts because they are dealing with the younger age groups.
  11.0 p.m.
  This is an important question, because already a serious position is arising. The probation service is beginning to move towards having an integrated service covering both adult and juvenile courts.

  745
  That is something one gets in the provinces and is very much welcomed by probation officers on the whole in London. This is creating considerable problems. I would not think that the experiment had been uniformly successful, I have had experience of this, because the North London area, in which I am a chairman, is one of those working an integrated system. Experience is balanced, because there are both advantages and disadvantages in the integrated system.
  This is an important question. We should set up a probation committee which can come to decisions and make them quickly and I see no case for hesitating about it. The right hon. Gentleman has all the knowledge he requires already to decide what the number on this committee is to be. I am suggesting a committee of 15 members who would be allocated with some kind of approximation to the amount of probation work which is done in their courts and that the committee should be set up so as to be able to get going as soon as the organisation is done.
  It is not desirable to have delay. There are many uncertainties and doubts about the development of the London probation service which should be resolved as quickly as possible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another think about this and make some effort to meet the point.
  Mr. Brooke: When the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), on behalf of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), moved a similar group of Amendments in Standing Committee and I replied, he was good enough to say at the end that he felt entirely convinced by the arguments I had adduced. I will now seek to repeat them and hope that not only can I again convince the right hon. and learned Gentleman but also the hon. Member for Widnes.
  This Clause empowers me to prescribe the composition of the London Probation Committee which will replace me as probation authority for the inner London area. It is not intended to wait and do nothing until 1st April, 1965. Clearly, as soon as the Bill reaches the Statute Book, a great deal of preparatory work will have to be done so that
  746
  the various authorities and committees will be constituted and ready to take over from that date.
  There is no dispute as to the five sources from which membership of the Committee should be drawn. The hon. Member for Widnes argued that the order for London would be different from the orders made in the case of provincial areas because here the order was defined by Statute. But surely there is the same situation in each case, whether it is an order for provinces outside London, or this order which we are discussing? The order is required by the Fifth Schedule to the 1948 Act to specify the number of justices and the manner in which they shall be appointed by the justices.
  The simple point at issue here is whether we should specify just how many members of the probation committee are to come from the various five sources in the Act, when it will be rigid and inflexible, or whether we are to proceed in the spirit of the Aarvold Committee, that this is something which might have to be modified from time to time. The Morison Committee did not specify the exact numbers, but said that if the lay justices assumed a wider criminal jurisdiction than they had their representation might be modified accordingly, and that the size and constitution of the committee would no doubt be settled after consultation with the interested parties.
  I shall want to have consultations with the interested parties before making this order, and I submit that it would be wrong for the House, here and now, to decide exactly how many people were to come from each of those five sources. It would be preferable to proceed in the way indicated under the Bill, whereby these consultations can take place—and there will be ample opportunity for that—and then the order will be made.
  Moreover, as I indicated a moment ago, this procedure, that is to say the procedure in the Bill, will have the great advantage that it will allow for the composition of the committee being varied from time to time in the future to meet new circumstances. One of those possible new circumstances is the one that I mentioned, that is to say, growing participation by lay justices in the work of the magistrates' court.

  747
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Widnes, I cannot see what would be gained, except to uphold in not quite the right way the supreme authority of Parliament if we here and now settled—and settled for all time until another Act of Parliament was passed—the exact proportions which each of the five sources will provide to the whole of this committee. I would have thought that it was far better to proceed as indicated under the Bill to enable the Home Secretary to have his consultations, and then to make an order. That order itself can then be replaced at a later date by another order if circumstances have changed, without the necessity for having to wait for a new Act of Parliament.
  Those, broadly, are the considerations which I adduced in Committee upstairs when I urged the Committee not to accept this Amendment, and I repeat them now. I hope that the House will see their force.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 27.—(GENERAL PROVISION FOR INDEMNITY.)
  Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 22, line 5, to leave out "or" and to insert "a".
  The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment in line 5 is to include probation officers amongst those public servants who are entitled under this Clause to indemnity. The Clause refers to a justice of the peace or justices' clerk. It provides a full-scale indemnity in order to make certain that they will not have to pay out of their own pockets any damages awarded against them in respect of acts which they do in the discharge of their public service. The Clause is fully drafted. It contains a proper appeal procedure to a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor and contains such safeguards as may be requisite in the public interest. What I seek to do is to include together with Justices of the Peace and Justices' Clerks the officers of the probation service.
  As a broad general proposition, I put this to the Government: a public servant who has a difficult and onerous task to discharge, which may from time to time—I do not say that it will—involve
  748
  him in proceedings in the civil courts for damages in respect of something that he has done in the course of his duty, ought to be certain in his own mind that there will be available to him, so long as he has acted in good faith and reasonably in the circumstances, full indemnity, which will prevent him and his family suffering in the event of an award for damages being made against him.
  It is quite impossible, in the general context of things—especially in modern circumstances, when people are alive to their rights—to say of any work that it cannot from time to time involve civil liability. I exclude judges and persons who have complete indemnity by virtue of their offices, but probation officers do not have, and, with a wide range of public servants, may from time to time—owing to inadvertence, mere bad luck or a conspiracy of circumstances—find themselves in the position of having to meet, in our civil courts, a claim for damages which may be very substantial.
  If an award is made against them, unless there is somebody to stand behind them, they may lose their possessions and homes and they may face bankruptcy. Their families may be severely hit, owing to what may be the merest inadvertence, a slight degree of negligence, or mere bad luck. It is in the public interest that public servants, who have a public duty to discharge, should do so fearlessly, should be uninhibited in the discharge of what they regard as their duty, and should not be kept back from the full performance of that duty by a nagging fear at the back of their minds that if they take a certain course, which seems to them proper, the result may be a claim for civil damages against them.
  I do not assert that claims will be frequently made against probation officers, but the nature of the task they have to perform brings them into contact with persons in respect of whom they have to make reports, in relation to whom they may acquire confidential information, and about whom they may have a duty to make adverse comments to the courts or to other public authorities with which they have to deal. In the very nature of things, from time to time proceedings may be brought against them for libel or slander, or proceedings of various other sorts which cannot be foreseen accurately at any particular stage.

  749
  I put a to the right hon. Gentleman that as the public interest urgently demands that they should be uninhibited in the discharge of their public duty, so the public interest requires that adequate indemnity should go to them from the State, or from public sources, should they have the misfortune to have to face a civil claim in our courts. That principle is recognised in the Bill in respect of Justices of the Peace—absolutely properly—and Justices' clerks—absolutely properly—and I cannot see what logical distinction there can be, in those circumstances, between the situation in which the Bill puts Justices of the Peace and their clerks and the situation in which it puts probation officers, who have an important and difficult duty to discharge. I should have thought that in the coming years the duties which are incumbent upon probation officers will become not lighter but progressively heavier. As the years stretch out, it will be necessary to expand their service and to recognise that their function as servants of society is ever more important and far-reaching. If that is so, I put it to the Home Secretary that, as a matter of justice to them and in the public interest, they should be able to know that they can discharge their duties without fear and without having to put their hands into their pockets to meet civil claims.
  11.15 p.m.
  We in the Opposition did not put down an Amendment to that effect when the Bill was in Committee because the question had not then been brought to our minds. But since then we have had representations made to us. I hold in my hand a memorandum from the National Association of Probation Officers which, when I received it, certainly brought conviction to my mind. It is pointed out that other private bodies which do not dissimilar public service such as the Citizens Advice Bureau—a different service, but it is a body which works in the same medium—have to make provision by taking out policies of insurance with private insurance companies. It is thought that the same may be applicable in the case of the Marriage Guidance Council. Probation officers are, however, public servants and, logically, they should be able to look to public funds for their indemnity.
  750
  If it should be said that they have not had claims made against them, I should point out that when I look at this memorandum, I have before me, at any rate, three cases. To be candid, when I read the memorandum I am not absolutely certain that these are actual cases, but it seems to me that actual cases are being referred to—cases in which claims have been threatened against probation officers for acts which they did in the course of their duty, in the bona fide exercise of such precautions as they could adopt but nevertheless in circumstances in which there was a possibility that they were liable for civil damages.
  I will not take the time of the House in giving the details of these cases, but I can do so should the Home Secretary wish to be assured as to their authenticity. I simply put the general proposition to him. I say, as a matter of justice to them and in the public interest, that they ought to know that they have complete indemnity. I believe that other public servants in like case have such indemnity, and I ask the Home Secretary to say that now that the matter is brought to his notice he agrees to the justice of our proposal and will make the necessary changes in the Bill in terms of the Amendment.
  I hope the Home Secretary will not say that he does not think many claims are brought against probation officers. If he does, I would point out that it is a two-edged argument. If there are only a few claims, it will not cost him much to provide the indemnity. If there are many claims, of course it will cost him more, but the mere fact that claims have hitherto been few is no reason why he should refuse this clear elementary measure of justice.
  Mr. Speaker: I ought to have said, but I am afraid that I did not, that with this Amendment we should discuss the next one, in page 22, line 5, after "clerk", insert "or a probation officer".
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I support the Amendment so eloquently moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I do so with great pleasure because it gives one an opportunity to try to repay the debt which many of us owe to the probation service.

  751
  Probation officers are officers of the court. They are not highly paid. They play an increasingly important rôle and function. Increasingly the courts come to depend upon probation officers, and all performing judicial functions are urged by the Lord Chief Justice himself to pay the greatest attention to the reports prepared by probation officers. Moreover, he has urged probation officers themselves not to hesitate, when preparing their reports, to make such recommendations as they think they are able as to the way in which cases into which they have been inquiring should be dealt with.
  Therefore, it is obvious that by the nature of their duties probation officers may be subjected to a risk, and in particular the risk of proceedings for defamation. They have to make all sorts of inquiries into the antecedents and background of people who are brought before the courts, and they have to write confidential reports. Clearly, anything which they may say in the court to the court itself is absolutely privileged and cannot in any way become the subject of legal proceedings; but, when making their inquiries, they have to have conversations in seeking information and they may, inadvertently or otherwise, communicate information which they have already gleaned and which is part of the subject of their inquiries.
  Furthermore, their reports are usually distributed to quite a large number of people before the case comes into court and it may be that their reports are never used because the accused person may be acquitted by order of the court. Clearly, however, it does not need much imagination to see that there is in these duties a potential source of risk of proceedings, particularly risk of action for defamation against probation officers. It would very obviously be a bad thing if they should feel in any way inhibited in the performance of their duties, in doing their duty efficiently but compassionately, by the fear that they might become personally liable for proceedings. Even if they were not liable for damages, they might find themselves hoist with the liability for costs by a successful defence—a successful defence against a plaintiff who was a man of straw, and against whom the probation officer could not gain an order for costs.
  752
  There are plenty of precedents for giving protection of this sort to public servants. Parliament recently gave a similar protection to local authority officers and inspectors in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and, when discussing that Act we considered some of the other examples of protection which is given to public servants for this purpose. In some cases, the protection goes far beyond the protection which is proposed by this Amendment, which is simply that a very fine body of public servants should be indemnified against costs and damages arising from proceedings of this kind. In some cases, there is an absolute exemption for the public servant from the possibility of any proceedings being brought against him. In 1875, Section 265 of the Public Health Act, stated that
  "No matter or thing done, and no contract entered into by any local authority or joint board, or port sanitary authority, and no matter or thing done by any member of any such authority or by any officer of such authority…shall, if the matter or thing done or the contract were entered into bona fide for the purpose of executing this Act, subject them or any of them personally to any action, liability, claim, or demand whatsoever;"
  So, there is complete exemption here; but we are not asking for that for the probation officers, but merely that they should be entitled to indemnification.
  The Public Health Act of 1936 applies that Section of the 1875 Act, and Section 81 of the Public Health Act, 1961, also applies it. The New Streets Act, 1951, contains such provisions. The Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and another similar Act of 1955, contains provisions for the officers concerned. Here it is stated that
  "An officer of a council shall not be personally liable in respect of any act done by him in the execution, or purported execution, of this Act and within the scope of his employment if he did that act in the honest belief that his duty under this Act required or entitled him to do it".
  In other words, when acting within the scope of his employment, he gets a complete exemption. Another Section states that he will be indemnified when acting outside the scope of his employment if the authority concerned is satisfied that he honestly believed that his duty under the Act required him to do what he did. It is the protection of that second power which we are now seeking for probation

  753
  officers, and it was that kind of protection which was given to local authority inspectors under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. I would remind the House of what was said about that protection by the then Minister of Labour on 26th July, 1963. The Minister said that that provision
  "affords useful protection to the official concerned… It enables the enforcing authorities to indemnify inspectors who may be sued for damages in respect of an act done by them which they honestly believed to be in the execution or purported execution of the Bill, but which were, in fact, outside the scope of their employment. On that, I am glad to say, we are all agreed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 2011.]
  Surely, if we can give a protection of that kind to local authority inspectors under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act we need not hesitate to give a similar protection to probation officers on whom we have imposed the delicate and confidential duties in order to get a better administration of our justice.
  I entirely support all that was said by my right hon. and learned Friend about the weakness of any argument that the risk is rare and that there is no need to make any provision of this kind. I imagine that the risk of any proceedings against any justices' clerk or clerk of the peace equally would be very rare. Nevertheless, and quite rightly, that protection is being given under the Bill.
  It is not a fanciful risk with which we are dealing in connection with probation officers. Indeed, in my view, there is a much larger degree of risk for them owing to the nature of their duties than there is for officials already covered by the terms of the Clause. The real argument for this protection is that the probation officers must feel free to carry out their duties without the fear and anxiety of personal liability.
  I do not know whether it will be argued that in practice one would expect the probation committee to stand behind the probation officers if they found themselves sued in this way. If that argument is put forward, and it is easy to anticipate it, I would say two things. First, one cannot be certain and one cannot rely on a probation committee to do that if no statutory guidance is given to it in the form of a formal discretionary power. Secondly, I wonder, and doubt, whether a proba-
  754
  tion committee would have the discretion and the power if there is no specific statutory discretion placed upon it.
  For all these reasons I hope that the Home Secretary will feel able to accept the Amendment.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I also support the Amendment. I do not wish at this time of night to reiterate the arguments, but I accept in their entirety those which have been advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot).
  It seems that our greatest hope for the reform of the offender, particularly the juvenile offender, lies in the work of the probation officers. I ask the Home Secretary what real argument he can provide to satisfy the probation officer for not including him in this indemnity? The work of the probation officer by its nature involves at times a spot decision or judgment to be taken in difficult circumstances. That kind of decision, especially when taken by a young man, may involve him in a threat of legal proceedings. It is important that the probation officer in his work should feel secure, should feel that as an officer of the court in discharging his duty to the court he can do so without risk, so far as it is possible to discharge it beyond risk.
  I entirely take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North that in all probability a probation committee would stand behind a probation officer, but that is not enough. The probation officer in the discharge of his duties should feel confidently that there is a statutory provision providing him with the indemnity, or at least the possibility of indemnity, such as would extend, if the Bill becomes law, to justices of the peace and justices' clerks. The probation officer would find it very difficult to understand why the Home Secretary would refuse this Amendment. If there is any good reason, I am unable to discern it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Brooke: I think the whole House will agree that those who carry on their duties as public servants should be

  755
  assured that they can do what they believe right in the furtherance of their duties with confidence that they will not have to pay out of their own pockets should they, while working in perfectly good faith, nevertheless be sued. I am delighted as Home Secretary that at long last everybody seems now to be recognising more and more warmly the importance and devotion of the probation service. My own conviction is that it is the building up of the probation service which will as the years go by be one of the finest protections against those who are tempted to crime from lapsing deeply into crime, one of our finest contributions against those who have committed crime and been sent to prison reverting to a criminal life after their discharge.
  The question here is whether an exact parallel exists between probation officers on the one hand and justices and justices' clerks on the other which would make it proper for this Clause to cover probation officers when sued as it covers justices and their clerks when sued. It is important to bear in mind that what we are doing in Clause 27 is to give effect to a recommendation of the Working Party on expenses of legal proceedings against justices and their clerks, a Working Party which reported in 1961, that provision should be made to indemnify them against costs incurred and damages awarded in proceedings against them in respect of anything done in the exercise of the duties of their office.
  I am glad that the House and the Standing Committee were entirely agreed that it was right to make this provision in Clause 27, but I am bound to point out that the reasons for providing thus by Statute for the indemnification of justices and their clerks do not apply to probation officers. Until the Bill becomes law the position is that no means exist to indemnify justices' clerks; and the means which exist for justices are judged to be unsatisfactory. We are, therefore, trying to put them on to a proper basis by the Clause.
  For probation officers the means of indemnifying them are already available under the Probation Rules. In the only case known to the Home Office of a claim made against a probation officer for damages in respect of some action he had taken in the course of his duties, these means were used. The costs were borne
  756
  by the probation committee concerned and there is every reason to suppose that in any similar case the probation committee would likewise stand behind its probation officer.
  Mr. MacDermot: Could the right hon. Gentleman assist the House on the scope of the existing powers of indemnity? Do they extend to a case where a probation officer has gone outside the scope of his authority and has, say, acted ultra vires, but has done so bona fide? My earlier remarks were concerned with special provisions to cover such a situation to ensure that there would still be the power of indemnity. Do the Probation Rules cover that sort of case?
  Mr. Brooke: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting a different set of cases where there were exemptions for officers performing statutory functions. That is a different situation and—
  Mr. MacDermot: No.
  Mr. Brooke: —here a man had been sued.
  Mr. McDermot: That applied to the provisions I quoted under the Food and Drugs Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.
  Mr. Brooke: I think I am right in saying that under the Probation Rules a probation committee can indemnify or reimburse the probation officer when he is acting in good faith in the discharge of his duty. A member of the public could sue the probation committee for the torts of one of its probation officers because probation officers are the servants of the probation committee, but there is no such relationship in the case of justices and their clerks. Neither justices nor justices' clerks are the servants of the magistrates' courts committees or any other committee and there is, therefore, a clear distinction between those for whom we are rightly providing in the Clause and the probation officers, whom the Amendment seeks to include.
  I have made the point that we are in the Clause giving effect to a recommendation of the Working Party. The National Association of Probation Officers, a body for which I have the

  757
  greatest respect, made representations—similar to those which have been so eloquently made tonight—to the Morison Committee on the Probation Service, arguing that there should be some statutory form for the indemnification of probation officers. By common consent, the Morison Committee went closely, thoroughly and sympathetically into everything connected with the probation service. Indeed, that Committee proved itself a good friend of the probation service. But in its Report it did not recommend any provision for indemnifying probation officers, that is to say it was not convinced by the type of argument which has been so persuasively adduced today and which was equally persuasively adduced by the National Association of Probation Officers at the time.
  I think that that is significant and is proof that this is not just the Government trying to be parsimonious or obstinate. It is quite clearly not on grounds of expense that I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment, because, as I have said, there is only one known case and if there are further cases I would have every belief that the probation committee concerned would stand behind the probation officer. The Morison Committee was an impartial and most authoritative body and it had this evidence from the National Association of Probation Officers on the same lines as the case that has been presented today, and the Morison Committee was not convinced by it.
  As far as I am aware, nothing has occurred since that Committee's Report in 1962 that would change the situation and, for the reasons that I have stated, I feel that it is right for the Government tonight to reach the same conclusion as the independent Morison Committee reached in 1962, that there is no need for specific statutory provisions for the indemnification of probation officers. I hope that the officers and their Association will feel confident that probation committees will stand behind their probation officers in any such circumstances as have been described. This is indeed supported by the one case that has occurred.
  Sir F. Soskice: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying or not that at the moment probation officers have some statutory
  758
  right to indemnity or a right to indemnity under a rule—and he referred to the Probation Rules—which has statutory force, or is he simply saying that there is some informal discretionary arrangement under which they may or may not obtain indemnity in the exercise of their duties? If there is no right to indemnity, can the right hon. Gentleman say—whatever the Morison Committee thought—what is the justification for giving it to magistrates' clerks and withholding a statutory right of indemnity from probation officers?
  Mr. Brooke: I was not seeking to say that probation officers had a statutory right to indemnity. I was saying that under the Probation Rules there is means of indemnifying probation officers, and in the one case that is known to have occurred that was effective and the probation officer was reimbursed. If I may go into slightly greater detail, the position is that under one of the Probation Rules the Home Secretary may authorise payment of any expenses by a probation committee. This discretionary payment is at large. It is not limited to cases where it is proved that the probation officer was acting in accordance with the instructions of his committee. It would cover indemnity for any liability whether it was within the course of the probaton officer's actions in carrying out his employers' duties or not. It is completely at large.
  I am certainly saying on behalf of the Government that in every case where a probation officer was acting in good faith and was sued and became liable to damages or costs I would wish the committee to stand behind the probation officer and indemnify him or her. I am also saying that in any such case where a probation committee felt that the probation officer had been acting in good faith and wished to make a payment to indemnify the officer, then I, as Home Secretary, would, under the Probation Rules, authorise that payment to be made. I feel quite sure that what I am saying would be endorsed and sustained by any of my successors.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hooson: Do I understand that, under the Probation Rules, a probation committee would have the right to agree to indemnify or reimburse a probation officer before a legal action were brought

  759
  against him and not only after it had been brought? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what we are more concerned about is removing the anxiety which is attendant upon a threat of legal action against a probation officer in the course of his work. It would be a great help if the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that a probation committee can give the necessary backing to a probation officer under threat of legal proceedings and before any action is brought.
  Mr. Brooke: Certainly, yes; and probation committees and probation officers will be able to read my words this evening. It would not be necessary for a probation committee to say to a probation officer, "We cannot take cognisance of this matter until the case is over and you are found to be out of pocket".
  I could not encourage probation committees to say to their officers that whatever they did, in any circumstances, whether acting in good faith or not, they would stand behind them. It would be most undesirable and bad for the reputation of the probation service. But I hope that probation committees and probation officers will read the words I have used tonight. I think that they will find them reassuring.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 29.—(FUNCTIONS OF, OR RELATING TO, QUARTER SESSIONS.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 12, after "accommodation" to insert:
  "whether in the county or elsewhere".
  This is a drafting Amendment simply to make clear that accommodation provided by a county council for quarter sessions for the county may be located outside the county.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 16, at the end to insert:
  "and the functions of the county council under this subsection shall include the functions of managing, controlling and maintaining any such accommodation which by virtue of section 30 (3) of the Local Government Act 1888 were exercisable immediately before the commencement of this Act by the standing joint committee".
  760
  This Amendment is connected with the winding up of standing joint committees, and it simply makes clear that the function of managing, controlling and maintaining quarter sessions court houses is transferred to the county council. It is a clarifying Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 28, at the end to insert:
  (6) The court of quarter sessions for a county where the offices of clerk of the county council and clerk of the peace are held by different persons shall appoint such officers (in addition to a deputy clerk of the peace) or provide such other assistance as they may, after consultation with the county council, determine to be necessary for the purpose of assisting the clerk of the peace in carrying out his duties as such, and—

  (a) the salary and other terms and conditions of service of any officer appointed under this subsection and the terms on which other assistance is provided thereunder shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the court after consultation with the county council; and

  (b) section 60 of the Local Government Act 1958 (transfer and compensation of officers) shall apply to officers affected by the fact of the clerk of the county council's becoming or, as the case may be, ceasing to be clerk of the peace for the county as it applies to officers affected by an order under Part II of that Act, subject, however, to the following modifications—

  (i) a reference to the aforesaid fact shall be substituted for the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the provisions of any such order; and

  (ii) the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of that section shall, instead of being contained in any such order, be contained in regulations made by such Minister as may be determined by the Treasury to be appropriate in relation to the officers affected and those regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  (7) Section 8(7) and (8) of this Act shall apply to the following officers of a court of quarter sessions as they apply to officers of the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area, that is to say—

  (a) a clerk of the peace who is not also clerk of the county council;

  (b) a deputy clerk of the peace who does not fall within paragraph C of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Superannuation Act 1937;

  (c) an officer appointed under subsection (6) of this section.

