Sitting of 6 April 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Postal Facilities, West Malvern
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that representations by retirement pensioners have been rejected for installation of a post-box in the Old Hollow and Lower Road area, West Malvern, which is notoriously hilly, thus requiring pensioners to walk considerable distances to the nearest post-box, causing undue strain and fatigue; and whether he will reconsider his decision and instal a postbox at a convenient point in that area of West Malvern.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): There are posting boxes some 300 yards to the north and south of the area in question. Although there are hills, circumstances generally do not justify the installation of a third posting box in the area, and I am sorry therefore that I cannot do as the hon. Gentleman asks.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman re-examine this position, having regard to the fact that 300 yards for very elderly men and women living in these old people's homes and in a notoriously and extremely hilly district in Malvern represents real hardship, and that many old-age pensioners are just not able physically to struggle to the postbox where he now has it sited?
    Mr. Slater: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but on 6th March, 1967, the West Malvern Road sub-post office, which closed temporarily last October when the sub-postmaster resigned, reopened on a new site only 320 yards from Old Hollow, and
    424
    the posting box attached to this office was resited from its previous position to a site only 410 yards from the bungalows where the aged people are. There is also another box at the site of the previous sub-post office which is only 300 yards from the bungalows. I have every sympathy with the application of the hon. Gentleman in regard to aged people, but we have to try to reach a position whereby we can keep this within reason.

    Stafford Holiday Club Fund (National Savings)
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement concerning a fraudulent conversion by a Post Office employee of moneys officially deducted from pay slips, which has led to the freezing since 27th August last of all payment from the National Savings holiday club funds at Stafford Head Post Office, into which some £6,000 had been paid; and if he will state his proposals for restitution to those robbed.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): A joint investigation by the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office has revealed that when all the loans have been repaid to the club there will be sufficient funds to meet all known commitments.

    Letter and Parcel Traffic
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General why no rise in letter and parcel traffic is expected in 1967–68.
    Mr. Edward Short: This was, of course, only our estimate at the time the Prospects White Paper was published. Postal traffic is affected by various factors. Present trends suggest that we may have been over cautious in the White Paper estimate.
    Mr. Gilmour: Was the original estimate based on the idea that because there had been increased costs the law of diminishing returns should be brought into operation?
    Mr. Short: No, Sir. It was based on the trend at that time. Since the White Paper was written, which was some weeks ago, there has been a slight upward trend in postal traffic, so it looks as though we erred on the cautious side.

    Post Offices (Opening Hours)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Postmaster General whether he will issue instructions that in all towns of over 50,000 population at least one post office should remain open until 6 p.m. from Monday to Friday, inclusive.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. We keep offices open until 6 p.m. in exceptional cases, but this is done on the basis of an examination of the business transacted at each office.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in most towns a large number of people, due to their working hours and conditions, find great difficulty in getting to the Post Office between the normal hours of nine and five? In his drive to make the Post Office efficient, will he remember that the element of service should always remain within the Post Office?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir. This is one of the things which we take into consideration, and after looking carefully at local conditions here we decided that there was not sufficient business at any office in Southampton to justify a later closing time than 5.30 p.m.

    Parcels (Bulk Posting)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what consideration he had given to a reduced charge for parcels offered in bulk for postal delivery; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Short: Several methods of assessing postage on bulk postings of parcels are being considered and I hope to be able to announce a scheme fairly soon.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Postmaster-General agree that, as a result of the introduction of a discount of this kind, there would be a substantial transfer into the Post Office of parcels from mail order firms and manufacturing firms producing small components, and that this would have the healthy side effect of transferring traffic from the roads to the railways?
    Mr. Short: We already do a substantial amount of business with mail order firms. This is the reason why we want
    426
    to introduce this scheme. We feel that it can be made to work. I am grateful for the help given me by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in drawing up this scheme.