  (8) The provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of this section, except such of those provisions as are adopted by a resolution of the county council, shall not apply to any county

  761
  for which provision for purposes corresponding to any of the purposes of those subsections is made by any local Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.
  (9) The following expenditure of a court of quarter sessions, that is to say,—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by them in exercising their functions under subsection (5) of this section; and

  (b) the sums payable by way of salary or expenses to officers appointed under subsection (6) of this section, together with any employer's contributions payable in respect of them under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1963, and any expenditure on any other assistance provided for the clerk of the peace under that subsection;

  shall be defrayed by the county council.
  (10) If a county council are aggrieved—

  (a) by the incurring of any expenditure by a court of quarter sessions in the exercise of their functions under subsection (5) of this section; or

  (b) by any determination of a court of quarter sessions under subsection (6) of this section:

  the council may appeal to the Secretary of State.
  I apologise for the length of the Amendment, but the circumstances are rather unusual. It is an Amendment to a new Clause which was introduced in Committee. As a result of the publicity thus given to the matter, the Government had representations, and it became clear that we ought to spell out the situation at rather greater length in order to cover a variety of cases which might arise.
  Perhaps I need not trouble the House with a long explanation if I say that it is an Amendment which is entirely beneficial to the interests concerned and which, I believe, is generally acceptable to the local authority associations.
  What we have done is to take the opportunity to provide a complete code for the employment and payment of subordinate staff of quarter sessions where a clerk of the peace is not the clerk to the county council. With the provisions for superannuation and protection of the interests of a separate clerk goes all the necessary provision for financing the expenditure.
  The second purpose of the Amendment is to give the county council a say and to give it a right of appeal to the Secretary of State concerning any expenditure incurred by quarter sessions in discharging the residual functions of standing joint committees and also with
  762
  regard to decisions by quarter sessions under the new provision in subsection (6).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 41, after "section", to insert "except subsections (6) to (8)".
  The effect of the Amendment is to bring Clause 31 into force on the passing of the Bill. Clause 31 entitles justices of the peace and members of probation and case committees to subsistence allowances. In Committee, a new Clause was moved by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), who withdrew it on my undertaking that an Amendment which would accomplish his purpose rather more neatly would be put down at a later stage of the Bill. This is the Amendment, and I have little doubt that it will be generally welcome.
  Mr. MacColl: I believe that this Amendment deals with a point for which I have been watching on a later Clause, Clause 41. I understood the Home Secretary to say that the Amendment dealt with the coming into force of subsistence allowances to justices. If so, will he explain exactly how it works?
  Mr. Brooke: I must apologise to the House. I was getting confused and I was going on too far. I am afraid that I was addressing myself to a later Amendment. In fact, the Amendments in page 24, line 41, and in page 25, line 3, are both linked with the long Amendment which I moved earlier. I apologise that my words were addressed to a subsequent Amendment in Clause 41, page 29, line 31, to which we will come presently.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 3, after "section", insert:
  "or of a resolution under subsection (8) of this section".—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 37.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)
  Amendment made: In page 28, line 20, leave out from first "the" to end of line 23 and insert:
  "Greater London Council under section 8 (4) of this Act, section 77 (3) (a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 or section 27 (2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall be placed to the credit of the special London account out Of which the relevant expenses of

  763
  the Council are payable; and in this subsection 'the relevant expenses' means—

  (a) in relation to payments under section 8 (4) of this Act, expenses under that section;

  (b) in relation to payments under section 77 (3) (a) of the said Act of 1948, expenses under Schedule 5 to that Act;

  (c) in relation to payments under section 27 (2) of the said Act of 1949, expenses under section 25 (2) of that Act".—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 41.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCE- MENT, EXTENT AND REPEAL.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 29, line 31, to leave out "Part II of this Act" and to insert:
  "The following provisions of this Act, that is to say, Part II (except section 31)".
  Perhaps my previous explanation of this Amendment in the wrong place may be taken as spoken.
  Mr. MacColl: It took some temerity to question so competent a craftsman as the Home Secretary and I am quite willing to believe that words do not mean what they seem to mean, but this did seem rather odd. My point is that I cannot find where Clause 31 comes into force. It seems to be rather left in the air. We are saying that Part II will come into force except Clause 31, as I understand it. I should like to be absolutely sure because, while this may not be a matter of life and death, it is one of lunch and dinner for justices. I want to be certain that we are going to get our money quickly. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would put his finger on precisely how it will come.
  Mr. Brooke: I think I can get it right this time and satisfy the hon. Member. As I am sure he will recall, under an Act of 1796 all Acts of Parliament come into force on the day of the Royal Assent unless the contrary is provided. We are not providing the contrary in relation to Clause 31 and, therefore, it will come into operation on the day of the Royal Assent.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1.—(THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.)
  Amendment made: In page 31, line 18, leave out from "appointed" to end of line 22 and insert
  "or holding office under Part II of the City of London Courts) Act 1964".—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 3.—(ADAPTATION, AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 34, line 39, at end insert "a metropolitan magistrates' court".
  In page 35, line 9, after "to", insert "the county of".
  In page 37, line 19, after "shall" insert
  "if the duties are those of a justice for the inner London area out of sessions, be paid by the Receiver and shall in any other case".
  In line 26, leave out "In section (9) (a)"and insert
  "Section 18 shall in its application to the outer London areas have effect as if any reference to the council of a county were a reference to the Greater London Council, and in subsection (9) (a) of that section".—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 4.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 42, line 4, after "appointments" insert "the".
  In line 31, leave out from "area" to end of line 40, and insert:—
  "if the county council of Essex, Kent or Surrey, as the case may be are requested by the Greater London Council to provide any accommodation or equipment necessary for the purposes of the said arrangements and decline to do so or fail to agree with the Greater London Council about the terms or conditions on which it is to be provided, the dispute shall be referred to the Secretary of State who may give such directions in the matter as he thinks fit, but no county council shall be required by virtue of this sub-paragraph to provide any accommodation or equipment for those purposes after 1st April 1970"
  In page 43, line 6, at end insert—
  (2) Any order made under or by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph may contain transitional and other consequential provisions.
  In page 44, line 8 at end, insert:—
  "and
  (c) the lay justices elected to the committee under paragraph 6 (1) of this Schedule or paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph shall as soon as practicable after being elected choose a person in accordance with section 13 (5) of this Act to be deputy chairman of the committee".
  In line 19, leave out "by justices of the peace for" and insert:—
  "under paragraph 6 of this Schedule in the case of".
  In line 45, at end insert:—
  (5) Any requirements imposed by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have

  765
  effect subject to the provisions of any instrument made under any enactment including this Act.
  In page 46, line 43, leave out "an existing" and insert "a".
  In line 49, leave out "on 1st April 1965" and insert "by this Act".
  In page 47, line 21, at end insert:—
  "and sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall with necessary modifications apply to things done by any such committee for the purpose of disposing of proceedings in pursuance of this sub-paragraph".
  In line 41, at end insert—
  (3) Any expenditure incurred by the Greater London Council under this paragraph in connection with any of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (b) of this paragraph shall be chargeable only on the outer London boroughs.
  In page 51, line 7, leave out "an existing" and insert "a".
  In line 8, leave out "an existing" and insert "a".
  In line 44, leave out from "to" to "which" in line 45 and insert—
  "a petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district".
  In line 46, leave out from "to" to "which" in line 47 and insert
  "an existing petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district".
  In line 49, after "by" insert "or in consequence of".—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 5.—(REPEALS.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 53, line 28, leave out "(1)".
  In page 54, line 24, leave out "county" and insert "section ninety".
  In page 54, leave out lines 54 to 58.
  In page 56, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert "Section 84 (6)".
  In line 37, after "and", insert "in".
  In line 47, at end add—
  1964 c. iv The City of London (Courts) Section 8 (2). Act 1964—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  12 m.
  Mr. MacColl: I do not propose to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill at this hour of the night. Such an action makes one unpopular. When one takes up time to support the Bill it is far worse, but I do not think that it would
  766
  be right to let the Bill pass without making it dear that although it has been rather rushed, it is a Measure of tremendous importance to the County of London.
  We spent a lot of time over the London Government Bill, which reformed something which had been in existence since 1889. The division between the petty sessions of lay justices and stipendiary courts in London goes back to a hundred years before that, and this operation will be of enormous value as a piece of legal reform. It is one of the most important legal reforms that has taken place for a long time within the narrow area of inner London.
  I do not think that it will be an easy job to get rid of deeply entrenched differences, and perhaps jealousies, not only between the magistrates who have to work together now as a team, but among the staff. It will require great delicacy to make this system work, but if it can be made to work—and I think that everybody is anxious to get it to work—it will make a tremendous improvement in the administration of summary jurisdiction in London. I therefore do not think that a Bill of this importance should be allowed to pass without that being said, and I give it my warmest support.
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for what he has said, and indeed to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the welcome that they have given to the Bill. I should like particularly to thank the Law Officers for their help to me, and all the hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee.
  This started as a good Bill. I suggested on Second Reading that it was not likely to be highly contentious, and it has worked out so. I am convinced that we have made it a better Bill in its passage through the House. As the hon. Gentleman perceived, it will affect a great many people, not only those who are directly engaged in the administration of the law, but many others—witnesses, parties to proceedings, and so on.
  I hope that our proceedings have proved that the Government have taken a great deal of trouble to seek to take into account all the suggestions which have been made from many quarters as

  767
  to improvements to the Bill. I would not claim that we have been able to satisfy everybody, but I think that by our efforts here and in another place we have greatly improved the provisions of the Bill beyond the fairly high level at which they stood when it was first introduced.
  I should like the hon. Member for Widnes, who is so knowledgeable on these matters, and has the administration of justice in London so near to his heart, to know that I really appreciate most deeply what he has just said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third tune and passed, with Amendments.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (HOME CONFINEMENT GRANT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
12.5 a.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I wish to raise the subject of the operation of the home confinement grant. I began to feel that the accouchement or delivery of this speech would never take place. However, even though it is very late, it is worth while for the House to spend a little time on this matter because, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do, the present operation of the grant provisions is far from satisfactory. The grant is one of the means that we employ for bringing financial help to women towards the cost of maternity.
All mothers get the maternity grant of £16, regardless whether they have their babies in hospital or at home, but those mothers who have their babies at home are entitled, in addition, to draw the home confinement grant of £6 towards the extra expense in which they are involved. The problem which we are debating tonight arises chiefly from the shortage of accommodation in maternity hospitals. Many women who would prefer to have their babies in hospital are compelled to have them at home, because the beds are just not available, except in certain specified cases, such as first babies, or where there is a medical recommendation that
768
subsequent children should be delivered in hospital.
As a sweetener, to reconcile women to the fact that many who would rather be in hospital have to have their children at home, the Government introduced this grant in 1953. After it had been introduced it was found that there were many cases where complications in the birth arose at the last moment and an emergency booking in hospital had to be made, even though it had been originally expected that the mother would be having her confinement at home. Therefore, the draft regulations were modified to introduce a certain amount of flexibility.
Regulations were made to make the home confinement grant payable in those cases where the mothers had always wanted to have their babies at home but where arrangements for admission to hospital were made not more than two days before the mother went into hospital and, in addition, where the mother was discharged not later than the third day after confinement. That is how the regulations stand at present.
I realise that the National Insurance Advisory Committee has endorsed the present provisions, and has opposed any further relaxation in the arrangement, on the ground that the criterion for the payment of the grant should be the original intention to have the baby at home and not the fact that the mother's stay in hospital was a short one. But I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that even though her Advisory Committee may have used this argument, I cannot see that it is a valid one. If the purpose of paying a home confinement grant is to meet the additional expenses incurred by having a baby at home, then the relevant factor is not the date at which it was decided that the mother should go into hospital, but how long she stays there. When she is in hospital she is saving money, and therefore the amount that the confinement costs her is directly related to the amount of time she spends in the hospital.
This was shown very clearly by the case of Mrs. Fenney, of Blackburn, details of which I have sent to the hon. Lady and which I have raised in the House. Here was a case of a young mother who was due to have her second

769
baby. Therefore, in the normal way she would have had that baby at home. But because she lost her first baby with heart trouble at an early age, her doctor advised that she should go into the hospital merely for the delivery of her second child. In the event, Mrs. Fenney went into hospital on 23rd December and was discharged on 24th December. She was in hospital for less than 24 hours but because her doctor had made this decision six months before the date of the birth and therefore this was not an emergency last-minute admission but a prior booking, under the present regulations Mrs. Fenney is not entitled to a pennyworth of grant although the actual expenses of her confinement have not been reduced at all.
In fact, instead of having a normal stay in hospital of about 10 days, she stayed for less than 24 hours. Then she went back home and had to make exactly the same arrangements to be looked after as she would have done if she had had the actual delivery in her own bed. These arrangements involved asking a friend to come in to look after her, because naturally 24 hours after the birth of her baby she was not able to look after herself. The friend, in order to be available, had to pay a minder to look after her own children, end payment still had to be made for the equivalent of the nine days difference between the time she was in hospital and the time she would normally have been in hospital for the birth of the child.
Moreover, at the end of 24 hours it was still necessary for the mother to incur certain additional expenses that are associated with a confinement, such as medical requirements, cotton wool and all the rest; I need not go into details. Those provisions had still to be made for the rest of the confinement. But Mrs. Fenney was not entitled to any financial help towards the cost. She told me when she came to see me that the £6 would have made a very great difference to her as an ordinary working woman, in meeting these additional costs.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that the maternity grant of £16 payable to all mothers is intended to meet some of these expenses for help in the home because it incor-
770
porates the former attendance allowance. But this grant is payable to women who are in hospital for 10 days. What I am pleading for is some financial help for the mother who, instead of having 10 days in hospital where she is looked after with every attention and comfort, has to return home at the end of 24 hours, or perhaps 48 hours, and has to pay for domestic help for the eight days she spends at home which she would otherwise lave spent in hospital.
Mrs. Fenney's case, as the hon. Lady knows only too well, is not an isolated one. I have a number more which have been brought to my attention, some of which I have passed on to the Ministry. The situation has changed because the National Insurance Advisory Council last considered this matter in 1955 and draft regulations were then drawn up, and the situation has changed also because of the increased shortage of maternity beds which, in its turn, has led to the practice of hospitals sending mothers home two or three days after a birth in order that the beds may be made available for other cases.
It is this tendency which has caused the Royal College of Nursing to take up the case of mothers in the situation which I have described. The Blackburn branch of the Royal College of Nursing wrote to me only a month or two ago asking me to take up this matter, and they should know what is the true position. They are the people providing the nursing for these mothers. They asked me to support the demand for the additional home confinement grant to mothers discharged from hospital two or three days after confinement. In some cases, it is an emergency booking for delivery only, but in other cases, the difficulty is shortage of beds.
The honorary secretary of the Blackburn branch tells me that it is felt that there are additional expenses when a mother is discharged early from hospital, and that there is need for a modified grant. The mother needs domestic help and I would suggest to the hon. Lady that the time has come to review the present regulations.
There are two alternatives open to us. First, to pay the full home confinement grant in all cases where a mother is discharged three days after the birth—as in the case of emergency admissions—and that would mean that we

771
would pay as at present, except that we should drop the provision that the admission must have been an emergency one. Secondly, we could decide to pay a modified grant to every case of short stay in hospital, varying with the length of stay. There might be a little saving on food, but the mothers of whom I am speaking still have more expenses than the normal cases where there is a 10 days' stay in hospital. That is a simple arithmetical fact. Those mothers have saved money compared with those who have only two or three days in hospital.
I know that the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Minister appreciate the fact that it is very difficult today, with the cost of living rising all the time, for mothers of young children to meet the costs of domestic life. This £6 makes a lot of difference to them. I know that the hon. Lady's heart is with me, and I can only express the hope that she will carry her Minister with me as well.
12.20 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised this matter tonight because it gives an opportunity of discussing some of the more contentious aspects. First, I will go through the relevant points as rapidly as possible. Home confinement grant is one of three maternity payments payable under that scheme, and it is a single payment of £6.
The other two benefits are, first, the maternity benefit of £16 for each baby born at a confinement. This includes the former attendance allowance of £4 to help with the extra expenses required domestically. Until 1953 this attendance allowance was paid separately
The second benefit is for the working mother on her own insurance, a weekly allowance of £3 7s. 6d. payable for 18 weeks. Thus a mother may be entitled to some £82 from the Fund in respect of the birth of her child. The cost of these three benefits is at present about £28 million a year. In the year ended March, 1963, the Home Confinement grant was paid to 334,000 mothers; 918,000 maternity grants were paid to 909,000 mothers and the weekly maternity allowance to 216,000 mothers.
772
As the hon. Lady said, the home confinement grant was introduced for the first time in 1953, on the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which made a thorough examination of the maternity benefits then available. It is important to recall the grounds upon which it advised the introduction of the grant. These are contained in paragraphs 22 to 25 of Cmd. 8446, published in January, 1952. I will quote part of paragraph 25:
"We are therefore agreed that, in order to make an adjustment to counterbalance the financial inducement to seek a hospital confinement, a larger maternity benefit should be payable to the woman confined at home than to the woman confined in hospital."
This was a clear-cut policy decision founded on very definite views which had been put to the Committee in writing and orally. On the face of it, the principle that women who had their babies at home should receive more than those who had their babies in National Health Service accommodation seemed a simple one. However, as the hon. Lady pointed out, variation in the conditions attaching to the grant were soon required because of the number of cases in which a woman who had made all the arrangements for a home confinement had to be admitted to hospital at the last moment as an emergency case.
The regulations to deal with emergency cases became operative in 1955, after a further reference to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The hon. Lady has already cited the conditions. It was estimated that in 1962 some 20,000 of those who received the grants were emergency cases, within the present regulations. The Committee specifically considered whether to extend the grant to all short-stay cases, and said:
"We are clear, however, that the condition cannot be relaxed so far as to permit mothers who have all along intended to have their confinement in a hospital, and have booked a bed in hospital in the normal way—and who have thus made no arrangements for, and incurred no preliminary expense in connection with, a home confinement—to receive the home confinement grant merely because they have stayed in hospital for an unusually short period."
The provisions under which this grant is payable have not been changed since 1955. Undoubtedly, however, for a number of expectant mothers the facilities available through the maternity services

773
generally have changed. When the grant was introduced there was a wide distinction between a home confinement, on the one hand, and the customary hospital confinement which normally involved a 10-day lying-in period on the other. Today that distinction has been narrowed, for there are a number of schemes in which the mother is admitted to hospital for delivery only, or for a short stay of perhaps one or two days; she spends the rest of the lying-in period at home.
These circumstances have given rise to some pressure for change. There have been two main suggestions, and they have been repeated by the hon. Lady tonight. First, that the regulations should be widened to include all "short stay" cases. The term "short stay" is often not defined by those who advocate this course, but the hon. Lady was brave enough to suggest three days. Secondly, that mothers who stay in hospital for less than the normal lying-in period should receive part of the grant. This would involve legislation.
I will deal, first, with the proposal to include short-stay cases in the emergency regulations. To extend the regulations to cover all short-stay cases not exceeding so many hours or days would involve adding further time limits to those we already have for the emergency cases. The Department has already had a good deal of experience of administering conditions involving strict limits, and this has made us wary of introducing more.
In the past a number of women have narrowly missed qualifying for the grant for one reason or another—for example, because there was no ambulance available to take them home in time, perhaps because all of them had suddenly been called out. Alternatively, possibly the doctor who was required to give a valid discharge to the mother to get her out in time was not available, perhaps because he was already operating or was absent with the flying squad dealing with an emergency which had arisen in a home confinement case. Yet another reason may have been that the mother was advised to stay in another day in order that her baby might see the paediatrician. In the result the mother may stay another few extra hours or an
774
extra day and be prevented from qualifying for the grant.
Whatever the period, the same problems will arise. The hon. Lady may be interested in the figures for the number of day, stay after delivery. In 1961 of 534,445 hospital confinements, 4,257 patients were discharged on the day of delivery, 15,000 on the first day after delivery, 20,034 on the second day, 15,475 on the third day and 11,758 on the fourth day and 13,141 on the fifth day. Thus, wherever the line for short-stay cases is drawn there would be a large number of mothers who would just fail to qualify and we should have more discontent than we have under the present emergency regulations. A few extra hours in hospital would mean the loss of the £6 grant. Moreover, the longer the period which is covered by the term "short stay" the less can we maintain the distinction between home and hospital confinements; indeed, we should diminish considerably the justification for a separate grant at all.
The other alternative is that of paying part of the grant in short-stay cases. Proportionate grants would require amendment of the Act as there is no power to pay less than the full grant. It would avoid the sharp "all or nothing" dividing line of the other alternative, but it would not be easy to find a satisfactory formula for the proportionate payments. One might reduce the grant by a tenth for every day spent in hospital after confinement, extinguishing it after a stay of 10 days, but this would mean disregarding days spent in hospital before the birth. These are taken into account under the existing emergency regulations.
A simpler formula might be to reduce the amount of the grant by, say, £1 for each day spent in hospital. Six days in hospital would then extinguish the present £6 grant, but there is no medical significance about six days as there is about 10 days, which is the period recommended by the Cranbrook Committee and the £1 reduction could not be justified as corresponding to any particular saving of expense. Moreover, the daily reduction would have to be reviewed whenever the amount of the grant was changed. Such a reduction would be purely arbitrary. Even if a satisfactory formula could be devised, there would

775
still be dissatisfaction and frustration. The amount at stake for an extra day in hospital would be much smaller but for some people it would still be significant in itself. Others to whom the amount involved might not be important might argue on the principle, especially if they lost money because they were kept longer in hospital against their wishes.
The problems now emerging are most carefully under consideration in the light of all the factors, not least the health and welfare services for which my right hon. Friends are responsible. As the hon. Lady knows—I hope I have made this clear to her in letters—and as hon. Members on both sides of the House who have written to me also know, this examination is well under way. There would be the possibility of referring the matter back to the National Insurance Advisory Committee again. If we were to reverse the policy we would need to investigate, together with the Minister of Health, the effects which such a change might have on the health services before deciding whether to refer the matter back
776
to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
We must bear in mind that well over 300,000 mothers receive the present home confinement grant and are satisfied with it. If they were to have babies in future they would expect to receive similar preference over mothers who elected to be confined in hospital. The tendency of critics of the present arrangements is to cite a particular case or cases and to say that the home confinement grant conditions should be amended so as to cover such cases without realising or even considering the full implication of consequences of such a course. We will consider and evaluate the different points raised by the hon. Lady and also the representations, some of which she mentioned, which we have received from many quarters before we reach a decision about what changes, if any, are advisable. I emphasise that we are looking into the conditions of this grant and the premises on which the original grant was made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Industrial Building
  Industrial Building
  Electrical Industries
  Electrical Industries
  South-West Region (Earnings)
  South-West Region (Earnings)
  Commonwealth Preference (Developing Countries)
  Commonwealth Preference (Developing Countries)
  Teesdale (Tourists)
  Teesdale (Tourists)
  Bishop Auckland (Hotels)
  Bishop Auckland (Hotels)
  Companies (Inquiries)
  Companies (Inquiries)
  August Bank Holiday
  August Bank Holiday
  Alva
  Alva
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  American Anti-dumping Regulations
  American Anti-dumping Regulations
  Toll Bridge Companies
  Toll Bridge Companies
  Cotton Textiles
  Cotton Textiles
NIGERIA
  British Officers (Special List A)
  British Officers (Special List A)
KENYA
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Veterinary Surgeons
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Sister Tutors
  Sister Tutors
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Overseas Students)
  Colleges of Advanced Technology (Overseas Students)
EDUCATION
  Teachers' Salaries (International Sporting Events)
  Teachers' Salaries (International Sporting Events)
  University of Wales (Extra Mural Studies)
  University of Wales (Extra Mural Studies)
  Adult Education (Grants)
  Adult Education (Grants)
  School Leaving
  School Leaving
  Bristol Education Authority (Grant)
  Bristol Education Authority (Grant)
  Sheffield City Training College (Students)
  Sheffield City Training College (Students)
UNIVERSITIES
  Women Medical Students
  Women Medical Students
SCIENCE
  Power by Fusion
  Power by Fusion
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hertfordshire County Council (Potters Bar)
  Hertfordshire County Council (Potters Bar)
  Statutory Fines (Review)
  Statutory Fines (Review)
  General Election (Service Voters)
  General Election (Service Voters)
  Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (Committee)
  Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (Committee)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas and Electricity (Resale Prices)
  Gas and Electricity (Resale Prices)
  Power Stations (Costs and Charges)
  Power Stations (Costs and Charges)
  Coal and Oil (Power Station Requirements)
  Coal and Oil (Power Station Requirements)
  Pipe-lines
  Pipe-lines
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Ministerial Broadcasts
  Ministerial Broadcasts
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Kiosks, South Antrim
  Kiosks, South Antrim
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Development Plans
  Development Plans
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (HIGH COURT DECISION)
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (HIGH COURT DECISION)
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (AID)
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (AID)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Polaris Missiles (Warheads)
  Polaris Missiles (Warheads)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Toxocara Canis
  Toxocara Canis
HOSPITALS
  Hospital Plan
  Hospital Plan
EMPLOYMENT
  Coalminers, East Dunbartonshire
  Coalminers, East Dunbartonshire
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Profits Tax
  Profits Tax

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

NORFOLK RAIL CLOSURE: COST OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICES
3.5 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional annual expenditure will be incurred by the Exchequer or local authorities in providing additional facilities for conveying children to and from the secondary modern or other schools in neighbouring towns, subsidising additional bus services for public use and substituting road for rail transport in respect of the parcels post in the rural areas of Norfolk by reason of the proposed closing of the railway from East Dereham to Wellsnext-the-Sea.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Railways Board are responsible for ensuring the provision of the alternative bus services which my right honourable friend has required to be available when the closure takes place. If any subsidy is required, it is not expected to exceed £3,000 a year. I am told that, until the full details of the new bus services are available, the local education authority cannot say whether they will be put to any additional expense on the transport of school children. No parcel mails are carried by trains on this line, and therefore no extra expenditure will fall on the General Post Office on that account.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that on March 17 last, in reply to the Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Stonham,
1044
he made a statement that the net annual saving by reason of the closing of this line would be £2,000? Seven stations are involved, so the average saving is about £300 per station—a saving of less than £1 per day. This will be entirely wiped out—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WISE: I am coming to my question in a moment. Is the noble Lord aware that this saving will be entirely wiped out by the figure he has just given to your Lordships? Will the noble Lord impress upon the Minister of Transport the extreme folly of inflicting hardship on people in rural areas in order to save a few pounds, or even a few pence?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I had rather imagined that that was the trap the noble Lord might fall into. It is perfectly true that the figure I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on March 17, in relation to the saving on the passenger closure of this line, was £2,000. To be strictly accurate, that was a round figure and, for the sake of the record, the actual figure is very close to £2,300. But I am told that the intention of the Railways Board is to close the freight side of the line as well, and the saving which will be achieved on this line will be £37,000 net. If this line were to be kept open for the reason the noble Lord suggests, and the freight service, which is losing heavily, were to be shut, that £37,000 would be transferred to the passenger service. It is to that sum that the noble Lord should relate the passenger saving.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only matter which had to be considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the public inquiry was the cessation or withdrawal of passenger services, and the answer he has now given is, in fact, no answer at all? Is he further aware that the T.U.C.C. were informed by the Railways Board officially that the saving which would be made by the withdrawal of the passenger service on this line was, not £2,000, but £26,700? Does the noble Lord not think, therefore, that they might have given a different recommendation if they had learned that the alleged loss was of a trifling character? Does he not think,

1045
in view of what my noble friend has said about the unquestionable hardship caused in this area, that he should ask his right honourable friend to look at the matter again?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. I am, in fact, quite well informed as to the procedure when a line is proposed for closure, and I know exactly what the T.U.C.C. have to consider. What I was giving was an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who was trying to make out that my right honourable friend was doing an extremely stupid thing. I was endeavouring to show that he was doing nothing of the kind, and that I think I have done. I think, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will appreciate that the consent to the closure of this line was from my right honourable friend and not from the T.U.C.C. The T.U.C.C. made certain recommendations, in view of what they considered to be the necessity to relieve a certain degree of hardship, in the shape of alternative services, and, having taken all other relative factors into account, my right honourable friend came to his decision.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the T.U.C.C. are given these figures in order that they may consider whether the alternatives to alleviate hardship are reasonable. The whole point is that they formed their judgment on information which we now know to be inaccurate. My point to the noble Lord is: does he not think it at least possible that their recommendations might have been different if they had been told that the loss was £2,000? This line serves Walsingham, and thousands of pilgrims go to the shrine of Thomas Walsingham. Are not these considerations to be taken into account? Does the noble Lord not agree that the whole question should be looked at again, in view of what is in any case a very trifling loss compared with the inconvenience and loss of amenity to a large number of people?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, those considerations have been taken into account already, and I think I have answered this Question pretty accurately.

PROPOSED EAST ANGLIAN RAIL CLOSURES
3.13 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the annual saving, if any, at Flordon, Forncett, Tivetshall, Burston, Wellis, Finningham, Haughley and Needham Market Stations by reason of the proposed closing to passenger traffic of these stations between Norwich and Ipswich; and, whether, before any are closed, a thorough investigation will be made as to the hardship which will be caused to passengers who regularly use these stations to travel to the towns covered by this section of the railway for educational, business, domestic and recreational purposes.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Railways Board have not yet given statutory notice under Section 56 of the Transport Act of a proposal to close these stations. If and when they do so, users will have an opportunity to lodge objections with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for East Anglia. The Committee will consider their objections and report to my right honourable friend on the hardship they consider would arise from closure. He will decide whether to give his consent after full consideration of the hardship to users and all other relevant factors.
It is the Board's practice to give the Consultative Committee a statement of the direct costs and receipts attributable to a passenger service proposed for closure. This information is passed on to the objectors by the Committee. But at this stage, when the Board have not yet announced their proposals, my right honourable friend has no information as to what the financial effects would be.
LORD WISE: My Lords, is it not the fact that these closures have already been announced in the Press?
LORD CHESHAM: Officially and statutorily, no, my Lords; but I am told that there have been rumours of

1047
what are thought to be the Railways Board's plans. That is what has been in the Press.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, answer the noble Lord's Question as soon as convenient after half-past three.

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ISLE OF WIGHT RIVER AND WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (SPECIFIED COMMODITIES) ORDER, 1964
3.16 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I think it might be convenient to your Lordships if we considered the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order, 1964, and the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order, 1964, simultaneously. Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, enables the three Agricultural Ministers to introduce by Order minimum import price and levy arrangements for the purpose of maintaining a stable market for agricultural and horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom. During the passing of this legislation through this House, it was explained that the Government intended to exercise these powers in rela-
1048
tion to certain cereals and cereal products.
Your Lordships will recall that there are basically three stages in introducing a minimum import price and levy régime on particular commodities under the powers in the Act. First, the Ministers must specify in an Order the commodities in relation to which they wish to be able to exercise the minimum import price and levy powers. Secondly, the Ministers prescribe the minimum import price levels to apply to the different "specified commodities" or subdivisions of them. Thirdly, they prescribe the arrangements relating to the charging of levies on individual commodities for the purpose of maintaining the minimum import price levels. When these arrangements have been prescribed by Order, levies may then be charged as necessary in order to maintain the minimum import price levels.
The two Orders which are before your Lordships cover the first two of the stages I have outlined. The Order specifying the commodities has the effect of defining the precise field of commodities in relation to which the minimum import price and levy powers may be exercised by the competent Ministers. The initial list of cereals and cereal products covers the main cereals, the cereal flours, various worked cereals and cereal offals. The secondary products have, of course, had to be covered in order to prevent imports of these from undermining the market for the main cereals. But the arrangements have been confined to only those secondary commodities which it was considered essential to cover in order to achieve the basic purpose of greater stability in the United Kingdom cereals market. If in the future it were found necessary, in the light of experience, to add to the initial list of "specified commodities", this would involve the laying of an amending Order, which would also require to be approved by Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
I come now to the second Order which is before your Lordships. This prescribes, in the Schedule, the levels of the minimum import prices for the different "specified commodities" and for certain sub-divisions of them. The Government have made it clear that the intention of the minimum import price

1049
arrangements on cereals is to cut out the unrealistically low-priced imports which have from time to time come to the United Kingdom market. The minimum import price levels have, therefore, been pitched towards the lower end of the range within which import prices have normally fluctuated but at levels which cut out the troughs. Each of the main cereals, with the exception of wheat, is subject to a single minimum import price. Wheat and wheat flour have, however, been sub-divided and different minimum import price levels are being applied to the different subdivisions in order to take account of the wider quality differentials which exist between the different varieties of these commodities. As to the relationship between the minimum import prices for the main cereals, this has been based on such factors as differences in quality and feeding value; the normal market differentials; the competitiveness of the imported product with our own home grown cereals, and other factors.
It has been made clear throughout discussions on the new policy for cereals, both before and during the passage of the legislation from which these Orders derive, that the intention is not to apply minimum import prices with the purpose of raising the general price level for cereals in the United Kingdom. But, unless we take steps to control the prices at which imports of cereals can come into our market, we shall continue to face the possibility of disruption from supplies at rock bottom prices and the repercussions which this has on the returns of our own growers and on the Exchequer's bill for deficiency payments.
The House will note that the minimum import price levels in the second Order are to come into effect on a date or dates which are still to be appointed. This is necessary because, as I have explained, the arrangements for cereals have to be completed by a further Order laying down the detailed provisions in relation to the charging of levies. The import price levels cannot come into force until the arrangements for maintaining or enforcing them have been prescribed. But the Government decided to bring the minimum import price levels
1050
before Parliament at the same time as the Order specifying the cereals and cereal products in order to enable them to be approved in advance and also to give the trade the maximum notice.
These Orders cover, therefore, the first two stages which I have outlined in introducing the very important new arrangements for the control of import prices for cereals. They will be supplemented in due course by an Order prescribing the detailed arrangements for the charging of levies, when necessary, to maintain the minimum import price levels. A White Paper which was laid before Parliament on April 15 gave the terms of the agreements which have already been concluded between the United Kingdom Government and the Governments of Australia, Canada, the United States of America and Argentina, under the terms of which these countries have undertaken to co-operate in the operation and observance of the minimum import prices. If, however, any "specified commodity" is available for import into the United Kingdom from an individual co-operating country at prices below the related minimum import price, the United Kingdom Government will have the right to impose levies on such imports so as to maintain the prescribed minimum.
The Government's policy is to proceed, so far as possible, by such agreements, and it is hoped that similar ones will be concluded with a number of our other suppliers. The levy arrangements Order, which will, as I have explained, be brought before Parliament at a later date, will be drafted in terms which reflect the agreements that have been concluded.
I should explain to the House that special arrangements have been worked out for Australian and Canadian wheat flour. It was not found possible to fit these wheat flours into the general arrangements in a way which took account of the special circumstances of this trade and maintained the Canadian and Australian preferences on wheat flour. The special arrangements provide for a related levy on Canadian and Australian flour when there is a levy on the corresponding wheat. They also include certain assurances and other detailed provisions. These arrangements are designed to safeguard the minimum import price system. The details of the special arrangements

1051
for Canadian and Austrialian wheat flour were published on Monday, and the necessary legislative provisions for these flours will be included in the levy arrangements Order to which I have referred, The arrangements for wheat flour as a whole are to be kept under review by a Flour Supervisory Committee, consisting of representatives of the United Kingdom, Australian, Canadian and United States Governments.
The minimum import price arrangements for cereals and cereal products, together with the standard quantity arrangements for domestic production outlined in the Annual Review White Paper, implement the new policy for cereals which was announced by the Minister of Agriculture last May in another place. These modifications in our existing arrangements for cereals are necessary if we are to maintain our system of support in the face of the growing pressures which have from time to time been placed upon it. They are designed to bring greater stability to our cereals market, and so to contain the cost to the Exchequer of the deficiency payments. I commend the two Orders which are before the House for approval, and beg to move the first Order.
Moved, That the draft Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order, 1964, laid before the House on the 15th of April, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his lucid exposure of the length to which the Government are willing to go in their determination to cut the Treasury costs of supporting the farmers' prices. It was a gallant but unavailing defence of the indefensible. I should like to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to the upper level, if I might put it, of the minimum import prices for wheat. I notice, for example, that those in item 5 of the Schedule are £26 a ton; and in item 6, £26 10s. a ton. They compare with the farmers' guaranteed price of £26 10s. a ton. I wonder to what extent, in fixing these minimum prices—which the noble Lord said were fixed at the lower levels of average recent prices—the Government had regard to the guaranteed prices,
1052
because, unless the noble Lord can give some other explanation, the top level of imported wheat prices have in fact been fixed virtually at the guaranteed prices, which may well produce price stability but will also virtually abolish the subsidy.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I might help him on this point by pointing out that these prices relate to particular qualities of wheat. Of course, they do not relate to the whole range, as the noble Lord will have noticed.
LORD STONHAM: Of course I have noticed that, because it says so in the Order. I did not think it was necessary to read out the Order itself. I referred to items 5 and 6 and to the prices which are given. In fact, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Perhaps he will think about it.
To come to the lower end of the scale—£20 for barley (one fixed price), £20 10s. for denatured wheat, and £22 10s. for other wheat—it seems to me that these regulations are, in fact, nothing more than an insurance policy taken out by the Treasury, for which the housewife will be compelled to pay the premiums. That, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh pointed out a few days ago, is strictly in line with Conservative policy. As I mentioned, the minimum import price for barley has been fixed at 20s. a cwt. against the guaranteed price to home farmers of 26s 8d. a cwt.; and for wheat 20s. 6d. as against 26s. 6d.
I would put it to the noble Lord that under these Orders only two possible situations can arise. The first is that the interplay of supply and demand will keep true world prices above those minimum prices of 20s. or 20s. 6d. per cwt. minima. In that case nothing will happen and these two Orders will have no effect whatever. The second possibility, and in my view the far more likely one, is that world prices at least for part of each year, if they are not artificially distorted, will fall below the minima. Indeed, that is what the Order is for, as the noble Lord explained. If that happens, the effect of these Orders, despite the noble Lord's assurance that it was not the intention generally to raise prices in this country, will be to fix world minimum prices for the export

1053
of these cereals to this country. I do not think this can be denied because, as was explained previously, our main suppliers have agreed to take steps to see that their exporters do not sell below the minimum. So we are, in fact fixing a price.
As for the other countries who have not yet come to an agreement, they will not be such fools as to sell at an unnecessarily low price and so incur a levy. In any case, it is obvious that the grain will come on to the home market at an artificially inflated price. That is the whole object of this exercise. Farmers will pay more for their imported feeding-stuffs, and of course housewives will pay more for the end product. And these imposts, though concealed, will in my submission be substantial.
To take just one example, the imports of French wheat over recent years, which are now quite considerable, in 1959 we imported only some 1 million cwt. of wheat from France. There has been an increase every year since then, and last year we imported, not 1 million, but 5·2 million cwt. of wheat from France. That is a fivefold increase in five years. I notice that the minimum import price for European milling wheat is fixed at £22 10s. a ton in this Order. Last year, from April to June the import price of French wheat was an average of £21 10s. a ton; that is £1 per ton below the minimum now proposed to be fixed. The current price was £21 15s.—I say "the current price was", which sound a bit Irish, because I am absolutely certain that as soon as these Orders were laid and the French saw what the minimum import price was, £22 10s., they adjusted their price accordingly. Indeed, it would be doing them an injustice to think they would not do it and did not do it.
That is what is happening and that is what will happen, and I suppose the Government would regard that as a success for the Order. It is a success the noble Lord wanted to see—namely, that the margin between guaranteed price and market price would be narrowed, less subsidy paid to the farmers, and the Minister would not have to secure approval for a supplementary estimate. But it would be a success dearly bought and paid for by the housewife, because
1054
that extra £2 a ton at the ports will become at least £3 or £4 in the shops. It is another fractional increase in the cost of living, an added pressure for increased wages and further inducement to inflation, and the farmers will not benefit by one penny.
We are all agreed on the need for stable markets for agriculture, and indeed no one was more successful at providing it than my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. This is not the way to secure stability for agriculture. Day by day we get remarkable evidence of the way in which the Government dispense their bounty. To-day it is the turn of the foreign farmer, who can look forward with confidence to millions of pounds of unasked for extra profit provided by the temporarily helpless British consumers. The only consolation is that, fortunately, they will not be helpless very much longer, because when the next harvest is gathered we shall have a Government in power which, while playing a full and responsible part with other nations in sensible distribution of the world's food supplies, will see that our own farmers and consumers do not labour under expensive handicaps such as these—I was going to say very foolish, but I will say reprehensible—Orders impose.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is arguing in favour of "dumping" prices for agricultural products for this country? There is no such thing as a world price for any agricultural product, so far as I know, which is not in some degree a result of artificial aid in the country in which that grain or other product is produced. What I understand the noble Lord to say is that he would like to see these products dumped on the British markets.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount had been here at the Second Reading of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill he would have known better than to ask that question. I hope he will do me the honour of reading the speech I made on that occasion. I am not in favour of dumping—of course not; but I am in favour of a guaranteed market for home farmers built up in a way which does not give foreign producers unasked for profits and impose further burdens on the housewife.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might now answer the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put to me earlier to-day on the subject of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and what communication the Prime Minister had received from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia about the Conference. The Answer is as follows.
The meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers are, by tradition convened by the British Prime Minister, who in making the arrangements seeks to meet the wishes of his Commonwealth colleagues. It has long been recognised that the only persons who attend these meetings of right are the Prime Ministers of the fully independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, before issuing invitations to the Prime Minister of any country which is not independent the British Government have always thought it right to satisfy themselves that this would be generally acceptable to other members.
In accordance with this practice, we told the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that if he so wished we were ready to consult the Prime Ministers of the independent member countries about the question of an invitation to him. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia replied that he considered that he was entitled as of right to receive an invitation to the meeting, and that he did not therefore wish the British Government to consult other Commonwealth Governments about it. We have asked him to consider the matter further, since we would not feel it right to depart from the usual practice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his statement. May I ask him whether the Government will make it perfectly clear to the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the British Government's view about the locus of Southern Rhodesia in relation to an invitation to the Prime Ministers' Conference is shared by both the major Parties in this country? May I also ask him (because
1056
it did not seem to be absolutely clear from the statement), whether, if the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia changes his mind and asks for an invitation, as a matter of courtesy and practice no such invitation will be issued without the agreement of the other members of the Commonwealth?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord the leader of the House for his statement, which really repeats what he was good enough to tell me in this House last week. I think the Government have been put in an embarrassing situation, and we on these Benches take the view that the course which the Government have taken is entirely right.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for what the two noble Lords have said. I think the noble Earl has misunderstood the position, My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to consider the matter further—the matter being whether or not he would like us to consult the Prime Ministers of the indepent member countries about the question of an invitation to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself absolutely clear. I understood that in that event the Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries would be consulted. What I wanted to know was not only whether they would be consulted but whether their agreement would be obtained before Her Majesty's Government decided to issue an invitation.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am sure that would be so.
LORD REA: Would that be majority agreement or unanimous agreement?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think matters concerning the Commonwealth are always by unanimous agreement.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, has it been considered whether other Commonwealth countries might be agreeeable to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia coming for part of the Conference—namely, for the discussion of the Southern Rhodesia case—by invitation of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers? It seems to me that