    Post Office Staff (Pay)
    Mr. Deanasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the pay negotiations relating to Post Office staff; and how they will be affected by the prices and incomes policy of Her Majesty's Government after 30th June, 1967.
    Mr. Edward Short: Negotiations are now continuing on a number of pay claims. Any pay increase resulting from them will be implemented in the light of the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Standstill: Period of Severe Restraint.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he gave me a similar answer to a similar Question on 26th October last year? Is he aware that the claim of the Post Office engineers has been outstanding for long before the pay freeze came in? Can he assure the House that there will be speedy action on this matter?
    Mr. Short: The last answer I gave was similar, but I now say that negotiations are proceeding on these pay claims.
    Mr. Gilmour: Have not Post Office employees resented the fact that the Government ignore the prices and incomes policy when they put up their own charges but abide by it when they negotiate with their employees?
    Mr. Short: The Post Office employees have given splendid support to the Government, and they are among the best and most public-spirited employees in the country.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Local Radio Stations
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General what replies he has had to his inquiries about the establishment of local radio stations.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the way in which the British Broadcasting Corporation's requirement that the cost of

    427
    the experimental local radio stations should be met from local sources will be positively and substantially satisfied.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will now give further details of the financial arrangements for the experimental local sound radio stations.
    Mr. Edward Short: Before the White Paper was published, I made inquiries in order to establish whether local financial support was a real possibility. The replies were such as to justify an experiment designed to show, among other things, whether enough local financial support would be forthcoming for a general and permanent service. On the financial arrangements, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 17th March to Questions from the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry).—[Vol. 743, Col. 167.]
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Postmaster-General consider laying on the Table the replies which he has had in response to the inquiries? Is it not evident that his policy is a law for the rich and not for the poor among local authorities? What kind of replies has he had from East Anglia?
    Mr. Short: The replies go to the B.B.C. It is a matter for the B.B.C. to decide, and I cannot lay on the Table letters that the B.B.C. gets from towns up and down the country. It is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether we can run genuine communal stations in this country.
    Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he referred me gives no information at all in reply to my Question? Since he has failed to give any information about money being supplied by local chambers of trade, religious bodies and other people named in the White Paper, one can only assume that all the money will be found by the local ratepayer. Can he answer that question?
    Mr. Short: All the money is not coming from the local ratepayer. One of the purposes of the experiment is to find whether a station can be financed in this way. If we knew the answer, there
    428
    would be no need for an experiment. If one takes Merseyside, for example, a whole variety of organisations and bodies on Merseyside are contributing to the local station.
    Mr. Ashley: Although money from local chambers of commerce, presumably, will be welcome, will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that at no time and in no circumstances will the sponsorship of local programmes ever be permitted?
    Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. is not allowed to do that. I can give that assurance.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Director General of the B.B.C. held a conference of local authorities to describe and discuss the financial conditions under which this experiment might take place and invitations might be sent? A verbatim account was made of that conference and was sent to the authorities not present. Would it be possible for that verbatim account to be put in the Library and made available to hon. Members?
    Mr. Short: Certainly I will look into that. I have not seen a verbatim account, but I will see if anything can be done.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the station known as Radio Scotland has moved from her anchorage? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Short: I saw a Press Report that, after the Procurator Fiscal's successful prosecution, Radio Scotland was moving to the Firth of Forth, but I hear from an hon. Gentleman that it is moving near the Irish Coast. We shall have to wait and see where it ends up.
    Mr. Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I, too, shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Independent Television Authority (Contracts)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to make consultation with him obligatory before the award of contracts with the Independent Television Authority.
    Mr. Edward Short: The present arrangements derive from the Television Act, 1963. It would be premature to make any change at least until I have seen how they work in practice. I am watching the present position with care.
    Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, since the introduction of commercial television, millions and millions of £s have been made by people who have no interest in the medium other than for a licence to print their own money? Would he not agree, further, that the Chairman of the I.T.A. has far too much power and authority to decide who should receive the next commercial television contracts?
    Mr. Short: Without being drawn into the first point, the Chairman of the I.T.A. is carrying out the duty laid upon him by this House. Until that is changed he has to carry out that duty.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given a very good reply and that this country would be very anxious if it were thought that pressures from Parliament were being put on the genuinely Independent Television Authority?