1057
if the other Commonwealth countries were asked if they objected to his coming for part of the sessions, that would dispose of the question of his right of access to the Conference.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that is a very interesting suggestion, and one that I should like to pass on to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (SPECIFIED COMMODITIES) ORDER, 1964
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am replying to only one noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past. He raised, I think, four main questions—at any rate, I recorded four main questions. He asked my agreement to a statement he made, that our efforts were to cut the Treasury cost and to charge a premium to the housewives. On that, I think it only right to remind him that it is not the Treasury cost; it has to be the taxpayer's cost—the Treasury gets its money mainly from taxes, and most families buying food contain a taxpayer.
I took up, but apparently not sufficiently to the noble Lord's satisfaction, his question about what he called maximum prices. As a matter of fact, I misunderstood his term. He was referring, as I said, to the prices charged for specific qualities of wheat, and I tried to point out that these wheats were of a superior quality, and that the minimum import prices are sub-divided as to the types of wheat, in order to make fair the corresponding prices. In fact the minimum import price that he mentioned, £26 10s., is for the superior North American hard wheats which are not produced in this country, and the minimum import price for Continental wheat, which is the wheat that mainly corresponds to the type produced in this country, is £22 10s. I hope that I have persuaded him that this is fair.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has quite persuaded me that it is fair to
1058
sub-divide prices according to qualities: I am not disputing that at all. The point that I am making is that there is only one guaranteed home price, £26 10s. If the minimum import price of any quality is £26 10s. and the wheat comes in at that price, and that is the market, then, quite obviously, no subsidy will be payable because of the difference in the level of market. It will be the same price.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry. I wish I could make myself plainer to the noble Lord. The fact is that this relates to a type of wheat which we do not produce in this country.
LORD STONHAM: With respect to the noble Lord, he has told me something of which I am well aware. If wheat is imported and the price is fixed at £26 10s. per ton, and the farmers' guaranteed price here is £26 10s., although for a different type of wheat, obviously there will be no subsidy payable. That is what I would have thought.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord and I are not going to understand each other in regard to this question. If, in fact, we were able to produce this superior type of hard wheat, then presumably the price for the domestic wheat would be as high as the price for the corresponding American wheat; but at the moment we cannot produce that wheat.
The noble Lord also said that the effect of these Orders would be to bring grain on to the market at an artificially high price. That is not so. I quite see that it is a political point which he is tempted to make, and which others of his colleagues have felt themselves tempted to make. But what we are, in fact, doing is preventing artificially low prices which have upset the market in recent years. The noble Lord referred in particular to the question of French wheat coming in last year below what is now to be the minimum import price for corresponding wheat, and yet he objected to our proposed arrangements. I should be happy to be present when he went down to explain to his farming friends in Somerset that he thought this was a bad thing, and that he thought that the French wheat ought to continue to undercut our wheat. It would be an interesting exercise of the

1059
noble Lord's persuasiveness at which I would gladly be present. Finally, and most interestingly, he implied in his closing remarks, I thought quite strongly, that a theoretical future Labour Government would rescind these Orders and scrap the whole system. That I found most interesting, and I thought that it really should be more widely known.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, a week ago to-day the noble Lord literally invited me to say something, and then, when I had said something, he proceeded to charge me almost with having perverted the Holy Gospel and made use of terminological inexactitudes. I do not intend to give him an opportunity of repeating that statement. I should, however, like to congratulate him upon this second instalment of the Conservative Party's efforts to "Set the people free!" It has taken them eleven years, since 1953, to prepare themselves for the second move in setting the people free, and I should like to say just this one word in conclusion. If he would be good enough to take a Gallup Poll of Conservative Members sitting in the House at this moment, plus Independents, plus Opposition Members, too, to ascertain how many of them understand the policy that he has enunciated this afternoon, it would tell us a good deal that we do not know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to correct something that I said in answer to a supplementary question by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? The noble Earl asked me whether there was a unanimity ruling for this Commonwealth Conference; and I said, Yes. I should have known that that is not so; there is not. So if a situation arose in which the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia did change his mind, the Prime Ministers themselves of course would have to decide what to do.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that would then be a matter for them? They would get together and they would decide, possibly by a majority?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (MINIMUM IMPORT PRICE LEVELS) ORDER, 1964
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the draft Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order, 1964, laid before the House on the 15th of April, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES BILL [H.L.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law on diplomatic privileges and immunities by giving effect to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, this Bill—for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, this useful little Bill—proposes to make permanent the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, a temporary Act, which has been continued yearly until now by the Expiring Laws Continuance procedure. I must first deal briefly with the 1949 Act and the reason for it. In the years following the last war there was a scarcity of shop premises, and it was alleged that shop tenants were being asked to pay exorbitant increases in

1061
rent or were being evicted without the option of buying premises. A Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Taylor, which sat in 1947, thought that the situation did not require legislation. However, in 1948, the complaints multiplied and the Committee was reconstituted under the chairmanship of Mr. W. H. Guthrie, now Lord Guthrie. The Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, was based on their Interim Report.
The Act provides that where a landlord of a shop has given notice of termination of a tenancy, and the tenant cannot obtain a renewal of the tenancy on terms satisfactory to him, he may apply to the sheriff. The sheriff is empowered to determine that the tenancy shall be renewed for a period not exceeding one year at a time, at such rent and on such terms and conditions as in all the circumstances he thinks reasonable. The parties are thereafter deemed to have entered into a new lease on the period, terms and conditions fixed by the sheriff. The sheriff may dismiss an application if he thinks it reasonable to do so. He is required to dismiss an application if he is satisfied on one or other of the points in Section 3 of the 1949 Act.
The other provisions are that the sheriff may grant repeated renewals of a tenancy, each for a period not exceeding one year, and that the proceedings before the sheriff are dealt with under the simple procedure appropriate to the small debt court. The 1949 Act was enacted to expire on December 31, 1951. In their final Report the Guthrie Committee recommended that it should be continued until 1955. It was in fact continued until 1958, when another review took place. In that year a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. I. H. Shearer (now the Lord Advocate) considered whether there was need to continue the Act after 1958. They found that the Act still served a useful purpose, and recommended that it should be continued for a period not exceeding five years.
Both these Committees thought the Act should be temporary, yet we are making it permanent. Let me explain how we reached that decision. During 1963 we carried out a review in which we consulted the interests who had given
1062
evidence to the Shearer Committee. We obtained the views of 33 federations, associations or societies of whom 26 favoured the continuance of the Act. We had also to bear in mind that the Act was still being made use of. The number of applications to the sheriff, which varied between 300 and 350 a year until 1957, has been declining since then. In 1960 it was 133; the next year 118; then 136; and last year it was 102. But use apart, there is the important consideration that the very existence of the Act must lead to fair bargains being struck without recourse to the sheriff—which is a protection for all concerned not to be lightly discarded.
After careful consideration, we decided that the weight of evidence and advantage is in favour of continuing the 1949 Act. There is still a sellers' market in shops and this may place the tenant at a disadvantage. Nor does it seem likely that this situation will change greatly in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, most Scottish tenancies are still on a year-to-year basis and the notice of termination, which may under Statute be as little as 40 days, can create hardship for the tenant and the successful application to the sheriff can give him a breathing space. So much for the 1949 Act.
I now turn to the pesent Bill. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that the Act shall now continue in force until Parliament otherwise determines. That is the only provision of substance. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 repeals transitional provisions in the 1949 Act which became spent in 1949. I can recommend this Bill to your Lordships. The 1949 Act has been in operation for over fourteen years, and there is ample evidence that it has worked well. In particular, there is general confidence—and we thank them for it—in the way that the sheriffs have used their powers under the Act. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
3.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the very clear statement he gave of the purpose of the original Act of 1949,

1063
and for the quite unsolicited, and rather unusual, compliment he paid to the wisdom of the Government of that date in passing the measure. However, I would remind your Lordships that the Minister stated that, when the first Act came in in 1949, it was intended to deal with a temporary situation arising largely from the shortage of shops following wartime conditions. It is perhaps a reflection upon the present Government that during the past twelve years their rent policies, in particular, have succeeded in making permanent the situation which in 1949 was hoped to be only temporary. I cannot therefore return the compliment by congratulating the Government upon succeeding in making a permanent necessity of this Act.
However, one must deal with facts as they are, and the Minister has clearly outlined, in relation to a number of cases which have been put forward, the need for this Act at the present time. On a further point which he made, the effect of the Act in perhaps encouraging negotiated agreements between owners and shopkeepers is very much more important than the number of cases which actually go to court. Therefore, I cannot do other than support the Second Reading.
However, in the discussion of the Bill in another place another aspect emerged. An Amendment was moved on the subject of compensation which might be payable to shopkeepers for fixtures which they have installed in a shop and for good will they might have built up, provided they had a tenancy. I believe that the period in the Amendment was not less than five years. Having regard to the uncertainties aroused among shopkeepers by another measure which your Lordships will be considering in due course, it might be wise to consider the possibility of extending the right of compensation to shopkeepers who are deprived of their tenancy in these circumstances. I shall probably submit an Amendment to this effect in due course. At present, however, the Bill as it stands is good. It may be that it can be made a little better.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am glad he is not suggesting that there should be compensation provisions in
1064
this Bill. It is a wide question and should be examined in its right context.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I suggested that I shall be moving that at the appropriate stage of this Bill.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am quite sure that I have an appropriate answer for the noble Lord. I am never afraid to say that a Bill is a good one when it is good, and I say that this is a good Bill. It is not a reflection on the present Government that, with the redevelopment of some large-scale areas, there must be some protection for the tenant, and this is a very good protection. I would congratulate Dundee and Glasgow on the way they have handled this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

HARBOURS BILL
3.56 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Ports Council, and principal duties thereof]:
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "charged" to insert:
"with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment—which found some favour with the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Shackleton—that something should be included in Clause 1 of the Bill to indicate that the National Ports Council's functions would include the very important one of working out an overall plan. At that time I said that I was in agreement with that in principle, but was worried about the possible inhibiting effect that could be imported into the Bill if we were not careful. I do not think there is any need for me to describe this again, and, after more thought than is reflected in what appears

1065
to be the rather simple wording which has been arrived at, I am now quite sure that we can do what the noble Lord wished without any of the unfortunate and dangerous effects. That is the substance of my Amendment which I hope your Lordships will approve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("charged") insert ("with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and").(Lord Chesham. )
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also to extend to him my congratulations on having found a form of words which evaded me and which brings this important duty to the notice of the public by getting it into the Bill without the inhibiting effects to which he referred.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we on this side welcome this Amendment. We are very pleased to see that the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary have seen fit to accept this form of words which, in our opinion, as was stated by noble Lords on this side, strengthens the Bill. We welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Promotion by the Council of research, and training and education]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("workers") to ("and") in line 38.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further Amendment which I have put down in view of an undertaking I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to look at his suggestion that Clause 3 should be amended to enable the Council to make charges in respect of research, just as they could in respect of training and education. On reflection it seemed to me that the suggestion was a reasonable one, and so this Amendment went down. The only point I need mention, which your Lordships will
1066
probably have noted, in any case, is that there can be a charge only with a person's or body's agreement, and only for research to which they have also agreed. I think that to take power to force it on them, so to speak, would be regarded by all your Lordships as unreasonable, and therefore the Amendment is in this form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) The Council may make, in or towards satisfaction of expenses incurred by them in promoting research into any matter at the instance or with the consent of any person or body, charges of such amounts as may be agreed between them and that person or body.")—(Lord Chesham. )
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to do. I was rather wondering, from looking again at what we said on the last occasion, whether the Amendment was necessary and whether Clause 4, without the restriction of the later Amendment put into it, would not have provided the Council with funds. Is it because this is in the case of an undertaking to a particular individual authority that it is necessary to take this specific power? I fully accept that if the charge is always specific to an individual, it is right to get consent as opposed to a general levy.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the idea there is, of course, that this widening of the power to charge for research scoops in a great many more people than authorities themselves. That is its whole idea. We intended to bring underneath this particular umbrella all the people who were carrying on what we might call the ancillary trades. Therefore I think it is very necessary to have this provision in the Bill.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, there is only one proviso that I would add. It is obvious that the firms who are willing and are going to take part in the scheme are going to benefit from research, but there will still be certain people left who will benefit from research by the contributions of others. I do not see how that can be avoided, but no doubt with the example of many joining they will ultimately follow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provision of funds for the Council]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) in the exercise of their powers uncle subsection (1) of the last foregoing section or in the discharge of a duty imposed on them by virtue of subsection (2) of that section;
(b) in the discharge of liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them;").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Control of harbour development
9.—
(11) The Minister may by order made under this subsection substitute for the sum of £500,000 mentioned in subsection (6) above such other sum as is specified in the order; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 links with No. 6 and both are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("it") to end of line 6.
Page 9, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) A person undertaking, or securing the undertaking of, a project under an authorisation for the time being subject to any conditions having effect by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (4) above shall comply with those conditions.").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 are linked and they are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("other than one")
Page 9, line 37, after ("above") insert ("otherwise than").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 45, after second ("of") insert ("the execution of").—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I accept of course that this is a drafting Amendment, but I was wondering whether the noble Lord could explain what it means. The words at present in the Bill are "undertaking of" works, and the Amendment says "execution of" works. So far as I can see, the only difference between undertaking and executing is, perhaps, that undertaking is starting something and executing is seeing it through to the finish. But if the clause bites on an undertaking, it does not seem to me necessary to include the word "execution". If it is only intended to bite if the works are executed, then the word "undertaking" should be left out. I really do not understand the purpose of the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord could explain.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is not as complicated as the noble Viscount says. The purpose of the drafting Amendment is to introduce into subsection (7) a reference to the execution of works, which corresponds to similar references in subsections (1) and (9). It is merely to keep them in line.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.8 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA moved, in subsection (11), to leave out "other" and insert "greater". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment to alter one word is to allay what I think are the genuine fears of companies and others in the private sector of harbour works and ancillary undertakings of that sort. The ceiling of £500,000 in Clause 9 gives them a protection against what might be termed interference by any future Minister of Transport—and I am not, of course, talking of the present Minister—who might seek to use this clause to take charge of all harbour work and more or less nationalise it by the use of a lower figure.
Although the provision calls for an Affirmative Resolution of each House, I submit that the dangers of the £500,000 being reduced by some future Government, with possibly a majority obedient to the Party line, are such that the Minister ought not to be given a power to vary downwards, but of course he should have power to vary upwards. With increasing costs of labour and

1069
goods it is likely that it may be necessary at some future time to increase the amount of £500,000 within the spirit of this Bill, but I do not think it would be within the spirit of this Bill if that figure were reduced. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he would accept this small Amendment to-day.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("other") and insert ("greater").—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord has put forward this Amendment, because I think the effect of it is undesirably restrictive on what it is intended the Bill should contain. I believe that his fears on behalf of the interests he mentioned are exaggerated, as I think I shall be able to show in a moment. It has been recognised that without experience of operation of a system of capital development control it is not very easy to form a final view on what scope that control ought to have. This is a matter of a flat monetary limit on a variety of schemes. I suppose one could say that, with experience of operation of capital development control, there ought to be a sophisticated kind of differentiation between the limit that one applies to different classes of capital development, but I believe that, certainly at this stage, it would be very difficult and over-sophisticated to try to bring in a scheme like that.
I think it is most necessary to keep the Minister's power to vary the figure downwards as well as upwards, because it is possible, although I do not think it is very probable, that there might be attempts to evade the control by splitting schemes in two, each port coming to below the £500,000 mark and thereby avoiding control. I do not think it is very likely that that would happen, but I think the power ought to be there in case it did. All such limits are bound to be arbitrary to some extent, but we think that this limit is set about right and should prove effective for quite a long time.
The reassurance I should like to give to the noble Lord is this: first, that I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Ports Council would want to propose any variation in this unless there were
1070
very good reasons for doing SO; secondly, if they did propose any such variation, the order which the Minister would have to make for the purpose would have to be placed before Parliament and be subject to Affirmative Resolution. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I assure him it would. I think that that ought to provide a very adequate safeguard against anything there may be in the fears the noble Lord has expressed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has dealt with this matter so clearly. I must say, to be frank, that I thought this, as did my noble friends, an absurd Amendment. I do not quite know why the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has brought such a suspicious mind to bear. We have well-established Parliamentary customs in this matter; and what justification there is for saying that any Government are going to try nationalisation—and I do not see how you achieve it in the way he suggested—by the back door, I do not know. But, in any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, there is perfectly satisfactory Parliamentary control. I should like to see what would happen to a Government which did try to do it; and, in any case, I do not think they could.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 [Enforcement of control of harbour development]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("given") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 4, and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("constructing").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 39 and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Minister's powers, on application of harbour authorities, or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency, etc.]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, after ("section") insert ("and to the following provisions of this Act.")— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minister's powers, on application of intending undertakers, or others, to make orders conferring powers for improvement, construction, etc., of harbours]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, also, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("modification, any provision of") and insert ("modifications, any provision of the").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Harbour reorganisation schemes]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("such a body as aforesaid") and insert ("a body constituted by the scheme").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the inclusion in any
1072
harbour reorganisation scheme of any provision which confers upon any of the relevant authorities the exclusive right to carry on in or in any part of the group to which the scheme relates a business the activities of which consist of or include all or any of the following activities, that is to say, the berthing, towing, moving or dry docking of a ship, the loading or unloading of goods or embarking or disembarking of passengers, or the lighterage, warehousing, sorting, sampling, weighing or handling of goods."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proposing this Amendment with the same voice as that which I used in respect of the last one, but the operative word here is in the fourth line, the word "exclusive". It is merely to have a provision that the harbour organisation shall not have the exclusive right to carry on functions like towage, wharfage, master porterage, stevedoring and so on. It seems only natural, in a Bill of this sort, that one would not wish to give them the exclusive right, and therefore I should like that to be made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not greatly care for this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, either. Incidentally, I notice that he wishes to withhold this exclusive right not only from a whole group of harbours but from any part of the group. I am not sure how significant that may be, but I noted that both were decisively included. In their Report—and I would call your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 112 and 113, in particular—the Rochdale Committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating groups of ports where that was suitable. The Report does not, in fact, recommend or propose that exclusive rights should be conferred for the type of activity which the noble Lord mentions in his Amendment, and there is certainly no suggestion that this policy should be adopted in harbour reorganisation schemes.
I do not quite know whether I am strictly in order or not, but I have been told that the Ports Council certainly do not see, in terms of desirability or otherwise, that these things should be done in this way. They attach importance to the fact that perhaps they could be so done; that is the point. But, surely

1073
every scheme will have to be considered on its merits and bearing in mind the individual circumstances of each case. In a particular case there may be a strong argument for reducing the number of interests operating in a harbour or group of harbours; and even, for some purposes, for having only one authority. But I think it would be wrong to write into the clause (which is what the noble Lord wants), a quite inflexible provision to prevent anything of the kind from happening in any circumstances at all. It may well be, in fact, that granting a right of this kind may be a useful way of promoting the efficiency for which everyone is looking.
It does not necessarily mean that things become inefficient because an authority may have exclusive rights over certain activities in a harbour. In the new docks at Lackenby, on the Tees, the loading and discharging of vessels are the exclusive responsibility of the Tees Conservancy Commission, and this system is working very well. I think Manchester is another example where it works very well; and, as one of the recommendations of the Rochdale Report was that a new independent port trust should be established for the Tees, which would involve a harbour reorganisation scheme, I think it would be a great pity to undo the work which is being done, as of course would be the position if we accepted this Amendment.
Again I would point out to the noble Lord that under the Bill there is ample opportunity for objections to be made if anyone feels aggrieved. There is the provision in Schedule 4 that, where objections are substantive ones, an inquiry should be held by the Minister before a scheme is confirmed; and if it is confirmed, it is subject to the special Parliamentary procedure, with the possibility of further objection being taken by Parliament. That again, I should have thought, ought to cover the point that the noble Lord has raised.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I read this Amendment very carefully, and frankly, I am amazed to find this Amendment appearing on the Report stage. I should have thought it was something relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill. It is, of course, a wrecking Amendment; it is nothing more nor less. First
1074
of all, when moving his previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it had reference to the fact that he saw backdoor nationalisation in one section of the Bill. Now he is flogging the old liberal hobbyhorse of monopoly. I suggest to the noble Lord that when he considers many of our ports to-day, such as the Port of London Authority, or Hull, he will find that there is no monopoly whatever in the operating. There has been no attempt by the authorities to usurp power and take over every service. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said—and I want only to stress, not to reiterate—there is every possible safeguard in this Bill where the schemes must come before Parliament for ratification.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 [Compensation for loss of office, &c., in consequence of orders and schemes under foregoing provisions]:
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words after "a situation, place or employment" down to and including "not more than," and insert:
"might suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that, if he does, compensation should be paid in respect thereof, that Minister shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures that there will be paid to or in respect of that person, if he suffers any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid, compensation corresponding, as near as may be, to".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, during the Committee stage raised two points on compensation at which I undertook to have another look. I had another look, a lot of careful thought and attention has been devoted to them, and it appeared that there was substance in the points the noble Lord made. Therefore I have put down this Amendment which scoops up both the points he raised in the one Amendment. What was wanted was that Clause 19 should expressly provide that the Minister should ensure that there were compensation provisions in any harbour revision or empowerment order in any case where there was any possibility that they might be appropriate.
The noble Lord's other point was to accept the fact—as I think we must—that compensation arising under Harbour Orders could be different from that under reorganisation schemes. Never

1075
theless, as far as possible compensation payable under Clause 19(1) should be the same as that payable under subsection 2. I think his wording is considerably improved and I believe it meets the points the noble Lord raised. I will not deny that its drafting has been difficult; but it has been done and I think it has been done successfully. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 34, leave out from ("employment") to ("that") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the time and trouble he has devoted to this problem since the Committee stage. I am assured that the wording will meet the point I ventured to raise then. I am glad the Minister has been able to accept the views which have been submitted to him, and, on behalf not only of myself but of the officers who may be involved, I would express appreciation and thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, after ("holder") insert ("in similar circumstances").—(Lord Chesham. )
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Orders for establishing schemes for control of movement of ships in harbours
20.—
(4) The provisions of a control of movement order having effect by virtue of subsection (3)(i) above shall not be so framed as to permit—

(b) on conviction on indictment of a person of such an offence or of the master of a ship by reason of such a failure or contravention, of the infliction on him of imprisonment (whether in addition to, or in substitution for, a fine) for a term exceeding six months.