    Obscene Language
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to issue directions to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send broadcasts containing obscene language; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General if he will instruct the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send broadcasts containing obscene language.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. The broadcasting authorities are already under a duty to satisfy themselves that, so far as is possible, the programmes for which
    430
    they are responsible should not offend against good taste or decency, or be offensive to public feeling.
    Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate the undesirability of censorship, but is it not equally undesirable that the Postmaster-General should incite the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to use four-letter words? Can he say whether he really meant those words which he uttered at that luncheon, or whether they fell out inadvertently?
    Mr. Short: I neither condoned the use of the words nor suggested that they should be used. The Daily Sketch made this quite clear. I personally very much deplore the use of these words. I was making two points. First, what is acceptable on television is based on a consensus in society, and Parliament has laid on the two broadcasting authorities the duty to interpret this consensus without any Ministerial censorship or directive, or any watchdog committee. My second point was a plea for honesty in art, and I might have added in politics and in life generally. So long as I have breath in my body, I shall advocate honesty and attack cant, hypocrisy and humbug.
    Mr. Wall: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's denial will receive as much publicity as his original statement. Will he bear in mind the effect on children, and that by the use of bad language on the B.B.C. a lot of youngsters are only too keen to be able to justify their own bad language?
    Mr. Short: As a parent myself, I agree with that, but I am saying that it is the duty of the two broadcasting authorities to deal with this. This duty has been laid on them by Parliament, and they must carry it our without Ministerial direction, or censorship, or any watchdog committee.
    Mr. Mapp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the thin line between liberty and licence is gradually being eroded by the television authorities? Would it not be wise to call their attention to the fact that in the country there are many people of that opinion? I respect what my right hon. Friend has just said, but the fact remains that licence is now on the increase in these programmes.
    Mr. Short: The best way to subject these two authorities to the full blast of

    431
    public opinion, and opinion in this House, is not to put any kind of body between them and public opinion, but to leave it to them.
    Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at the moment the B.B.C., in particular, is breaking the terms of its original charter? Surely he should take some action to see that it does not break it?
    Mr. Short: I do not agree with that. I think that we can leave this to the good sense of the authorities.
    Mr. Whitaker: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his adult attitude and integrity? Does he not think that one reason why we prefer British television and radio to that of the Rhodesian régime which the hon. Member for Hal-temprice (Mr. Wall) supports is that it is, happily, free from day-to-day meddling by politicians?
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members who also object strongly to obscenity or other lapses of taste on television would object equally strongly if there were any intervention by the Postmaster-General, or any other Minister for that matter, in programme content, whether on I.T.V. or B.B.C.?
    Sir G. Nabarro: While generally accepting what the Postmaster-General said, may I ask him to think again in the case of a television film such as "Up the Junction", which gave widespread offence and was then repeated to give even more offence? If it is known that a film gives offence, why repeat it?
    Mr. Short: I am not going to start intervening in programme content. I repeat that Parliament has laid this duty on the two broadcasting authorities, and until Parliament changes that they must carry it out.

    Licence Evasion
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General what loss of revenue occurred in the year to 5th April, 1967, in respect of evasion of payment for radio and television licences what further steps he is taking to improve the position; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the results achieved in the last two months in the increased numbers of television licences taken out as a result of governmental action; and what has been the amount of additional revenue accruing.
    Mr. Edward Short: The loss of revenue was about £10 million.
    In January and February, 1967, the last two months for which figures are available, the number of combined sound and television licences in force increased by about 41,000 and 27,000, producing an increase in revenue of about £205,000 and £135,000. I cannot, of course, say how much of these increases resulted from action by my Department, but as the House is aware, I have intensified the existing measures against licence evasion and on 8th March I introduced the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a £10 million loss is a massive sum of money, and that as this approximate rate of loss has been going on for at least 15 years, representing a cumulative loss of about £150 million, the honest licence payers are being very heavily soaked, especially if the licence fee is put up? Can he not stiffen the penalties against licence evasion?
    Mr. Short: The Bill which I have put before the House stiffens the penalties as well as doing a lot of other things. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct—12s. of every licence fee is imposed because of people who do not take out licences.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very large amount involved through evasion, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a sound investment substantially to increase the number of detector vans on the road? What steps is he taking in that direction?
    Mr. Short: We are doubling the number of detector vans, as well as introducing the Bill which I have already placed before the House.
    Mr. Bryan: Will the Postmaster-General tell us how the B.B.C. arrived at the figure of 2 million licence evaders? I believe that it is far higher than that. Secondly, in view of the dramatic effect of the introduction of more detector vans,

    433
    allied to the threat of higher fines, would it not be wise to reconsider the proposal to impose upon dealers this cumbrous, inefficient and frustrating obligation to provide 13-million lists of various sorts to the Post Office?
    Mr. Short: The figure of 2 million is the discrepancy between the number of sets sold and let out on hire and the number of licences taken out, so it must be fairly accurate. As for the hon. Member's second point, we have had a great deal of co-operation from dealers. They do not want this system, but they have co-operated. I have discussed the matter with them at great length. We have had their co-operation in drawing up the Bill and their assistance on a great many points.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that for many people the payment of the television licence fee represents the spending of a substantial single sum? Is he examining means of spreading the payment of this sum over a longer period?
    Mr. Short: This can be done now. It is possible to obtain a card from any post office and to stick on one savings stamp a week, which will be roughly sufficient for the licence fee at the end of the year. I hope that pensioners, in particular, will make use of this facility. These cards are available in every post office.

    Confidential Interviews and Broadcasting Libels
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from sending current affairs features containing interviews given in confidence or obtained by the use of concealed recording devices.
    Sir C. Blackasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the heavy damages the British Broadcasting Corporation has had to pay to settle an action for damages brought against it by Mr. Emile Littler, if he will issue a direction to the Corporation to refrain from broadcasting libels.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. These are matters of programme content for which the broadcasting authorities are wholly responsible.
    Mr. Tomney: Is my hon. Friend aware that the true facts leave a very bad taste in the mouth from the point of view of the B.B.C.? The BBC. was granted permission and facilities by the Hammersmith Borough Council for a sequel to "Cathy Come Home". There was no implied acceptance or otherwise that recordings of a confidential nature would or should be used, but in its researches the B.B.C. selected six families, one of which was in arrear in the payment of rent to the extent of £65 in respect of private furnished accommodation. It is the policy of the Greater London Council not to rehouse families which are in arrears in rent. As a consequence, furtive suggestions were put to the woman concerned that the B.B.C. would discharge her contract if she would take part in the programme, and in confidential interviews with the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably short.
    Mr. Tomney: This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker, which affects every professional body.
    Mr. Speaker: Every Question is important to the hon. Member who asks it.
    Mr. Tomney: As a consequence the B.B.C. secreted transmitting equipment upon this person and monitored to a taxi-cab in an adjacent street details of private conversations, causing great concern—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must treat all Members alike.
    Mr. Slater: I am given to understand that the B.B.C. gave the town clerk an immediate assurance that the recording would not be broadcast, and that it was not used when the programme in question was later broadcast. I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Tomney: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the programme—[Laughter.]—of the answer—and both words are correct—I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Stranraer
    Mr. Brewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many householders in Stranraer are unable to

    435
    receive British Broadcasting Corporation television except by subscribing to a piped relay service; and whether he will allow the cost of such subscription to be deducted from the annual television licence fee.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The BBC., which is primarily responsible for the coverage attained by its services, tells me that the B.B.C.1 transmissions from Divis in Northern Ireland can be received by most viewers in Stranraer provided an adequate aerial is used. To allow a reduction in the licence fee for people with poor reception would in practice be quite unworkable.
    Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that reception in Stranraer is very bad? Does not he think it grossly unfair that the licence fee paid by the people of Stranraer should be used to subsidise extra channels, including those carrying coloured television, in places like London? Can he give a firm date when reception will be improved?
    Mr. Slater: The quality of reception varies not only from area to area but from street to street within a town. There would be endless arguments if cheaper licences were allowed for areas of poor reception. The only workable system is to have a standard rate of licence fee from everybody installing a television set. Questions relating to reception are constantly being brought to the notice not only of the B.B.C. but the I.T.A., and they are doing everything possible to improve standards.
    Mr. Brewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    STD Coin Boxes
    Mr. John Leeasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for telephone box machinery to be manufactured in such a way as to ensure that the voice of the answering user is audible long enough for the identification of his number before the pay tone pips begin to operate.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. As such an arrangement would allow short
    436
    messages to be passed without payment, the STD coin box was designed so that pay-tone began as soon as practicable after the called person lifted his receiver.
    Mr. Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is most unsatisfactory? It really is most infuriating to make a call, to have a person lift the receiver at the other end, and then find that before one can decide whether one has the right number the pips start to drown that person's voice. Numerous wrong calls are made, which means that the Post Office gets a lot of revenue which it does not deserve.
    Mr. Slater: My hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that the Post Office is getting a lot of money to which it is not entitled. The length of time before the pay-tone is connected varies because of the different characteristics of the line and equipment in various call boxes. As far as possible the pay-tone is connected as soon as the called person answers. This is done to prevent abuse.