4.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) moved, in subsection 4(b) after "contravention" to insert:

"(i) of the infliction on him of imprisonment except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the
1076
case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful; or

(ii) in the said excepted case,".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion in Committee we had a useful debate on the provisions of this clause and, in particular, as to whether or not there should be liability to a sentence of imprisonment, not exceeding six months, on trial on indictment for offences constituted by a control of movement order. It is, of course, the case that only the more serious offences are tried on indictment, and under this Bill the control of movement order will define what will constitute the offences; and the order, of course, when prepared, will be subject to Parliamentary control. In Committee I expressed the view that it was right to have a liability to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months for the serious cases. I adhere to that view, for the reason that the risks which may ensue from a serious breach of a control of movement order may be considerably greater than even the risks on some of our highways to-day. Moreover, they may involve many more people and, indeed, property as well.
During that discussion, however, it became apparent that while, if I judged the sense of the Committee rightly, noble Lords were not opposed to such liability for the more serious offences, the Committee wished the generality of the provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, to be limited in some degree. I undertook to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to consider that matter; and I should like to inform your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has told me he very much regrets that he is unable to be present here to-day, but that he entirely agrees with the Amendment I am proposing. The effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that no person charged on indictment for an offence under a control of movement order will be liable to have a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him
"except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful;".
Your Lordships may wonder why that second phrase is there. I understand the reason is that the failure may be wilful or the contravention reckless in disregard of a direction given under the

1077
control of movement order. It has, I gather, to be drafted in that way to be satisfactory. But the effect of this Amendment will be that no one will be able to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment on trial on indictment unless it is established that the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully. I hope that the Amendment meets my undertaking on Committee stage to look at the wording, to see whether it was possible to achieve that object, and that it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 8, after ("contravention") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for carrying out the undertaking he gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I would point out, for the purpose of the Record, that to put noncompliance, even though it may be limited to wilful default, on the same basis as infringement of the Collision Regulations is open to objection, for two reasons. First, I would say that it is creating a precedent for less enlightened countries abroad, which I maintain is very dangerous and a serious matter. Secondly, the Collision Regulations comprise a code written down in black and white, whereas situations which could arise tinder a control of movement order are capable of considerable flexibility; and it is always the unpredictable and unexpected that arises at sea.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that a control of movement order may involve the professional judgment of three people: the master of the ship, the pilot and the harbourmaster—or whoever is exercising control. Therefore there is all the difference between the rigid code of Collision Regulations and what might occur under a control of movement order. I would point out that it is easy to identify in a written code the serious consequences which could result from non-compliance by wilful default or gross recklessness; but wilful default in failing to observe a direction of movement order must depend on the nature of the direction or
1078
prohibition, as well as the circumstances in which it is given.
It would seem that Her Majesty's Government's case for retaining the imprisonment provision appears to be partly based on the fact that big ships carry such cargoes as explosives and inflammable material. During the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that responsibility of a matter of, for example, a scupper tanker is in inverse ratio to the size of the ship and the nature of the cargo. I maintain that the reverse is the case. When an owner entrusts a very large ship to the care of a master, I certainly do not think that the fact that imprisonment is in the background will have any effect on the exercise of a master's judgment. I still maintain that this subsection ought never to have been inserted in this Bill. But I have made my point, and I do not propose to carry the matter any further.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we on this side of the House think that the Government have gone as far as we can reasonably expect them to do to meet the criticism that was raised on both sides of the House with regard to the imprisonment clause. This clause was drafted for the express purpose of increasing safety in harbour. Nevertheless, it has been admitted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, stated—that in view of the special cargoes that are now arriving at ports (and as a new example which will be coming along very soon, I would quote methane, which will not be in very large ships) accidents involving serious danger to surrounding people are made possible. In other words, the casualties are likely to be not only on ship but also on land. There save already been some unfortunate explosions, one in the Scheldt and two others off the coast of America, at Galveston and Mobile. While regretting that the Government have thought fit to retain imprisonment of up to six month, in view of the fact that they have qualified the provision by now inserting the word "wilful", to that extent we on this side feel that the Government have gone as far as can be reasonably expected.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that we cannot take a great deal of comfort from the use of the

1079
word "wilful", which to lawyers surely means little more than "on purpose"?
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I was going to raise a very similar point, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain to us just what the significance of the word "wilful" is. If it embraces "intentionally", then the case which I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, wishes to escape is the case where a master, in the exercise of his judgment, having received an order, considers that it would be safer to disobey the order than to obey it. That would be a perfectly wilful act, though it would not be a reckless act. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain what it means.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so far as the last point raised by the noble Viscount is concerned, he must not overlook the provisions of Clause 24. Your Lordships will see that, under that clause.
"it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he had reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question, would be likely to imperil the ship or to prove that in the circumstances compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question was impracticable."
So that I do not think that the particular problem to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred is, in fact, likely to arise.
The question has been asked about the particular effect of the word "wilful". Of course, it entails a good deal more than that the court should just establish the fact that an act was intentional. It is hard to put it precisely in words. It would be for the court to determine in the circumstances of the case. But "wilful" is a word which is found in various statutory provisions and really means that the court, having regard to all the conduct as established in the evidence, would have to be satisfied that it was not only just an intentional disobeying, say, of a direction, but also a deliberate one, with perhaps some consideration of possible consequences. One is not here talking so much about what has to be proved to constitute an offence. It is only when the court is satisfied that the character of the offence established amounts to a wilful disregard of whatever
1080
it may be, or a reckless disregard of instructions, that the court will have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment. I think that this will work all right. I hope that no use will have to be made of this provision. Nevertheless, I think that it is desirable—indeed, right—that it should be in the Bill.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Teynham that, I have no doubt inadvertently, he has completely misrepresented, or not appreciated, what I said during the Committee stage. I would be the last person to suggest that the companies who owned these big vessels carrying these dangerous cargoes do not take the utmost care to appoint the most reliable masters of these vessels, nor would I suggest for one moment that the masters of these vessels do not take the greatest possible care for the safety of their ships and their cargoes. The point that I was trying to make was that a master of some big ship like this, which, after all, cannot be turned or stopped quite immediately, may easily be put into a position of considerable difficulty by a breach of some requirement of a movement control order on the part of the master of some very small vessel. He might get into a situation of emergency through the fault of some other vessel wholly unconnected with his own ship. And with so much shipping coming into our ports—and I hope that it will come in increasing quantity—it is surely right that power should be available to exercise strict discipline over those who use the ports.
That is, shortly, the argument for the Amendment. I hope that I have been able to explain it to my noble friend Lord Teynham, who, I think, has misunderstood my meaning. The last thing I was wishing to do was to cast any reflection on the masters and owners of the vessels to which he referred.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has succeeded in getting himself and the Government out of a difficulty by the skill with which he adopted the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. The proposal which the noble and learned Lord has put forward certainly represents a compromise which we welcome, but I think it was the impression of many of us on the last occasion that, if the House had

1081
divided, it would have thrown imprisonment as a penalty for this offence out of the Bill. I still think it is a pity, for the reasons that were given by noble Lords, that in this day and age imprisonment is regarded as necessary as a sanction for this type of offence. It is merely on this ground that we object to this clause, which has been criticised from both sides of the House.
On the last occasion, the noble and learned Lord said that there are much more draconian penalties in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The types of offences for which these penalties can be prescribed are clearly of a very serious kind. I still do not know—I hoped the noble and learned Lord would tell us—why the Act, particularly Section 220, should not have been reserved as an ultimate sanction for some really gross breaches of duty. I should have preferred to see, rather than "wilful contravention", something that involved wilful breach of duty. We acknowledge that the clause with the special defence greatly eases the situation, but even now I would ask the noble and learned Lord why we cannot rely, for these extreme offences, on the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and not put this sort of penalty into a piece of modern legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that I can sneak again only with the leave of your Lordships. I can put the answer quite shortly. There may be some offences committed under the movement control order, which, of course, your Lordships will be able to see, do not constitute offences either under the Merchant Shipping Act or under the Collision Regulations. I thought that I had dealt with that last time. You could have conduct which is a breach of a movement control order, but is not a breach of the regulations. It may be perhaps equally dangerous.
What the noble Lord is really suggesting is that there should be an increased penalty, bigger than is proposed in the Bill—namely, a liability to two years' imprisonment. I am not in favour of that. I think this sanction of imprisonment must be kept as a last resort, but it is necessary to have it here. As I have said, the occasion for its use may never arise, and one would hope that it would seldom arise. As I
1082
said on the Committee stage, one could have perhaps adapted the penalty provisions of the Collision Regulations to movement control orders, but that would bring a liability to two years' imprisonment, and then under the present regulations it is a liability if there is a wilful breach—I think the word "wilful" is in there. I do not think I should take up your Lordships' time further on this, but I am willing to clear the noble Lord's mind on this point in any private discussion he may care to have.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I still think the noble and learned Lord has not appreciated the difference between these two. I am not referring—nor was I on the last occasion—to the Collision Regulations. I am referring to Section 220, where the words are "wilful breach of duty". This is not intended to extend and bring into this field the two-year offence, but to make it even more stringent and more difficult to bring such a case. This would be in only the grossest kind of case, much grosser than is provided for in the new clause. I will not press this further, except to say that I do not think the noble and learned Lord has satisfied everybody on it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Provisions supplementary to sections 31 to 33]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 are linked together and are drafting Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, we might take them together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 12, after ("or") insert ("if he").
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("proposal") and insert ("proposals").
Page 44, line 16, at end insert ("if he").
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
Page 44, line 17, after second ("the") insert ("said").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Amendments of Acts consequential on sections 26 to 37]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 39, after ("passengers") insert ("on any railway").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Provisions as to inquiries and hearings]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").
Page 55, line 24, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Provisions as to ecclesiastical property]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 44, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made]:
LORD REA LORD REA moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out sub-paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, by Clause 25 harbour authorities are given a certain discretion as to the charges they can make. It is therefore possible, I think, to envisage a state of affairs whereby under paragraph 3(c) of the Schedule (which I am moving to delete) those who are carrying out any ancillary duties at harbours might have their charges controlled by a harbour authority which would itself have freedom in levying charges. I think it will be a hardship on people who are trying to make contracts ahead and looking well forward if they do not know how they are going to be affected by the harbour authority's suddenly descending on them and telling them what charges they are to make. This seems to be wrong, particularly as the harbour authority might be competing in the services offered; and there is no provision in the Bill which would prevent them from acquiring a monopoly—which
1084
I am surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, seems to welcome as not a bad thing. Therefore, I suggest that paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 2 ought to be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, leave out lines 24 to 26.—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have never quite known what is the opposite of the expression of taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but the noble Lord has here produced a nut in an endeavour to destroy the sledge hammer, if that is possible, because the part he wants to leave out is, I think, a very necessary provision to leave in, in that it covers a great many further and wider things than this, again, rather illusory problem which the noble Lord has put to us. The object of this paragraph is that a harbour authority may operate or abolish their existing power to regulate the conditions on which other people provide port facilities in their harbour. That is a power that exists in many cases at present in port Statutes, and I am certain that it would greatly limit the use of harbour revision powers if an authority were not able to vary their existing powers in these matters or to impose new ones—because the noble Lord's Amendment has a consequential effect upon new powers as well as existing ones.
The Rochdale Committee thought that there should be some increased regulation, and pointed out, as I have just done, that it was not unusual for port authorities to exercise some control over such private employment through their statutory powers. It would very much cut across the intention of the Bill if we were to accept the Amendment, because the real intention of the Bill is to provide a quicker and cheaper method of taking powers than is provided by the Private Bill procedure. That is really what all this is about. On that account, therefore, the noble Lord's suggestion would in any case be ineffective. All it would mean is that authorities would not be able to use this procedure, and would continue, if they so wished, to go through the much more cumbersome process of promoting a Private Bill and arriving at exactly the same place. That is why I say the Amendment cuts across the intention of

1085
the Bill, and I think it would be a pity to accept it. For the third time, I must point out to the noble Lord that there is provision for objections to be heard, including a Special Praliamentary Procedure, so that if anyone is aggrieved to that extent his grievance can be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think there is certain force in what the noble Lord says, but the last few words here refer to activities on harbour land. It might well be that there is a warehouse, factory or even a shipbuilding centre on harbour land which has nothing much to do with the harbour authority. It would seem wrong that the authority should be given power to interfere with any businesses which were not part of their own activities.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to have the chance to reassure the noble Lord on this matter. The definition of harbour land is in Clause 57, and activities there carried on, as it says, refers to "activities for the purposes of the harbour". It does not extend to other activities carried on near a harbour, such as sugar refining, grain milling, warehousing or operations of that kind. Therefore the noble Lord can really sleep easy on that one.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the whole House is most interested in this sudden burst of Liberal initiative. Since the noble Lord has other Amendments down (I hope he will not bother to move the next one) I think we should be interested to know what has given cause for concern at this late stage of the Bill, when so much has been put into the Bill to protect the interests of parties who might be concerned. I think he ought to tell us why he is moving this Amendment. I really do not understand it. I hope he will not move the next Amendment. I am getting tired, and I think the Minister is, too, of giving and hearing the same explanation, time after time.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of the Minister's explanation, but unaffected by the remarks of the noble Lord on my left, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD REA LORD REA moved to leave out paragraph 17. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know I am on a sticky wicket this afternoon, but it seems to me that here we have quite a big Bill, with many things which are allowed, and many which are not allowed. Paragraph 17, which I should like to see deleted, virtually says, "and anything else we have not thought of can be done". I will leave it at that, and hope your Lordships will say that that is not a paragraph that ought to go into a Bill—that any object may be included which, although not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs, appears to be appropriate to the Minister. No doubt some Ministers would find some things appropriate and others would not. I do not think we should give such a carte blanche to any Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 41, leave out paragraph 17.— (Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, for my part I would certainly regard it as much more undesirable to take it out of the Bill. I will not repeat my explanation—the argument is very much the same—but we are trying to make things rather easier and simpler and more efficient and slicker. It is obviously quite impossible that we should write into the Bill all the possible reasons that might be required. There are some 300 harbour authorities in the country, and to attempt to anticipate all the possible requirements, including some which may only arise in the future, without a sort of sweeping up paragraph at the end, I think would be rather silly, because the Bill would then become extremely restrictive and would tend to defeat itself. Having said that, and with one fourth and final reference to safeguards to objections built into the Bill, both before and after an Order, the Special Parliamentary Procedure, and so on, I hope the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 3 [Procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 38, leave out from ("which") to end of line 39 and insert ("their execution is proposed to be authorised or, as the case may be, of the land whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 30, leave out ("pier, wharf, quay") and insert ("wharf, quay, pier").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether this Amendment has any other purpose except that of confronting the Deputy Speaker with a tongue-twister?
LORD CHESHAM: No, not really, my Lords.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 23, after ("writing") insert ("(stating the grounds of his objection)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Loan CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the person served").—(Lord Chesham. )
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Submission and confirmation of harbour reorganisation schemes]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 84, line 10, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").
Page 84, line 26, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Procedure for making control of movement orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 1, leave out ("to be acquired") and insert ("whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:
Loan CHESHAM: My Lords, this last Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 15, leave out ("Boards") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN DRUNKEN DRIVING CASES
4.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would agree with the proposition that in cases brought under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as amended by the Act of 1962, relating to driving or being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs, it is not essential for medical evidence to be called in order to prefer a charge or obtain a conviction; or whether they consider that the law requires amendment in this regard. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name upon the Order Paper. I would tell your Lordships quite frankly that the reason why I have put it on the Order Paper is that I, in concert with all your Lordships, take the view that the good and respected relations between public and police are a first essential to the proper enforcement of the law. I borrow the term "respected" from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who said during the debate upon the Police Bill that, while the police could never be loved, they at least should be respected. In fact that was in all your Lordships' minds, and was running right through the debate on the Police Bill.
Your Lordships will all agree, I know, that the task confronting the police is

1089
getting more difficult every day, especially when it comes to the proper enforcement of the traffic laws. I am apprehensive that recent happenings in some of the courts, many in the Metropolitan area, are damaging to that image which I think is so essential. The police have been severely criticised, in my view quite wrongly, for carrying out a duty imposed upon them by Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as amended by Section 1 of the Act of 1962. To show the disapproval that the benches have felt for the actions of the police, they have been awarding substantial costs against the police—because they could be awarded against nobody else—and these costs have to be paid out of public funds.
I will not weary your Lordships by a dissertation upon the evils of drunken driving: you do not want to be reminded about that. Your Lordships had that theme right in front of you when you discussed the provisions in the Road Traffic Act which, incidentally, went through your Lordships' House twice. On the first occasion it had to be abandoned because of an Election, and the second time we had all the arguments all over again. Both your Lordships' House and another place spent many days grappling with the problem of how we could more successfully overcome this great social evil of drunken driving, and eventually both Houses approved unanimously the Amendment that is now in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
By the courtesy of The Times and the Daily Telegraph—because reports of quarter sessions are not subject to the meticulous scrutiny of the Times Law Reports—I have here in my hand all the Press cuttings of all the cases that have been reported in their respective newspapers. I do not intend to weary your Lordships by reading them, as most of you have already done so, but I can tell your Lordships this: that, according to those reports, in not one of those cases, whether from the benches, the Bar or the medical profession, was the existing law quoted accurately. The only people who presented the case as it was intended by Parliament that it should be presented were the police.
The law on this matter is simple to state and I will quote it. This is what
1090
Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, says:
"For the purposes of section six of the principal Act (which imposes penalties for driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs) a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired."
The test is the ability to drive properly; and the ability to drive properly at the moment of time when the person charged was driving or about to drive—not an hour, two hours or three hours afterwards, when he was being medically examined as to his fitness to drive. It is essential that that should be understood.
Further, there is no Statute which says that the fiat of a doctor is necessary before the police may bring a charge or sustain a charge or a court can convict—not one. In point of fact, I would suggest that the only real value of the testimony of a medical practitioner is when he is an eye-witness to the accident or an eye-witness when the driver was stopped by the police, or if he is prepared to give an opinion as to whether the accused was not driving properly at some time previously owing to the influence of drink or drugs.
The Act puts the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of the police as to whether they shall prefer a charge, and of producing the necessary evidence which they think fit to produce. As the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Middlesex Sessions, Lord Dunboyne, was reported by The Times of April 7 to have said—and I think he was the only one who talked any sense on this point:
"If police decided whether to charge people with driving under the influence of drink mainly on the advice of a doctor it would amount to trial by doctor."
That, I think, is quite outside the province laid down in the decision of Parliament. All this was done by deliberate intent by the Government and was agreed to by Parliament. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will bring out that point and will refresh your memories as to the exact statements made by Government spokesmen when this Act was a Bill going through your Lordships' House. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said in his Second Reading speech when he

1091
presented the Bill first of all to your Lordships [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230, col. 346]:
"Under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road when
under the influence of drink … to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.'
Magistrates convicted in 93 per cent. of the prosecutions brought under this section during 1958. The corresponding proportion of convictions secured from juries was 55 per cent. It may well be that the words:
'incapable of having proper control'
bring to many people's minds the idea of 'drunk and incapable', which goes much further than is necessary for someone's ability to drive properly to be adversely affected. It seems to be one of the shortcomings of the present position that this definition laid down in Section 6 is not effective, and therefore we have tried to make it effective. The new Clause 1 refers to ability to drive properly being ' for the time being impaired' due to alcohol. This is likely to bite on someone in cases where the interpretation which is often at present given to the law would not bite on them. That, my Lords, is exactly what we intend."
There is no equivocation about that, and what the noble Lord was saying was that it was the Government's intention to gather under this new definition what I would call, colloquially, the "fringe drunken driver."
On the Committee stage, when the Bill was first in your Lordships' House, the then noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, Lord President of the Council, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 230, col. 974]:
"Our view is what I believe to be the view of the overwhelming mass of people in the country, that if a man cannot, by reason of drink or drugs, drive properly, he is a danger to people if he tries to drive. There is no third class of person. There are only those two classes: those who are fit to drive and those who are not; and those who are not fit to drive should not drive."
But the then noble Viscount, when the Bill was before your Lordships on the second occasion of the Committee stage, was even more forthcoming. I will not read all he said, but he went on to ask the reason why it all broke down and the reason why we could not make any inroads into this problem. He repeated, in the language which your Lordships know so well, precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham,
1092
said on Second Reading, except that he added this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235, col. 1047]:
"It is for this reason that the new phraseology is introduced into Clause 1 of the Bill: that a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired. This does not mean … that his driving is impaired. The word which governs the sentence is 'properly'; if his ability to drive properly is impaired. If he continues to be able to drive properly, the fact that he is not able to drive perfectly is immaterial. But if, in fact, by reason of drink or drugs, his ability to drive properly is impaired, the view of the Government is that he is committing an offence."
You could not have anything more plain than that. That is the law which the Government intended to be in force.
I say this with the greatest possible respect: those who are administering the law have to administer the law as it is laid down by Parliament, not a law which they would like to see laid down, not a law which they wish could be laid down. And they ought to be fully alive to the wishes and the intentions of Parliament. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice has said quite publicly that the courts, right from the High Court to the quarter sessions courts and the magistrates' courts, have a duty to pay due regard to the expressed intentions of Parliament.
I say this, and I feel I ought to say it, because it ill becomes those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law to give tongue to such remarks as that they are sick and tired of the police bringing these cases before their courts—in other words, carrying out the duty that Parliament has instructed them to carry out—and expressing regret that they have not the power to make those responsible for carrying out those duties pay out of their own pockets the costs which it has pleased the court, mistakenly, to impose. Whose pockets do these administrators of the law think they are coming out of—the pockets of the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis?—for it is he who issues the orders. Or perhaps it is out of your Lordships' pockets—because, of course, your Lordships, Parliament hold the final responsibility for the law. I say this again quite bluntly: I think that such ill-chosen remarks and behaviour, which are quite reprehensible from administrators of the

1093
law, can do nothing but poison the relationship between the police and the public, and deserve the condemnation of any right-thinking person.
It had been my intention, when I put this Question on the Order Paper, to confine it to the Metropolitan Police District, but as soon as it had appeared I was inundated—I do not want to exaggerate; I will not say "inundated"; but, at any rate, I had a considerable number of letters expressing disapproval of the action of these benches. I made a number of inquiries, and tried to collect a few of the voices of chief constables in the provinces. I was rather staggered, because I found that they were all apprehensive: they were afraid that this disease would spread. If this goes on, they said, everybody who is charged with driving under the influence of drink, or with having his ability to drive properly impaired, will demand to go before a jury, and the number of acquittals will go up at an alarming degree. And they told me, "We are more subjected to the pressures and the persuasions of the local watch committee than is the Commissioner of Police in London, and if they have to find these silly penalties or costs out of public funds there will be more pressure."
Let the noble Lord who is to reply take heart. I was rather interested to have my attention drawn by a noble Lord to to-day's Daily Telegraph, which reports the case of a man who was charged with an offence under Section 1 of the Act of 1962. A police surgeon had not certified him as being unfit to drive, but the man's counsel said, "The doctor did not find against my client, but we are practising law here, not medicine, and he is guilty of this offence". The defendant was fined £30 and disqualified for two years. So sense does seep in somewhere. But all the time I would impress upon the noble Lord that this is the mistake; that the 1962 Act has not sunk in. Repeatedly we hear that the man was not unfit to drive. But that is not the criterion.
I think the foolishness of the confusion is best exampled by a case that was tried at Oxford Quarter Sessions only last Thursday. Let me give your Lordships these few details, because it
1094
illustrates the trouble so well. A man was summoned for being unfit to drive through being under the influence of drink, and these were the undisputed facts. He was in collision with a taxicab and did not stop. The police found his car a little while afterwards, with its back wheels in the ditch and the front wheel outside the ditch. When the doctor finished examining him, one and a half hours afterwards, the doctor said that he was then not unfit to drive. The report of the West Midlands Forensic Science Laboratory examination said that the test showed that this man had a minimum of 4¼ pints of beer in his inside, and he gaily admitted that he had drunk 4 pints of beer. The jury acquitted him. He drives across a crossroads; he is in collision with a motor car; he ends up in a ditch. But, because of one doctor, he is said to be quite fit to drive properly.
May I come now to the last part of my Question: do the Government consider that the law requires amendment? There may be a great many answers to that. I can quite see the arguments that could be used, the arguments used in this House about the Scandinavian system: to take the whole thing out of opinion and say, "If a man has a certain content of alcohol in his blood, without any argument, without going before any court at all, he is guilty". That is one argument. There is the other one that I put up some two or three years ago: that we should take the decision out of the jury's hands; that we should alter the law so that a man who is charged with being drunk in charge of a car—I use the colloquial expression—should not have a right to go to a jury. That would have meant altering the law, because under any Statute which provides a penalty of over three months' imprisonment for any offence a person has a right to go before a jury. If the maximum were three months, he would not have the right; over the three months there is the right. The Government could not see their way clear to do that. I quite appreciate the reasons why. Parliament could not make up its mind last time, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will give an Answer this afternoon which will clarify the Government's view until Parliament has made up its mind.
Do the Government hold to-day the same view as was so forcefully and logically expressed by the Government of 1961?—because we could not have anything more plain than that. Do they support the police? I understand that they support the Metropolitan Police—I only understand that, but I hope it is true. It is only by having this wider public image that this problem will be recognised. On the Second Reading of the Police Bill, the noble Lord put his finger on the spot when he said that things like this only exaggerate and extend uninformed, ignorant public pressure. We must preserve the dignity of the police. They are carrying out our instructions, and they deserve our defence.
5.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I want to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. I want to speak from the medical point of view, but I am not representing any particular body of doctors; I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole medical profession in what I say. The noble Lord said that he did not want to speak about the evils of drunken driving. I want to say that, unfortunately, it is part of the duty of the medical profession to look after the results of the evils of drunken driving, in the shape of the maimed and cruelly injured people who suffer as a result of these wicked accidents.
Far more people suffer, are terribly maimed or are killed as a result of drunken driving than are murdered or are victims of crimes of violence or of any of the conventional types of crime. Many road accidents result in the most horrible type of cerebral injury from which a person is converted into a vegetable for the rest of his existence. These ghastly, tragic cases are caused because people are selfish, thoughtless, callous and drink too much, and then take a lethal weapon on the road. I think that this is a foul and filthy crime. But they are getting away with it.
The role of the medical profession here is quite misunderstood by certain courts. Medical assessment of drunkenness is extremely insensitive; it is a rough, clinical judgment only—little better, if at all, than that of a police
1096
officer. What the doctor does when he examines a person who is alleged to be drunk is to try to determine whether that person is suffering from something else which may have produced a picture of drunkenness. The commonest thing he is looking for is a cerebral catastrophe; that is to say, a hæmorrhage or thrombosis within the brain: the person feels ill, takes a drink, and then falls over and is picked up by the police and thought to be drunk because he smells of alcohol. This, of course, can occur, although but rarely. But in a car accident, much more commonly the person has taken some alcohol and has sustained a head injury as a result of the car accident. Then a difficult and delicate medical problem may arise, although by no means an insoluble one.
The third thing the doctor is looking for is something like epilepsy. The fourth thing is the most unlikely possibility of drugs. The fifth thing is hyperglycæmia; that is, a lowering of the blood sugar as a result of an overdose of insulin, or a proper dose of insulin without a meal. I will say a word or two about this in a moment, because this is the latest defence which is being put up on behalf of these people, quite wrongly. Those are the things that the doctor looks for when he is confronted with a drunken, or a supposedly drunken, person at a police station. His opinion on how drunk this man is is of little significance. His opinion of the person's capacity to drive a car properly, his judgment whether his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired, is, I would say, of no consequence unless the fellow is so drunk that it is obvious to all. It is his performance as a driver that matters, and that is that.
There are three stages in alcoholism. The first stage is excitement, loss of inhibitions—what we all feel at a cocktail party. And I venture to say that most of us ought not to drive after we have been to a cocktail party unless we have confined ourselves to two small whiskies or their equivalent. That is the most we should allow ourselves to drive on. The next stage is confusion, when speech begins to be slurred and there is blurring of vision. Here the doctor applies certain rather ridiculous tests. He asks the patient to say "British Constitution", and if he says

1097
"Brishish Coshisushun" then he is considered to be suffering from the second stage. The third stage is stupor, which is manifest and obvious. But it is in stupor that the mistakes can occur, because stupor can be produced by things besides alcohol. It is here that a medical opinion is important. But it will not arise in this sort of case because the person will be flat out.
I want to say one word about blood alcohol because it shows precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was talking about when he mentioned that this is not merely a Metropolitan phenomenon. As I shall show in a moment, it is a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs. The blood alcohol is the only accurate measure of the effect of alcohol on a person's brain. The amount of drink the person has consumed does not matter so very much, because the speed of absorption of the alcohol varies. The speed of absorption from the stomach varies depending on a number of factors: whether the alcohol is iced or warm—it is speeded up if it is warm; whether it is diluted or not; whether the person has taken a meal, which slows up absorption; and also whether the person has got chronic gastritis as a result of being a chronic taker of alcohol, in which case the speed of absorption is slowed up.
What matters is the amount of alcohol in his blood. This determines the way the person's brain behaves, and consequently the way in which he drives. There is no difficulty about finding out the amount in the fellow's blood. It is perfectly easily done, and usually done, by finding out how much there is in the urine. The ratio of the alcohol in the urine to the alcohol in the blood is approximately 4 to 3; so it is easy to determine. It is possible to express the amount of alcohol in the blood as a percentage; but this is a bad thing to do because it involves decimal points and noughts, which lead to mistakes and confusion even in the best circumstances. It is far better expressed as milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres (which is the same as c.cs.) of blood.
If the blood alcohol is above 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres, that person's driving capacity is very slightly but
1098
definitely impaired. The absolute minimum amount of alcohol required to reach 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres is 2 pints of beer or 2 double whiskies. You cannot get above 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres without taking that amount, and you probably would have to take a good deal more because the test figures have been done on volunteers who take absolute alcohol, which is rather unpleasant, and have blood estimates done afterwards. With non-absolute alcohol in the form of conventional drinks considerably more than this is required. If the blood alcohol is above 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres, it is absolutely certain that the driving will be impaired. If it is above 150, the person will be manifestly and grossly drunk.
Yet in the North-East not long ago an analysis was made by the staff of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Newcastle, which was published in the British Journal of Addiction in January, 1963. They analysed 286 cases brought before the courts of people accused of driving while impaired by alcohol. The average blood alcohol for those convicted was 220 milligrams per 100 millilitres—and I have just explained to your Lordships that at a figure of 150 the person is grossly and most obviously drunk, and at 100 he is definitely and firmly impaired. The average for those acquitted was 180 milligrams per 100 millilitres. This is absolutely monstrous. What is happening is that counsel in the courts cross-examine the police witnesses as to the equivalent of blood alcohol in terms of pints and quarts of beer which the person has drunk. The police are forced to give the only known equivalents, as I have tried to give them to your Lordships, and the jury say, "Well, he had only taken seven pints of ordinary beer". That is the way so-called justice is administered.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the I.T.V. programme just before Christmas, when an I.T.V. interviewer went to a public house in North London and interviewed a series of people coming out, getting into their cars and driving away. It was the most disgusting piece of self-deception by these potential murderers. They were just saying, "I've only had 7 pints; I am perfectly safe. I've only got to

1099
drive 17 miles in my Jag". It is a monstrous disgrace to humanity that this should go on, and we have got to stop it. The first way in which we must stop it is by administering the existing law, and we must make sure that we give the police every conceivable backing in doing this unpleasant job. Do not let us suppose that we doctors can help the police a great deal here. We can only exclude the other causes which simulate alcoholism. We cannot, if we are honest, say what is the degree of impairment of a person's driving when we are called in three-quarters of an hour or an hour after the time at which the defendant was first seen.
The police have had the greatest difficulty in getting doctors to do this work. When the National Health Service Act came in they stopped having police surgeons. The police surgeons were there primarily to look after the police force, and with all the police force then being covered by the National Health Service there was no case for the police surgeons to be kept on. It was found that no doctors were ready to do police work, for it is an unpleasant, disgusting sort of work and always occurs at bank holidays and at periods of that kind. So most areas have police surgeons again, but not, I am sorry to say, all areas. The doctor is paid a small retaining fee, something like 50 guineas a year, to be a police surgeon, and he has to make arrangements to be on call and to cover himself for ordinary emergencies during the period when he is called out on police work. I do not think that it is an excessive retaining fee, but, even so, some forces object to paying it. The police surgeon has to hold himself available to see these people at the police station so as to exclude the possibility of injury, disease or drugs.
I mentioned diabetes and the latest defence, which is hyperglycæmia. If a diabetic takes his insulin and forgets to take his sugar, his blood sugar goes right down and he starts to behave as though drunk. This is a genuine risk which all diabetics run, and all diabetics are told to carry a couple of lumps of sugar with them which they can take if
1100
necessary. Some clever Smart Alecks have started taking the blood sugars of people who are coming round from an alcoholic intoxication, and finding low blood sugars have said, "Although this patient is not a diabetic, nevertheless he is suffering from hyperglycæmia and this was the cause of his alleged alcoholic behaviour". This is complete rubbish. It is well known that the taking of alcohol first raises the blood sugar and then depresses it. So if one takes an analysis of the blood sugar in a normal individual who has taken alcohol, after an hour or so the blood sugar will be found to be low. This defence is seen for what it is—completely phoney.
A lot of fuss has been made over the right of a patient to call for his own doctor or another doctor besides the police doctor. Your Lordships will have read in the newspapers that the police have suggested that police surgeons should not necessarily tell the patient that he has this right, because the police had the duty of informing the person of this right. This has now all been ironed out. The police are happy that the police surgeon should repeat what they have said. All it amounts to is that they shall let the patient try to get another doctor, if he can. Of course, he is not really a patient, but is, I suppose, a self-indulgent sot. That is why he is not covered by National Health Service treatment from his own doctor. He has the greatest difficulty in finding a doctor to come and see him, and his own doctor, having refused to come (quite rightly in my opinion) they have to ring round and try to find an independent doctor. What a waste of human energy!
The police do not necessarily call the police surgeon in the court of law, and there is no reason whatever why they should do so. If the person is ill he will not be charged; that is all there is to it. And that is all the police surgeon can tell them: either that he was ill or that he was not well. The rest is up to the police and up to the ordinary human behaviour. plus the blood or urine alcohol. That is all I have to say. My sympathies in this matter are absolutely 100 per cent. with the police, and the way the law is at present being administered in certain courts is such that we lean over backward to protect drunken drivers.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to say just one word. While I entirely agree with what has been said by both noble Lords, there is, to my mind, one difficulty; and that is the fact that one can drive very improperly without having taken any drink or drugs whatsoever, or without suffering from any disease. 'There is plenty of very improper driving on the roads today. Some people have never been able to drive properly, owing to the fact that they have been taught badly. Others are unwilling to drive properly, owing to the fact that they have no consideration for others, and have never learnt the meaning of good manners. Therefore, if what we want to eliminate is improper driving, or driving that causes danger to others, I cannot see why we should place more emphasis on drunken driving than on these other forms of bad driving.
5.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat will forgive my saying that he is really quite off the point. There are a number of crimes with which the sort of driver he has been describing can be charged, and is from time to time charged, in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is dealing with a specific point which has been very much before the public in recent months; and very properly so. Anybody who, like myself, has to try these cases at quarter sessions continually, has had only too much experience of the type of case which the noble Lord has described. Certainly in the court where I preside I would say that on five occasions out of six the man who pleads "not guilty" is found not guilty by the jury, when I think the bench are unanimously of the opinion that the jury has made a mistake. This, undoubtedly, is a very serious situation, but I cannot sec that it will be improved by the innuendo in the noble Lord's Question, which, as I understand it, is that doctors should not be called to give evidence in these cases.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. Will the noble Lord forgive me? I used the word "essential". It is not essential that they should be called. It is a matter for the discretion of the police.
LORD CHORLEY: As a matter of strict law, of course, that is so; but it would, in my submission, be a very serious mistake if doctors were not normally called in in this sort of case. It is one of the basic principles of the administration of criminal law in this country that all the available evidence, whether it is for the prosecution or for the defence, should be put before a jury by the prosecution. The prosecutor is not a persecutor in that sense of the term: he is a minister of justice, there to have an impartial investigation made. It is true that he has to put the case for the prosecution, in the first instance; but in an English criminal trial all available witnesses are called by the prosecution, even if the burden of their evidence is in favour of the defendant. That, I think, is one of the distinguishing marks of the administration of criminal law in this country.
We had this point out in this House only a few weeks ago, in connection with the Bill for giving the defence the last word before the case is decided by the jury. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the police got into the habit of not calling a doctor because they knew that the doctor was going to give evidence which might favour the defendant in this sort of case. After all, all these people are not, in fact, guilty.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, this is exactly the dilemma that we doctors are in. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, appears to think that we have some evidence to give him. We have none. We have no knowledge of the degree of impairment at the time. This is precisely the difficulty we are in.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, the doctor frequently has the most valuable evidence to give to the court. I sit and try these cases, and I know what I am talking about. The doctor's evidence is often of very great value indeed. A man may be brought in, and within a few minutes, in a good case, the doctor is putting him through the tests. These tests show very clearly whether or not the man was capable of driving properly.
LORD TAYLOR: Indeed they do not.
LORD CHORLEY: The law is that they do.
LORD TAYLOR: The law is not that they do.
LORD CHORLEY: We are administering the law and not doing what the medical profession tells us is right. The doctor's evidence is accepted by the courts, who are, after all, the judges of the administration of the law of the land, as being relevant evidence. That is the point. It would be very wrong if the police were to get into the habit of saying, "We are not going to call a doctor in this particular case", because the doctor's evidence is, in fact, relevant to a decision by the jury, and by it they have to pass judgment. I think it would be very wrong if it became the accepted view of the police that these doctors should not be called.
In some cases, of course, it may be that the doctor's evidence is largely irrelevant, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, in some of these cases there may be two or three hours' delay before he sees the man. I had a case only the other day where a man was taken in by the police and it was a long time—an hour and a half, I think—before they got the doctor there. Then the doctor spent about an hour asking him questions about what he had been doing during the day (and this, in my submission, is a mistake which the doctors very frequently make), instead of putting him through the tests at once; examining his eyes and his speech; seeing to his co-ordination of his muscular movements, and that sort of thing.
Such tests should be done as near as possible to the time on which the charge is based, the time when it is alleged that the man was not properly capable of driving the car. But doctors sometimes postpone the physical tests, which are so important, to have a rather long cross-examination in which the man is asked what he was doing during the day. In the case I am thinking about it was not until another hour had elapsed, making two and a half hours altogether, from the time when the man was arrested by the police, that the doctor began to administer these tests. By that time, of course, the man was quite capable of walking along a line and doing many of the other tests which the doctor put to him. I am sure that the noble Lord has a good case on this
1104
point; that very frequently by the time the doctor administers the test, the man is once more capable of driving a car, and juries naturally attach very great importance to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has referred to the defence to these cases. I will not say it is unscrupulously carried through, because it is the job of counsel for the defence to put the case strongly on behalf of his client. But in this sort of case the defending counsel is at a very considerable advantage, because the sympathies of the jury, as we all know, are very often engaged on the side of the defendant. With that advantage, a skilful defending counsel, who has obtained from the doctor a statement that the man has walked along the line quite correctly, that he has picked up a pencil from the floor, and that he has touched his toes without making a mistake, is in a position to address a strong argument to the jury. The result is that in five cases out of six a man who, in the view of the magistrates who are sitting on the bench, ought to have been convicted, obtains a verdict of not guilty. Then, of course, counsel asks for his costs—which is the crowning insult. Actually, in my own court we do not give him costs in a case of this sort; but other courts take a different view and think that, if the jury has found a defendant not guilty, he ought to have his costs, however satisfied the bench themselves may be that that decision was a mistaken one. But the main point—I am afraid that here I cannot agree with the noble Lord—is that in these cases the evidence should, in my view, be called before the court.
We shall probably be driven, in the end, into adopting in this country the Scandinavian system. I should have preferred to support a Bill introduced to do that, because the present situation really is very serious. While I do not agree with some of the things that my noble friend Lord Taylor has said, substantially I entirely agree with him that this is a disgusting and vicious type of crime and the community will very shortly have to take effective steps to deal with it.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but, in view of the remarks which have been made by