    Research Institute for Consumer Affairs (Survey)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will invite both management and the trade unions involved in the telephone service to consider with him the recent international survey of these services by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, a copy of which has been sent to him;
    (2) what study he has made of the proposals for improving the telephone service contained in the recent international survey by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what action he will take to implement these proposals.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have examined the survey with interest. Indeed I have my own battered copy here. I do not necessarily accept all its conclusions—particularly those based on comparisons with other countries. There is machinery for staff consultation about the service, and special arrangements are therefore not necessary.
    Mr. Moonman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider the possibility of making further inquiries with regard to those sections of

    437
    the report dealing with the quality of the service and the failure rate of both manual trunk calls, which is considered to be 15 per cent., and S.T.D. trunk calls, which is 21 per cent? This is shocking.
    Mr. Short: There is a great deal more to it than that, but improving the quality of the service is one of our main preoccupations on the telecommunications side of our business.

    Private Telephone Subscribers
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what statistics are available of the number of private telephone subscribers in 1964 and 1966; and what forecasts are available of the numbers of telephone subscribers by 1968, and 1970.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: There were 3·4 million residential connections in service at March 1964 and 4·2 million at March 1966. Our forecasts for March 1968 and 1970 are 5 million and 6·2 million, respectively.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General agree that there has been a failure by private manufacturing companies producing telephone equipment, and that this is part of the trouble, in spite of the enormous efforts that have been made? Does not he agree that this is an example of private industry failing to meet a public need? Does he further agree that, in view of the recent revelations about the position in the aircraft industry, there should be a close examination of the profits made by private manufacturers of telephone equipment?
    Mr. Slater: It is true that manufacturers have been unable to keep up with delivery dates in the building of new telephone exchanges. That is one of the major reasons for the Post Office not having been able to provide the expected number of telephones for applicants in the period in question.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers (Salaries)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards a new
    438
    agreement on teachers' salaries in the Burnham Committee.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations which he has received from teachers organisations about the suspension of negotiations on teachers' salaries.
    The Under-Secretory of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and to my hon. Friend on 23rd March.—[Vol. 743, c. 1903–4.]
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's prices and incomes policy contained no provision for the suspension of negotiations but that this is what has happened in the case of teachers, and it is causing considerable resentment among teachers? Is he aware of the urgency of improving the basic scale for teachers, particularly the lower end, if the teacher shortage is to be satisfactorily overcome?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend had a meeting recently with the Burnham Committee, which, in the circumstances, was very agreeable. My hon. Friend will be particularly glad to know that a formal meeting of the Burnham Committee is likely within the month.
    Sir E. Boyle: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that not only the White Paper but also the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1965, contained no provision that negotiations could take place only with the gracious permission of the Secretary of State? Would he not agree that if successive Governments had tried to negotiate the new machinery on that basis they would have met with very strong opposition?
    Mr. Howell: Those are considerations which have been expressed to my right hon. Friend and were expressed at the meeting to which I referred.

    School-Leavers (Employment Guidance)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place, and with

    439
    what result, about the possibility of the appointment of vocation officers in schools or groups of schools with particular regard to helping with the employment problems of coloured school-leavers.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I do not know of any such discussions but in providing a vocational guidance and employment service for school-leavers, youth employment officers pay particular attention to the difficulties of coloured young people and teachers help and advise them with special reference to pupils' suitability for different kinds of employment.
    Mr. Chapman: Has not there been—and have not other Members of the Government expressed some support for the idea that there should be—some particular help in these areas for young people, particularly children of immigrants, and that people specially trained for the job should be made available to offer the advice?
    Mr. Howell: As I have explained already to the House, I am at the moment engaged on visiting all the local education authorities mainly involved in this question. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is specifically one of the questions which I raise. It is extremely important to strengthen youth employment staffs in advance of the large numbers of people coming through the schools. I am anxious to encourage that in every way.

    "The Commonwealth in Education"
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means and to what extent the pamphlet, "The Commonwealth in Education", prepared by his Department is being circulated to the teaching profession; and what assessment is planned of its impact on history and geography curricula in schools.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The pamphlet was sent to all local education authorities and to the national and educational Press. 3,000 copies were purchased in four months. It is impossible to assess the impact on school curricula of particular publications, but experience has shown that teachers value publications such as "The Commonwealth in Education".
    Mr. Chapman: But would it not have been a good idea to circulate this to schools instead of waiting for local education authorities to farm it out? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the ways, by associating the Commonwealth with the curricula, in which we can cure a great deal of racial prejudice?
    Mr. Howell: We circulated this pamphlet to every local education authority, but it sells at 5s. 6d. and a free distribution to all schools in the country would have been difficult to justify. We hope, of course, that they will take it up, and there are now signs that they are doing so.