1105
my noble friend Lord Chorley, which I think indicate the difficulty of the bench and of the general public, I think I should remind him that in the words he used he referred to being "incapable of driving". Surely, that is not the issue so far as the 1962 Act is concerned. The word in the Act, which I believe my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth read two or three times, was "impaired". There are many people—and one can see them among one's own friends—who go out in the evenings perhaps to cocktail parties, who are certainly not of a vicious character, and who are perfectly capable of driving their cars home in reasonable circumstances, but could well be impaired in driving if an emergency arose. And that is the issue.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of driving a car properly.
LORD SHEPHERD: Properly, when an emergency arises. I think one of the greatest difficulties for the public is to determine the amount of alcohol they can take without impairing their ability to drive a car.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Taylor who referred to "potential murderers". I do not think that the large number of people who go into public houses on a Sunday afternoon, who perhaps fall into happy company and have more than they originally intended, are potential murderers. They are potential killers. They are killers without appreciating that fact. All of us must have heard somebody say, "I can take three large whiskies and am perfectly able to drive the car"; or even some who may say, "I can drinks six large whiskies and still drive my car home". It may well be that, on a certain day, that individual could drink six large whiskies and get his car home, and perhaps not be a tremendous menace on the road; but there may be another day when he is tired, when he may have had a day of strain in his office, and when six large whiskies put him into a quite different category without his being aware that he has entered that category.
No word has been said this evening on the effect of drugs together with alcohol. The other day I saw the effect of alcohol on a stimulant. The person had had only one small brandy, but the effect of one small brandy on one of the
1106
stimulant drugs was that the person was very close to being considered slightly inebriated. Such people are a considerable menace to themselves. But do the general public really understand the effect of a combination of drink and drugs? I doubt it. I think the public would be helped very considerably in this matter if it were laid down that, if a person had consumed more than a certain quantity of alcohol, then by law he would be considered to have taken sufficient to impair his driving ability—not his capability to drive, but his ability to drive properly.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to interrupt? That is, as judged by the blood alcohol.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, by the blood alcohol. This would certainly help the courts. The courts would then make a decision, not on whether the man was capable of driving or not, but on whether, within the ruling that had been laid down by Parliament, he had consumed more than the limit. If he had, then, so far as the courts were concerned in administering the law, the man would be guilty; there would be no question of doubt in it.
I think it would do something more. If it were recognised in this country, as it is in Scandinavia and in Switzerland, that if you had consumed more alcohol than a certain limit you drove at your peril, then there would be no doubt about it. There is no difficulty, as I understand it from the medical profession and from the police, in gauging accurately from the urine and from the blood how much alcohol has been consumed: it is assessable. My Lords, apart from making the work of the courts easier, and administering justice throughout the country on the same level, I believe that if the public were to appreciate and understand that there was a certain limit up to which they could drink and drive and that beyond it they would drive at their peril, a great deal of drinking before driving would stop.
5.56 p.m.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I would not object to the suggestion that he has made with regard

1107
to the amount of alcohol taken by a driver; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as to the difficulties of the present position. After all is said and done, whether it be a magistrate or whether it be a chairman of quarter sessions with a jury, they have to be guided by the evidence which is put before them.
I should like to take the case of a man, brought before a magistrate, accused of being unable to drive properly as the result of having taken drink or drugs. A doctor is called by the police, and the doctor says, "At the time I examined him I could not say that his ability to drive was impaired". The only other witness is the policeman who arrested him. He gives his evidence, and it becomes a question of the evidence of the policeman against the evidence of the man himself. The magistrate is at once placed in a difficulty. He has no medical evidence to help him as to the condition of the man at the time he was arrested, because sometimes the examination by the doctor is carried out a long time after the arrest has occurred. He has, on the one side, the testimony of the driver himself, who claims that he was not unfit properly to drive his car, and, on the other, the evidence of the policeman, who says, "Well, I arrested him because in my view he was unfit properly to drive his car as the result of drink or drugs". What is the magistrate to do? The doctor's evidence does not help him.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord what the magistrate is to do?
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: May I just finish? The doctor has not, of course, said, "He was not incapable of properly driving his car at the time I examined him, but he may have been incapable at the time he was arrested. But I cannot say that; I am not able to do it." The magistrate is therefore deprived of valuable evidence by the doctor, and is faced with the prospect of choosing between the story that the man has told and the story that the policeman has told. If there were two policemen, the position would be different: it would be two to one. But that does not always happen.
I think we have to bear in mind the feelings of juries or of a magistrate
1108
in the circumstances that I have outlined, when they are placed in the position of deciding whether a man is guilty or not guilty of what, after all, is a very serious offence indeed. I think that the only proper remedy for this position is possibly that which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has suggested, involving some test of the amount of alcohol taken; and that, of course, would have to be subject to proof.
6.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this matter and to the other noble Lords who have spoken. I can assure them that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will note carefully what they have said, and I should say straight away that the Government agree with the first proposition contained in the Question and, in consequence, do not consider that the law requires amendment in this regard. I hope that when I have said what I am going to say the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords will agree with that view.
I am afraid that I shall have to cover some of the points that have been already mentioned, because I do not want to gloss over anything. I want the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to be quite clear in this matter. But I shall confine myself to the Question which is on the Order Paper, and to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth; because the debate has ranged very widely, going outside the Question on the Order Paper, and I think I should be taking too long if I did anything but that. But I will cover most of the points raised.
I think that the law in this matter is clear. It is an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road if one's ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired because one has taken alcohol or drugs. There is no restriction on the evidence that may be presented by the prosecution to support the contention that at the material time the ability of the driver of a vehicle was impaired: and there is, equally, no requirement that any particular type of evidence must be produced. Medical evidence, particularly in drug cases, may often

1109
be very important, but the evidence which is most relevant to the material time will usually be that of the arresting officer and of any witnesses of the accused's behaviour while in his car. Other evidence may come from people who saw the accused thereafter, such as the officer at the police station who decided whether to accept a charge, and, still later, from the doctor or doctors called to examine the accused at the instance of either party.
It is the practice of the Metropolitan Police to call a doctor to ensure that the person concerned is not suffering from some illness or injury, or perhaps from the effect of drugs, which would make it necessary to remove him to hospital. During the course of the medical examination, however, the doctor will usually form an opinion about the extent to which the accused's fitness to drive was at that time impaired. This opinion is recorded and is made available to the court by the prosecution.
The only evidence the law requires the court to take into account in such cases is any evidence that may be offered about
"the proportion or quantity of alcohol or of any drug which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused".
This is usually based on samples of urine which the accused is asked to provide. These are subsequently subjected to scientific analysis, and the results are made available to the court. There are, therefore, at least three kinds of evidence that may be placed before the court: evidence from eye-witnesses of the accused's conduct or condition, either in the car or very shortly afterwards; evidence from chemical analysis, and the evidence given by the doctor or doctors called to see him.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who reviewed Metropolitan Police practice very carefully two years ago, took the view, which was approved by my right honourable friend who was then Home Secretary, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it would be right to authorise the responsible officer at the station to go ahead with charging the member of the public who had been brought in if he felt satisfied that there was a prima facie case against him; namely, that, in the
1110
terms of the Statute as it now stands, there was evidence that he was unfit to drive since his ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired. Where such evidence is available it is, in the Commissioner's view, unnecessary to wait for the subsequent arrival of a doctor before the individual who has been arrested is charged. The evidence of eye-witnesses is, of course, often later supplemented by chemical evidence provided by analysis of the urine samples given by the accused.
My Lords, may I, at the risk of re-quoting figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about blood content, refer to the actual words of a Special Committee of the British Medical Association, because, apart from the figures the noble Lord gave, which I shall repeat, they are extremely interesting. This Special Committee on the relation of alcohol to road accidents, which reported in 1960 said:
"clinical examination in the absence of biochemical tests is neither sufficiently sensitive nor reliable enough to detect deterioration in driving performance of this degree"
that is, of a degree that increases appreciably the likelihood of accident.
In another part of the same report the Committee said:
"The Committee considers that a concentration of 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood while driving a motor vehicle is the highest that can be accented as entirely consistent with the safety of other road users. While there may be circumstances in which individual driving ability will not depreciate significantly by the time this level is reached, the Committee is impressed by the rapidity with which deterioration occurs at blood levels in excess of 100 mg./100 ml."
The report continues—and I am quoting the actual words used because I want these following sentences to be remembered:
"This is true even in the case of hardened drinkers and experienced drivers. The Committee cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it could be considered safe for a person to drive a motor vehicle on the public roads with an amount of alcohol in the blood greater than 150 mg./100 ml."
This statement demonstrates the importance of the chemical evidence that is placed before the court under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, for the benefit of those of us who are

1111
uninitiated in these mysteries, whether he could translate that into terms of the glass of water he has in his hand—in other words, how much liquid?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rightly it is virtually impossible to translate this amount into so many glasses of beer or of whisky: it can only be approximated. The test can be exact and has the effect as stated; but it depends upon the circumstances and on the person's make-up.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord rather not make an approximation?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I would rather not because I want to be accurate.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, will the Minister see that the Home Office representatives in the forensic laboratories discontinue this practice; because they frequently talk of equivalents in terms of so many glasses of beer or of whisky? That is the normal evidence of some of the representatives of forensic laboratories under the noble Lord's Ministry.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the way it is given is that they are in excess of a certain amount. I think I am correct in that.
As a result of the publicity given to certain individual cases an impression may have been left that the police are bringing cases without supporting evidence and that they are wasting the court's time. This is not so. The information which my right honourable friend has received from the Commissioner of Police shows that during 1963, last year, 2,756 persons were arrested in the Metropolitan Police District for drunken driving, of whom 2,408 were so charged. In 2,058 cases the doctor considered that there was impairment of ability to drive. A total of 1,872 cases were disposed of in magistrates' courts, where 1,777, or 95 per cent., were convicted, and 498 persons were committed for trial. Of 403 disposed of at Sessions, 245 or 62 Per cent., were convicted and 158 acquitted.
My Lords, this is, as everyone agrees, a most serious matter. No one can underestimate the dangers that arise on
1112
the roads from the driving of vehicles by those whose ability to drive properly is impaired. It is essential to be fair to drivers, but, on the other hand, it is equally essential to ensure that drivers who have taken too much drink do not escape the penalty which is due under the law. My right honourable friend would not wish to dissent from the Commissioner's practice of bringing all relevant evidence before the court, and he thinks that it would be a retrograde step if the responsible officer at the station, once he was convinced by the evidence of those who had seen the driver's behaviour, did not decide to charge the individual concerned until he had a certificate from a doctor, who inevitably could not come on the scene until later.
I do not think that I wish to add anything further. The statement I have made is carefully worded, and I think that I have explained exactly what the law is, how it is operated and what is the evidence that may be brought forward. I hope that what I have said may provide the background against which this important matter can be considered. Again, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having enabled me, by putting down this Question, to say what we think the law is.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can address the House again only with your Lordships' permission, and I ask that permission solely to thank the noble Lord very much for going to the trouble of consulting his right honourable friend and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. I can only hope that what he has said in the debate this afternoon will do some good and make some impact upon this terrible scourge.

THE PRECINCTS OF ST PAUL'S CATHEDRAL
6.12 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will look into the possibilities of moving back the building known as Juxon House, now under construction in the front of St. Paul's Cathedral; and also give thought to methods whereby public opinion can be more effectively consulted

1113
than at present when proposals for buildings are made which affect places of national and historical interest. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so in the full knowledge that the building known as Juxon House in front of St. Paul's is well under course of construction, and that construction was not started until there had been a full inquiry, involving a great deal of thought and effort, into the whole plan around St. Paul's. But I also do so in the belief that, whatever the failings of Her Majesty's Government may be, they are not stubborn and pigheaded and will not refuse to take such action as still is open to them, if a case can be made out. And I believe that it is possible to make out a case for the reconsideration of this proposal and for action to undo the damage which has already been done and to prevent further damage being done.
I think that this matter can best be dealt with under three separate headings. First of all, we must ask ourselves once more: is the St. Paul's plan a good one, or can it be improved in any way?—as I believe it can be. Secondly, what can be done at this stage to make it better and to prevent further damage; and, thirdly, what steps can be taken in order to prevent troubles of this sort arising in future?
I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I believe that what is known as the Holford Plan is, by and large, a good plan. I am not one of those who think that it should be scrapped entirely. I certainly am not one of those who are crying for a wide vista to St. Paul's, leading from Fleet Street up Ludgate Hill, on the analogy
of St. Peter's, Rome. Whether that would be desirable or not, whether it was Sir Christopher Wren's original idea or not, is completely irrelevant, because we cannot achieve that, even if we were to wish it. I accept, in the circumstances as they are to-day, Sir William Holford's idea of having a precinct around St. Paul's and, as he put it, having views that appear suddenly from different angles. I think that this plan is the right one. Furthermore, it is a good plan that there should be a precinct around this great building, so that
1114
its beauty may be enhanced. After all, there is no point in framing a picture in such a way that the frame hides half of the picture. While accepting the concept of a frame to St. Paul's, I would suggest to your Lordships that the present frame, as it has been designed, is like making the frame of a picture so large that you can see only a portion of the picture, the rest being hidden perpetually behind the frame.
Many people have supported the present plan on the ground that it has been created by experts. I emphasise that I regard Sir William Holford as one of our leading experts in this matter. His services to town planning are as great as those of anybody in the country, if not greater. It is said that it is only the uneducated and uncultured who oppose the plan; but that is not entirely true. There are many prominent experts who, in the original stages, opposed this plan. Not only the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, but also their architectural adviser—Sir Edward Mort—gave evidence against the plan. So there are experts on the other side. But I suggest to your Lordships that it is a great mistake to be blinded by the reputation of experts, particularly in the matter of art. After all, what is art? What is a beautiful thing? It is not an absolute. It is the impression it makes on other people; and the people on whom it must make its impression are the ordinary people who see it, if it is a picture or a building; who listen to it, if it is music, and who read it, if it is a book. We all know of many instances of critics and experts who have condemned a book or a piece of music, only for them to be proved by posterity that their judgment was entirely wrong.
Some years ago a friend of mine came to my home and looked through my pictures, which I had put away during the time that my home was occupied by the Army, during and after the war. He gave us the benefit of his advice. He was, and still is, one of the greatest living authorities on art in this country. He advised me on those that were worth hanging in the public rooms and on others to be hung in some of the smaller rooms, bedrooms and bathrooms, and others he relegated, with a toss of his hand, to the attic. But some of the paintings that he relegated to the attic

1115
had been bought by my father, who was, in his day, Professor of Fine Art at the University of Cambridge and a director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, and had a reputation just as great as that of my friend, who was dismissing my father's judgment with a toss of his hand. I am not saying whether my father or my friend was right in his judgment. My point is that what is to-day considered by experts as a great work of art may well to-morrow be considered as worth nothing at all, and the day after may once more come back into its own. Therefore, I beg your Lordships not to say simply that, because one of the greatest architects and town planners of to-day has supported this plan, there is no more to be said about it, and we must accept it.
It is not on that that we should make our judgment. We should make our judgment on what the ordinary people, who see these things, and for whose pleasure and edification they are created, think about it. In the last few months, thousands of people, not only Londoners but also people all over the country and outside the country (I have letters from many here and there are many others who have received letters like this), have protested against what they consider—and what I consider—the desecration of a beautiful view. It is. I think, significant that while some of the organs of the Establishment have supported the Holford Plan, in general, one can say that those newspapers whose public are the great mass of ordinary people have unanimously, if not opposed the Plan—and many of them have opposed it—certainly not come out in support of it.
Therefore I would say that public opinion, especially when it is supported by some eminent experts and by those who are most closely connected with St. Paul's in the shape of the Dean and Chapter, should not be disregarded and cast lightly on one side, but should be given pre-eminence over the views of others, no matter how great they may be as experts. That, I hope, is sufficient to convince those whose minds are still open upon this matter that the tower of Juxon House should, if possible, be moved back so as not to interfere with the existing view.
Can this be done? Let me say at this stage that we are not discussing the complete abolition of the Plan, or even the complete removal of the building going up, but merely the moving back (I say "merely", but I accept that it is a large, difficult and expensive job) fifteen or twenty feet of the building which is at present under construction. I have made inquiries about this and, as I understand it, the position is as follows. The developers of the site are under contract with the Corporation of the City of London to carry out the whole of the Plan as it has been approved so far, and they are not at liberty, even if they so wish, to stop the building or alter it. They can only do so if the Corporation of the City of London instruct them or ask them to, or, presumably, if Her Majesty's Government take the necessary steps to see that they do so.
They, I believe, would not be unwilling to do this. They are perfectly prepared to do what they are told, and if the Corporation or the Government were to say to them: "This building must stop; it must be pulled down and moved back", they would have no objection, provided they were suitably recompensed, which is fair enough. Therefore, there are no practical difficulties in the way of doing this if the will is there. But it is essential that the developers be released from their contract, either by the Corporation of the City of London or by the Government.
I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will be brave enough to listen to the clearly expressed wishes of the people who feel so strongly about this; that they will not dig in their toes and simply say: "Because we have looked into this and made up our minds at one particular stage, there is no more that can be done about it, and we must let things be." I ask them, at least, to have an open mind. Assuming (perhaps this is too great an assumption) that the Government still have an open mind, what would the cost of this alteration be? I do not know precisely—I do not think anybody does—but I am given to understand that it would be a considerable sum of money, in the neighbourhood of £500,000. I, personally, do not believe that the taxpayer's money would be ill-spent if it were used in order to save what in effect is one of our greatest

1117
national views, which is now in danger of being spoilt.
However, I hope that this would not be necessary. I am certain that a large number of people would make small contributions towards it. And I should like to think that some of those gentlemen who have made great fortunes out of development in the City of London and elsewhere might do a great national service by putting up some or all of this money. I think it would be a very fine gesture on the part of one or more of these people—some of them have been most generous in the past in other ways—if they would come forward with an offer that, if the Government and the Corporation of the City of London agreed, they would between them, and with the help of the thousands who have protested, find this £500,000, or whatever the cost might be. They could be assured that they would earn the gratitude of very many people, some not yet born, if they did so.
I come now to the third point. How can we stop this sort of thing happening in the future? It is absolutely true that before this Plan was approved all the correct processes were gone through with the greatest meticulousness. A long time was spent preparing the plans; great and eminent people were employed to prepare them; the Minister responsible at the time took a great personal interest in the matter, and it was not just fobbed off on to some junior; the proper notice was given; pictures appeared in the newspapers, and all the rest of it. There were protests, as I have already said, including the protest of the Dean and Chapter. But at the public inquiry those protests were overruled and no further action was taken.
I would make one point here. It was stated—and I quote from The Times of March 17, 1956, when his Plan was first published in the newspapers and brought to the public attention:
"…nor is the famous view up Ludgate Hill disturbed by this new plan".
While I am sure The Times had no intention of misleading people in this matter, I believe that many people did not take the trouble to look closely at what was going on, because they took those words at their face value and thought there would be no alteration of the view up Ludgate Hill. But, as anybody knows
1118
who has been there to see it, there has been a serious alteration of the view.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that it depends entirely upon where you are in Ludgate Hill whether the view is obstructed by Juxon House or not. From the bottom of Ludgate Hill and from about a third of the way up it is not obstructed, because of the curvature of the 19th century buildings that have been there for a long time. It is when you get two-thirds of the way up Ludgate Hill that the view is obstructed by Juxon House.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Earl is quite correct. There are certain points on Ludgate Hill where the new building makes no difference to the view, but there are other points, rather closer, where the view should be all the better, where the new building juts out in front of the previous building line from St. Martin's Church and there the real obstruction takes place. Without stressing that point unduly, I think that what happened at the time of the inquiry was that the man in the street did not realise just what this meant. Pictures were published and they were looked at—I looked at them myself. They were pictures which, as noble Lords who saw them will remember, were taken as from the air and everything looked very nice. But one of the unfortunate things is that the ordinary person who looks at St. Paul's, who works in the City and goes to admire this wonderful place, does not look at it from an aeroplane or a helicopter but from a bus or the street. Had the views published in the newspapers been of a man's eye view instead of a bird's eye view. I think even at that stage the outcry would have been very different indeed.
I think we should also remember, when we are talking about St. Paul's and the steps which can be taken in future to prevent these things happening, the vandalism that has gone on in the past in the City of London and elsewhere. During the war there was a great outcry about the bombing of the City churches, and it was a shocking and a horrible thing. During the war the City lost six Wren churches by Hitler's bombs. Compare that with a figure of eighteen City Wren churches

1119
which have been pulled down in the last hundred years in order to make way for property development in the City. We have been in the past lavish in the destruction of our City treasures, and we are now continuing, not to destroy, but partially to obliterate the greatest of them.
In order to prevent this sort of thing in the future—and I am hoping that the damage already done can be put right—can we not make certain, when any of our national monuments are affected by any building plans whatsoever, or by any alterations in the existing surroundings and environment, not only that there should be the fullest publicity given to the matter in the Press, but that the pictures of the designs are taken, as I say, not from the air, but from ground level, so that the ordinary, uninitiated men and women—not the trained architect and town planner—can realise what is happening; and, furthermore, that these pictures and a complete description are shown on television throughout the country, and not simply locally in whatever area is to be affected by the new plans. In this way there will at least be an opportunity for those who feel strongly to realise what is happening, to bring pressure to bear or organise public opinion and test public opinion, so that we shall not suddenly wake up, as we have at the present time, and find what is happening to any of our great national monuments.
It is particularly cynical, I would say, that in this year, when we are celebrating the quatercentenary of the birth of William Shakespeare, our greatest English playwright and poet, we should at the same time be allowing the obliteration of one of the finest views of the greatest work of the greatest English architect. Why can we not be celebrating by allowing a better view of this great work in this particular year, instead of making it more difficult for the people to see and giving the impression to the world at large that more important to the City of London than beautiful things is the acquisition of higher rents and greater profits?
6.33 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has raised this matter in an
1120
Unstarred Question. He asked a Starred Question about it recently, but, of course, this is an occasion which enables noble Lords to express their views much more fully than is possible by question and answer. Before I come to the detailed matters about St. Paul's, there is one point I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who is to reply, and that is exactly where the Government stand on this matter. I know that in these days the tentacles of Government control spread very widely, but supposing the City Corporation, and other people concerned in this matter, agreed to demolish part of Juxon House, could the Government come down and say, "No, you must not do it?" We ask Questions of the Government in this House and in another place, but I think it would help everybody if the noble Lord could tell us exactly where the Government stand on this issue.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the Holford Plan for St. Paul's is, in the main, a good plan. We all know that Sir William Holford is one of the great architects of the day, and that he took immense trouble over St. Paul's precincts. But, after all, good though the plan may be, it has, in my view, in the noble Lord's view, and in the view of many other people in the country, one great flaw, and that is this question of Juxon House. I think the South side of St. Paul's precincts has been enormously improved. The buildings there have been put back, and as you come along from the Bank of England, going west, and pass St. Paul's to-day, it stands out remarkably, and far better than it ever did in the past. But the flaw is, of course, this West Front.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said absolutely correctly that when you look up from the bottom of Ludgate Hill, Juxon House does not conceal any more of the Cathedral than was concealed in the old days: the view is exactly the same. In other words, the building line of Juxon House is the same as the old building line. But when you walk up Ludgate Hill a little further, particularly if you are walking on the North side, on the left going towards St. Paul's, when you reach a building with which I am connected—that is to say, the new building of the Colonial Mutual Life