    Students and Teachers (European Scientific Inter-change)
    Dr. David Owenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to encourage greater transferability between students and teachers studying scientific and technical subjects in this country with their European counterpart.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We would like to see an increase in European scientific inter-change particularly at post-doctoral level, and we are discussing how this might best be achieved. The Department makes funds available, through the Research Councils, for post-graduate studentships and fellowships in science and technology and these can be held in Europe.
    Dr. Owen: I welcome that reply, but would my hon. Friend not agree that, if technological co-operation is to be meaningful, there is an urgent need for closer integration of education, particularly between this country and the Six?
    Mr. Howell: Indeed, we strongly support that view, and in the various European organisations of which we are a member we are doing our best to initiate this sort of inter-change.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the issue of educational interchange between Britain and Germany was recently brought up at the Anglo-German Parliamentarians' Conference at Koenigswinter? Is he aware that there is strong feeling that not enough has been done to follow up recent meetings of European Education Ministers? Will he

    441
    draw this question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, as it is one to which many hon. Members on both sides of the House attach importance?
    Mr. Howell: I was not aware of the discussions at Koenigswinter; I am glad to take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I will certainly draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention. There have been specific discussions in respect of the attitude of Germany and ourselves on this matter, and we are very anxious to do everything we can to help.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Would the hon. Gentleman draw to his right hon. Friend's attention the lack of support for the French business school in Paris which some of our people are attending? It is very disappointing and the Government could do much more on this.
    Mr. Howell: I will take note of that point and have it investigated by the Department.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend consider approaching those local authorities which have town twinning arrangements, where this aspect of the original question might be assisted?
    Mr. Howell: That may be a very useful suggestion and I will certainly note it.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Mr. Trussell
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his decision on the petition for a free pardon on the grounds of new evidence having become available since conviction will be conveyed to Mr. Trussell of Longwood Gardens, Ilford; and how long the matter has now been under consideration.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Mr. Trussell's petition, which related to a conviction in 1963 and was accompanied by voluminous supporting documents, was received in the Home Office on 24th November, 1966. After considering a report of the very detailed inquiries that have been necessary in this case, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there are no grounds on which he would be justified in recommending a free pardon, or in
    442
    referring the case to the Court of Appeal. A reply to this effect is being sent to Mr. Trussell's solicitors today.
    Mr. Iremonger: May I inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that I cannot believe my ears? Is he aware that anyone who studies the evidence which he has had before him sees that fresh evidence has come to light since this conviction and that it is absolutely impossible to substantiate the previous conviction? Would he take this back and look at it again?
    Mr. Taverne: There was a most detailed report of this case prepared by the Metopolitan Police. I cannot possibly go into the issues of it now as it is well over 120 pages long. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter has been most carefully considered.

  BOARD OF TRADE

    Coastal Waters (Oil Pollution)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his plans to amend further the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill so as to deal effectively with the discharge into British waters of oil and other pollution.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The Government have already announced their plans for dealing with these problems. The question of legislation, whether by amending the Merchant Shipping Acts or otherwise, will be for later consideration.
    Mr. Hughes: But does my right hon. Friend not realise that this has been dragging on for far too long and that the problem has been made more urgent by the imminence of the holiday season and by the disaster off Cornwall? Will he therefore act promptly before the summer?
    Mr. Darling: We understand the real problems which are created here. My hon. and learned Friend is asking for legislation. This is a matter which we are urgently considering.

    Monkeys (Import)
    Sir R. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number and value of live monkeys