1121
Assurance Society, of which I am chairman—and which was erected two years ago, you see this great building sticking out in front of you and definitely shutting out a great part of the view of the Cathedral, which to-day, now that the West Front has been cleaned, is really a wonderful sight. It reminds me more of a church in Venice or in some sunny country in the South. It is a remarkable sight indeed.
When my company put up their building two years ago they had to conform with the Holford Plan, and the Plan prescribed that the building (which is on the west side of Ave Maria Lane, with Juxon House on the other side) had to curve round to the North. There is now a curve round to the North at the top of Ludgate Hall which was prescribed by Sir William Holford. If only that curve had been continued the whole front of the cathedral would have been shown up, and there would have been an uninterrupted view, far better than there was before.
I agree that the view to-day from the bottom of Ludgate Hill is no worse than it used to be, and I suppose that if the curve of the building with which I am connected had not been laid down and it had remained straight as it was in the old days, possibly nobody would have raised any point. But the fact is that, having made this curve in the building next to Juxon House, the obvious thing was to carry it on and to take advantage of the fact that, with the demolition of the old buildings, one would be able to produce a far better and finer view of St. Paul's than ever existed before. That opportunity has, in my view, been lost.
I believe that the development, of which Juxon House is a part, is known as the Paternoster Development, including all those vast buildings now being put up on the old bomb sites near Moor-gate and North of St. Paul's; and I believe that a large part of the ground is owned by the Church Commissioners. We know that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral do not like this excrescence of Juxon House. Surely it should be possible for the leaders of the Church of England—the Dean and Chapter and the Church Commissioners, who own the land—to come to some arrangement under which this building could be stopped.
1122
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, very rightly, that St. Paul's Cathedral is not only a heritage of the people of this country but one of the great monuments in the British Commonwealth, and that it is a heritage of all the people of the Commonwealth. I was talking only yesterday to an Australian friend, a man who was born in London, I suppose, over fifty years ago, and is now back in London for the first time since he left it as a boy. He told me that he was horrified and appalled when he stood outside the Colonial Mutual Building in Ludgate Hill and saw what was going to happen.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that all this was decided years ago, when everybody seemed to agree to it. But, of course, as he also said, people do not fully realise what is going to happen until they actually see it; and now that it is there for everybody to see, I am convinced that the great majority of the ordinary people of this country would rather see this offending building put back and the new and great view of the West Front which would then be possible brought into being.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him this question? He spoke about his own building and its curve; and presumably the noble Lord at the time saw the surrounding plans. Could he say, when his company agreed to put up this building with this curve, that they were aware that a building like Juxon House was going to be built as it is now?
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I think that, in so far as we want to get it, we certainly were aware. I have always wondered why this building had to be put on a curve at all, as the curve was not going to be continued. I have heard since that it has been said that the reason was in order to improve the approach up Ave Maria Lane from the South; but as a matter of fact, Ave Maria Lane is a one-way street going from North to South.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly my noble friend Lord Walston, and I am afraid that I may be less reasonable and more outspoken than he was. I

1123
am very glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London in his place, and I hope that, though he is not on our list of speakers, he will contribute to this discussion. As a layman it seems to me quite incomprehensible that anybody should seek to justify the building of anything which even partly obscures the view of St. Paul's Cathedral, which, in my view and that expressed by my noble friend, is one of the most beautiful works of one of the finest architects of all time. Surely it is our duty, and only common sense, to "cash in" on the advantages of the effects of the bombardment of protest and try to allow the Cathedral to remain unobscured so far as possible.
I remember many years ago, when I was quite a small boy, an advertisement which used to appear in Underground trains, which depicted the whole of Ludgate Hill as if it were covered with a great carpet with St. Paul's at one end, In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have said, I still think that, with the imposition of this building, the view as depicted in that advertisement would no longer be fully possible. That is looking at it from the bottom of Ludgate Hill; I have looked at it from all parts of Ludgate Hill.
It may be a matter of opinion, but to my mind most modern office buildings are so unsightly that it is really no less than an insult to the memory of Sir Christopher Wren to have the effrontery to install one in such a position as to obscure even one stone of his masterpiece. I am not alone in this view. Large numbers of our fellow Londoners regard these monstrosities as a sort of bad joke which has gone too far. A good example is at the corner of Moorgate and London Wall, where there is a series of enormous buildings, with an all-glass frontage, which look as if they have been blown over by a gale. Some people regard them as monuments to the ineptitude of our present-day architects. Nothing I can really say can adequately describe the contempt which large numbers of the public hold for the designers of these hideous buildings. I beg Her Majesty's Government to do all in their power to prevent this further obstruction
1124
of the setting of this beautiful building which remains to us; to call a halt to the completion of this work, and to remove the excrescence which has already begun to make its appearance.
Before I sit down I should like to express my gratitude to a number of newspapers for having drawn public attention to this matter, particularly, perhaps, to the Daily Telegraph, which has mounted a consistent and, I hope, fruitful campaign. I am sure we should all be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Walston for his efforts and for putting down this Question on the Order Paper. I ask the Government to do something popular for once, and put a stop to this nonsense.
6.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, if the Fire of London had not occurred I should be among the most enthusiastic supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. In that event we should be dealing with a magnificent Gothic Cathedral; and the principal feature of the Gothic style is that beauty and interest reside in its parts even more, perhaps, than in the building as a whole. I should therefore be pleading for every possible vista and every possible glimpse of that Gothic Cathedral to be afforded, since I should be confident that an exquisitely beautiful sight would result from each view.
But we are, in fact, dealing with a baroque domed church; and in such a case totally different considerations apply. In the case of a baroque domed church interest and beauty reside not in the parts, but in the whole. The beauty of the church consists in a relation between the walls, the portico, the towers and the dome; and unless those features are properly arranged, the beauty of the church disappears. This implies that such a church must be seen from a particular viewpoint. It is necessary, in the case of a church of the character of St. Paul's, to provide in the front of it a piazza or precinct of a certain size; and that piazza must conform to three rules.
In the first place, it must be wide enough to embrace the whole front of the church. Secondly, it must be long enough to enable the onlooker to stand far back from the church, for the simple

1125
reason that if you approach a domed church too closely the dome inevitably disappears behind the portico. And the third rule is that the piazza must be level so that the eye of the onlooker is on the same level as on the steps of the church. If these rules are not observed, you get a false perspective of the building; the proportions appear to be wrong, and the beauty of the church—I am speaking of the formal beauty of the church and not of its associations, with which it is not for me to deal—is very largely impaired. Sir William Holford has given us such a piazza, and I believe that it will prove to be of adequate size. He has given us a covered place underneath the annexe to Juxon House where we may stand and gaze at the beauty of the cathedral, and I, for one, very much look forward to standing in that place and seeing once again St. Paul's Cathedral as it should be seen.
So far, I have spoken of theory, but I would now speak of practice, and of another domed church. When I first visited Rome there was a wedge-shaped block of buildings called the Spina, between St. Peter's Square and the River Tiber. The buildings were slightly picturesque but of no particular interest. The streets led obliquely towards St. Peter's, and afforded no view of the Basilica to the approaching traveller. I was arrested. When you emerged from the Spina and took a few paces to the left, then, suddenly, all the glory of the piazza, the colonnades, the fountains, the obelisk, and the Basilica itself, were revealed from exactly the right aspect. It was an unforgettable experience, and one which I shall not know again, because after my first visit came Mussolini, that enthusiastic but incompetent town planner. And after he had signed the Lateran Treaty he decided to commemorate it by building a road (and he called it the Reconciliation Road) from St. Peter's down to the Tiber. That road breaks all the rules of an open space from which you ought to look at a baroque church. You see only a part of the front. You see the dome detached from the rest of the Basilica. And since the Reconciliation Road slopes downwards (though not as steeply as Ludgate Hill slopes) to the Tiber, you see the Basilica from below. I am quite sure that no one in his senses
1126
would compare the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to the late Signor Mussolini, but I do beg that he will avoid Signor Mussolini's mistakes.
6.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but one or two points have been made on which perhaps I ought to say a word. The Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's have consistently opposed this particular aspect of Sir William Holford's Plan, so far as the northern side of the precinct is concerned. They opposed it at the public inquiry, and they submitted an alternative which, in my judgment—though these things are necessarily subjective—would have been much better than the plan which Sir William Holford had put forward. That was rejected. The Dean and Chapter have never altered in their opinion, and perhaps this is an opportunity to express on their behalf—though it is a little dangerous for a Bishop to express any opinions on behalf of his Dean and Chapter—the gratitude which they feel to all those people who have shown their very deep concern for St. Paul's in all the discussions and publicity which have taken place since Juxon House began to go up and the view, which we had enjoyed only for nine months, began to disappear.
The other point I want to make is to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, so rightly said: that neither the Dean and Chapter nor the developers, who are the Church Commissioners, in association with other firms, are able in the present circumstances to stop the work on Juxon House. They are, indeed, under contract to build a building precisely on that site, and conforming precisely to Sir William Holford's Plan, and to complete it by a fixed date. If they were to depart from that I believe that there would be considerable penalties.
It should also be made clear that the Church Commissioners did not, in fact, own the site of Juxon House. Their main properties lay to the North of Paternoster Row, but in order that one developer should be in charge of the whole of the development North of the Cathedral they were urged to acquire the other sites between Paternoster Row and

1127
the cathedral, including Juxon House. I mention this lest it be thought that the Church Commissioners themselves were anything but somewhat reluctant to be the developers of this particular part of the scheme. But they thought it their duty to be associated, on behalf of the Church, with the whole of the Paternoster development.
Lord Walston has said that if arrangements could be made to stop the work, no opposition would be raised by the Dean and Chapter. That, I imagine, could be regarded as almost to-day's masterpiece of under-statement. Also, though I have no authority to say this, it is unlikely that unless the Church Commissioners were going to be badly out of pocket over the business they and their fellow developers would be any less reluctant to fall in with what is so clearly expressed public opinion. But, by themselves, neither the Commissioners nor the Dean and Chapter can move an inch. They are in the hands of Her Majesty's Government and, in a sense, of the Corporation of the City.
7.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, introduced his Unstarred Question with a great deal of persuasive charm. That is something that we have, of course, come to expect from him. He has put this Question to Her Majesty's Government, and it is divided into two parts. Therefore, at the outset, I should like to direct my attention to the first part of his Question asking whether the Government will look into the possibilities of moving back the building known as Juxon House.
I think it would be as well to clarify straight away the powers of the Minister in this matter. These powers derive from Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. The Minister can make orders revoking or modifying the existing planning permission and he can require the removal of what has already been built. Naturally, compensation would be payable for the abortive expenditure involved. I was going
1128
to say that I understand that the Church Commissioners are under contractual obligation to complete the building as proposed. In fact, that has already been confirmed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke at some length on that aspect of the matter.
I think all noble Lords will agree that the Minister would not be justified in taking such drastic action unless the circumstances were altogether exceptional. I think it would equally be agreed that decisions must always be taken as the result of the production of plans, and in some cases of models as well, and that these decisions cannot wait until the actual building is being erected. It is, I think, reasonable to suppose that once a planning decision has been taken, and more especially when it has been taken down to the approval of detailed architectural plans, a developer is entitled to rely on being able to go ahead. This is all the more the case after a lengthy public investigation, and after lengthy expert examination as well. In such a case if planning permission were to be revoked, compensation would hardly be an adequate gesture, and the whole basis of the planning system, upon which people can and do rightly depend, once well-considered decisions have been taken, would be overturned.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the developers would feel aggrieved if they were ordered by Her Majesty's Government to stop this development, and paid adequate compensation? He said that it would hardly be sufficient. I think those were his words. He implied that they would want something more than straightforward compensation.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am talking about the general case of planning permissions and revocations of such permissions. In general, developers would be aggrieved, and when it comes to compensation it is, I should imagine, in some cases at any rate, a question of loss of time and not merely the value of the building itself. There would be many things to be considered. But I am merely making the general case of the undesirability of revoking permission at any time, and especially after building has started

1129
to take place. The circumstances have altogether to be quite exceptional.
Let me therefore examine for a moment whether the circumstances are so exceptional and the procedure so defective in this case that my right honourable friend would be justified in ordering Juxon House to be demolished, and for the building line to be set back further in order to satisfy the noble Lord and those who are of a like mind. Perhaps I might interpolate at this juncture that I have made a close examination of all the documents in this case. I have not only visited the site this week, and crawled all over the building sites all round St. Paul's, but as a matter of fact I visited it from personal interest even before the noble Lord put down his previous Question last month, because I was so struck by the photograph which appeared in the national Press.
It is necessary to go into a bit of history. When Mr. Duncan Sandys approved the L.C.C. Administrative County of London Development Plan in March, 1955, he made an amendment to allow the St. Paul's Precinct to be given further consideration. He said:
"I cannot help feeling that a unique opportunity is being missed to provide a truly worthy setting for Wren's world-famous Cathedral".
As a result, the Corporation of London appointed Sir William Holford to prepare a plan for the Precinct, and his report was presented to the Court of Common Council in March, 1956. Both the Common Council and the L.C.C. accepted Sir William Holford's proposals, and in April, 1957, the L.C.C. formally submitted an amendment to their Development Plan to give effect to the principles of those proposals.
The statutory procedures were then gone through. Notice of the amendment was advertised in the London Gazette and in a local newspaper, in this case the City Press, in which there were advertisements for two consecutive weeks. An opportunity was afforded for objections to be lodged. The Minister arranged for a public local inquiry at which objections were heard, and this inquiry ran for four days from July 15 to 18, 1957. The Dean and Chapter were represented at this inquiry as we have heard, and they suggested that the angle of the Deanery should be reproduced on the North side
1130
where Juxon House is being built, to give a widening and embracing effect towards the Cathedral.
The Minister agreed with those who argued that the Holford proposals, which were supported in principle by the Royal Fine Art Commission, were superior to the alternative plan produced, and announced his decision to amend the Development Plan on January 2, 1958, in accordance with the submitted proposals for the North side of the forecourt, but said that he thought the South side needed further consideration. Planning permission was subsequently given for the development of the North side.
Those are the bare bones of the case, and I think it must be agreed there was no defect in the procedure—in fact, the noble Lord admitted that there was not—and that there was no lack of opportunity to give evidence or to produce alternative plans. But I have a good deal more to say about what was going on at the time this procedure was being gone through, and this part of my reply inevitably overlaps the second part of the noble Lord's Question referring to methods whereby public opinion can be more effectively consulted when proposals for buildings are made which affect places of national and historic interest.
Immediately Sir William Holford's report was completed his scheme received national publicity in the Press. On March 16, 1956, the Evening Standard published an accurate sketch plan of the Holford proposals, which clearly showed Juxon House projecting beyond the curve of the new building in Ludgate Hill which is in front of it—the building to which my noble friend Lord Rathcavan has referred and with which he is concerned. Furthermore, the Evening Standard wrote this:
"There is no great approach to the Cathedral as at St. Peter's in Rome. One sees it from a variety of viewpoints, from sudden glimpses or towering above a picturesque conglomeration of lower buildings. One object of the scheme is to increase the variety of these surprise views."
At the end of that article, the last paragraph read as follows:
"A large model of the proposals as they will appear when completed, with photographs and drawings, is on view at Guildhall until March 23."

1131
There are also accounts of the Plan by the architectural correspondents in both The Times and the Daily Telegraph, both of which carried leading articles on the subject—articles generally of a somewhat critical nature. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has quoted something out of The Times, but I would suggest to him that, when it comes to publicity, there are far larger numbers of readers of the Evening Standard than there are of The Times. I have no doubt that other newspapers which I have not got to hand also will have carried accounts of this Plan of national significance.
A model was also exhibited in Parliament and there was a debate in your Lordships' House on April 19, 1956, on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of which we were reminded by my noble friend Lord Conesford when the noble Lord, Lord Walston, put down a Question on this matter last month. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in withdrawing his Motion, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 196, col. 1114]:
"On the question of the layout of the precinct of St. Paul's, I am bound to say that, in all my experience in this House, I have never known such unanimity. Every single speaker, without exception, has expressed strong approval—and I put it mildly—of the Holford Plan. I hope that that remarkable expression of agreement will carry some weight with the Minister."
As I have said, there was a public inquiry in July, 1957. Once again the national Press took up this fascinating and important problem. Photographs were published in the Daily Telegraph giving the appearance of the Precinct of St. Paul's under both the Holford plan and an alternative idea put forward on behalf of the Dean and Chapter, and a summarised version of what took place at the public inquiry was also given. I have no doubt that the rest of the national Press followed suit.
I think I have said enough to show that neither the circumstances nor the procedure were so exceptional in this instance as to justify the Minister's overturning a decision which had been so carefully considered and threshed out, not only between experts, but in the full public gaze. Therefore, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question must, I am afraid, be in the negative.
1132
When I come to the second part, I have already, of course, laid the ground for my reply by referring to the publicity which Sir William Holford's proposals received both locally and nationally, both in Parliament and in the Press. I cannot conceive of any planning case since the war where public opinion has been more effectively consulted, where the public have had so much opportunity to hear about and to see the plans and designs proposed as in the case of St. Paul's Precinct. It is not sufficient in this case to say that the effect could not be appreciated until Juxon House was seen on the ground. The effects of Juxon House on the longer vista from Ludgate Hill were plain enough on the Plan for any layman to comprehend. I have studied the plans and the photographs again and again, and I am convinced that there is no excuse for maintaining that the public have been misled in this case.
As I said on a previous occasion, it comes down to a difference of opinion as to whether the West Front of St. Paul's should be open to a longer vista, or semi-enclosed with a sense of intimacy, as proposed by Sir William Holford, so that the full width of the West Facade is not seen until one approaches some 35 to 40 yards closer than would otherwise have been the case. The Government, after the fullest consideration, came to the decision that Sir William Holford's scheme was right. In this they had the full support of the Corporation of London, the L.C.C., and your Lordships' House, which I venture to say goes to confirm that this was the right decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, talked a good deal, and very interestingly, about art and the place of art in public life, saying that its importance was related to the impact it had on ordinary people. But to a certain extent he contradicted his own argument by pointing out how tastes in art change from one generation to another. He cited his own father, I think it was, as a case in point. He told us not to be overawed by a great name, the name of Sir William Holford. In short, he tried to prove that Sir William Holford's Plan could be improved. But all these matters were, of course, gone into at the inquiry. I would dearly love to join in a discussion on this whole problem, which, as we

1133
have heard from other noble Lords, is a very subjective one. I should like to express my own views on the whole subject—on the vista, on the Plan both from the North or on what might happen to the South. That is not my duty this evening because my personal opinions have no importance in this matter.
However, I would resist one thing the noble Lord opposite said: that the mass of public opinion is against Juxon House being built where it is; and I would resist his suggestion that there is no evidence that public opinion is for it. After all, a few years ago all the speakers in the House of Lords were for the proposal. This evening, with the notable exception of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the speakers have been against it. But, as the noble Lord will recognise, the protesters are always more to the fore than the contented people are. I do not think they would agree with this argument, based on a few letters in the Press, that the mass of public opinion is against this proposal.
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this is all a matter of personal taste, and while the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and his supporters are perfectly entitled to their own tastes—and I would agree with some of the things he said and some of the things the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said, while taking the opposite view of some of his remarks about all modern architecture—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say, all modern architecture.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry, I had the impression that the noble Viscount was rather prejudiced against it on the whole. I could agree with almost every word of the most interesting speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. But that is not my task; these matters are a question of personal taste. While the noble Lord and his supporters are perfectly entitled to their own tastes, they are not, I suggest, justified in saying, on the one hand, that proper consideration has not been given to the planning of the Precinct of St. Paul's, and, on the other hand, that the public has been left in ignorance of what was going on. Indeed, my Lords, I must reiterate that the public have never been
1134
so well informed, or had so much opportunity to be well informed, about a redevelopment of national importance, as they have had in this matter of the Precinct of St. Paul's Cathedral.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us that this is the fourth centenary of Shakespeare. I might have reminded him of something even more to the point, since we are talking about architecture: that this is the third centenary of the great architect Sir John Vanbrugh. I happen to have the good fortune to be the owner of a fine example of his building, which he put upon a site after pulling down a delightful Jacobean mansion which previously stood there. I think the desecration of the eighteenth century went far beyond anything that we are perpetrating in our generation; but look at what wonderful things they put in its place! But when we talk about desecration, I do not think we can blame ourselves more than our ancestors.
Be that as it may, for the future I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the Historic Buildings Act was passed only just over a year ago, and that, as a result of its passing, my right honourable friend sent out a circular last August to all local authorities, enjoining upon them the necessity for giving publicity to planning applications which might adversely affect buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The necessity for this is emphasised in that circular, both in the first and the fourth—which is the last—paragraphs. After emphasising that it will be desirable to arrange for publicity, the circular ends with these words:
"The Minister hopes that local authorities will not hesitate to take full advantage of this procedure in suitable cases, so that public opinion has an opportunity to declare itself before decisions of importance are taken."
My Lords, I am sorry that I have to reject the noble Lord's request that my right honourable friend should revoke the planning permission, but I hope that I have made the case for not doing so. I believe it to be overwhelming. I also hope that I have satisfied him that the Government, the Minister and the Ministry concerned are very much alive to the future and to the need for protecting our buildings of architectural,

1135
artistic or historic merit—a subject, in fact, which we debated on another Unstarred Question not long ago. With those final remarks, I trust that the noble Lord and those who support his view will give credit to those who disagree with them for doing what they believe to be the right thing and the best thing.

MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  EXPENSE ACCOUNT MEALS
  EXPENSE ACCOUNT MEALS