    443
    imported into the United Kingdom month by month since January, 1965.
    Mr. Darling: I regret the information is not available.
    Sir R. Russell: Is that not rather extraordinary? If monkeys are being imported, surely some count is made of the numbers?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir, but unfortunately they are not separately distinguished in the import statistics.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Family Allowances
    Mr. David Owenasked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that increasing family allowances will be one of the only ways in which the extra cost in food, following a successful entry into the European Economic Community, could be offset; and if in anticipation she will seek to restructure the present system and extend payment to the first child.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): No, Sir.
    Dr. Owen: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the family allowances system and structure is under great criticism at present, and that, although many of us believe that its unpopularity is unjustified, we should like to see radical changes urgently introduced by this Government?
    Mr. Loughlin: I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the criticism of the unpopularity of family allowances. I, too, feel that it is unjustified, but so far as the Common Market goes, it is far too early to commit ourselves. In any case, the whole question of family allowances is under consideration at present on the whole issue of child poverty.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that whether or not we go into the Common Market there is a great case now for increasing family allowances, and that if we should go in there would be a case for increasing them still further?
    Mr. Loughlin: As I said, this matter is now being considered by the Government and I cannot be expected to go further than that today.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not my hon. Friend aware that if we unfortunately go into the Common Market there will be no hope whatever of our increasing family allowance, unless with the consent of people who know nothing about conditions in this country?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am not so sure that that is an accurate statement of the position.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department is not waiting for a decision to be made by the Government about whether or not we go into the Common Market before it makes an announcement about increasing family allowances?
    Mr. Loughlin: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The position is that we are at the moment considering the whole question of family allowances without any relationship whatever to the position of the Common Market.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we go into the Common Market and carry out the Treaty of Rome obligations in relation to social security benefits there will be bound to be an upward trend in family allowances in view of the fact that most of the E.E.C. countries have better family allowances than we have?
    Mr. Loughlin: There may well be an upward trend in family allowances. We are attempting to deal with such a hypothetical situation that it is hardly possible to say what will happen.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology for what reasons the estimate for research and development of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft has risen from £200 million to £250 million since March, 1967.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): As I indicated in the debate on 22nd March, it is not until the project definition study has been completed that I can give more

    445
    precise estimates of development costs for this aircraft.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it or is it not a fact that the R. & D. estimate is now put at £250 million? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the experience of those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee that estimates tend to be exceeded in reality by a factor of at least two and half? Is he further aware that some of us who have talked to Lockheed engineers, who have experience of some of the problems at first-hand, believe that the final cost may be at least £500 million?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot accept that at all. Much more work has been done on preparing the possible R. & D. costs for this aircraft than on any project developed in the past. I cannot comment on any figures that have appeared in the Press. No official figure has yet been given.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not this a medium-range nuclear bomber and not just an interceptor? If so, could not we save many millions of £s by adhering to our official policy of renouncing the so-called independent nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As my hon. Friend knows, these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and should be addressed to him.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister are not normally taken until 3.15 p.m. We have, however, reached the Prime Minister's Questions and the Prime Minister and hon. Members with Questions are here. If the House has no objection, we will continue with Questions to the Prime Minister, although it is a few minutes before 3.15.

    MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to public funds of his decision in 1964 to set up a separate Ministry of Land and Natural Resources; and what saving in annual cost of Ministerial and official salaries, respectively, will be derived from his decision to end this Department's separate existence.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): If, as I assume, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the cost of establishing the Department rather than the implementation of Government policies for which it was responsible, the cost was about £170,000. The answer to the second part of the Question is £875. No precise answer can be given to the third part of the Question, but the saving is probably of the order of £80,000 a year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the fact that the Prime Minister abolished this Department—which he created—after a very short life indicate that he accepts that it was a mistake to create it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Certainly not. I have been asked that question before and I have answered it. Although I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very allergic to the Land Commission proposals, which are now the law of the land, they have saved the taxpayer many millions of £s—[Interruption.]—because of the levy on land speculation and savings in costs to local authorities and the Government when they buy land. The right hon. Gentleman is also allergic to the leasehold proposals, which he thinks are legalised robbery. But these have been very fine returns for the work of the Ministry.
    Mr. Rippon: Why did not the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the merger to reduce the size of what is now the largest Government in the world? How can he talk of savings when the cost of administering the Land Commission will be at least £4 million a year?
    The Prime Minister: We have debated this matter thoroughly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has still not got into his head the fact that as long as land speculation, which was not only encouraged but started by previous Conservative Administrations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Started?"]—yes, when they abolished the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The cost of that to the Government, local authorities and owner-occupiers was so great that we have had to deal with the matter by these measures. The new Government will be responsible for all these very beneficial pieces of legislation which this Ministry introduced.

    NATIONAL DIVIDEND
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made with his policy of a national dividend.
    The Prime Minister: The Government intend to discuss the idea of a national dividend with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he referred to the national dividend as
    "a new concept unique in democracy".
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Quotations must not be made in supplementaries.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: —as a unique concept in democracy? Since his remarks received a rather frosty welcome from Mr. George Woodcock, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that it is a practical proposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The fact that it fell on somewhat stony ground on the first night does not mean that it should not be pursued. This is something which any Government would want to do in the circumstances—to work out how much can be afforded by the nation, not only in wages, salaries and other incomes but also in additions to the "social wage" through an increase in the social expenditure programmes of the Government and to see that the claims on that do not exceed the amount that is available.
    Mr. Dickens: May I press the Prime Minister further on this question? In defining the national dividend, is he now saying that the Government want to see the national dividend based on the real creation of wealth in the country, as measured by a net increase in the gross national product, or is he still of the view that it should be based on some anticipated increase in productivity this year or some ensuing year?
    The Prime Minister: This stems originally from the proposal of the T.U.C., which we greatly welcome, of having a discussion each year, I think in the autumn, between the Government, the
    448
    T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to see how much in total could be afforded for all these purposes. Where I think we had gone wrong under successive Governments in the past is that the total amount of claims on what was available in the country had outrun what was available, and this has led to the grave measures that have had to be taken.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has told us a good many times that it is impossible to say what the nation can afford. Does he now mean that he has changed his mind and that he can tell us what the nation can afford by way of growth?
    The Prime Minister: I did respond, or I failed to respond, to previous questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, but we are getting into the position when this question can be answered. We had to get through the serious difficulties of this past winter. We had to get a balance of payments surplus. Then an answer could be given. However, I would not want to anticipate what I might happen to know, or have reason to think, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say on this subject, dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's question, next Tuesday.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 7th March to a Question by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 742, c. 1254.]
    Mr. Wall: For how long is this war of attrition to continue? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take no initiative to break the deadlock, particularly in view of the agreement on the six principles? Is he content to leave the whole matter to the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: This is not a war of attrition. Nor is the whole matter left

    449
    to the United Nations. Indeed, we took the initiative, although many people thought, or might have felt, that it was wrong to treat with people in rebellion with the Crown. The agreement reached on H.M.S. "Tiger" was thrown over by the extremists in Salisbury. Mr. Lardner Burke, who won the day on that occasion, condemned the six principles. I know, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman voted in the Lobby, that they were supported by him, but we did not support them.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions appear to be biting, and biting hard, in Rhodesia? Would not he also agree that if the Smith regime were to be defeated, there would be many disappointed people on the benches opposite?
    The Prime Minister: I can only judge by how they spoke and voted last December. It is certainly the case that Mr. Smith has himself now admitted the very grave effect of sanctions in that country, but I am sure that there is no hon. Member in any part of the House who wants sanctions to continue or who wants this situation to continue. It could have been avoided if illegality had been avoided. It could be avoided tomorrow if Rhodesia would return to legality.
    Mr. Longden: Can the Prime Minister say how many members of the United Nations have responded to the Secretary-General's request to let him know what they are doing to implement this Resolution?
    The Prime Minister: Ninety, Sir.
    Mr. Paget: When my right hon. Friend says that it is now all in the hands of the United Nations, is not that just what we warned him of, and now is not the position that the injury to us, to Zambia and to Rhodesia just has to wander on?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I said that it is not—I was picking up a question put by an hon. Member—entirely in the hands of the United Nations. We have kept it in our hands. But the sanctions, approved by this House with the wide support of hon. Members in all parts, had been frustrated by the actions of other countries. This is why we took the matter to the United Nations.
    Mr. Thorpe: Can the Prime Minister say whether he has made inquiries as to the accuracy of the allegations that regular units of the South African Army have moved into Rhodesia in civilian clothes, and are now serving with the Rhodesian Army?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I had not heard those allegations. I have no reason at all to think that they are true, but since the right hon. Gentleman has raised them I will, of course, make inquiries.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the substantial concession my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make to the Rhodesian Government last year, will he now do something more positive and try, either through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to get the Rhodesian Government to renegotiate?
    The Prime Minister: The Rhodesian régime had the opportunity in December. The terms we put forward were fair—to many people we were unduly fair in what we suggested—in the sense that we were giving them the chance of independence within four months and leaving them free, despite their act of illegality, to go on running the country in return for certain assurances that not every hon. Member here was as prepared as we were to accept. Since then, they have been told repeatedly, and I have said it in this House, that they can come at any time to the Government and say they want to return to the 1961 Constitution or to the 1961 Constitution amended to give effect to the six principles agreed on H.M.S. "Tiger".
    Mr. Maudling: Can the Prime Minister give the House any details of the effects of sanctions to date? Does he intend to propose any new initiative, or merely continue to let events take their course?
    The Prime Minister: We are naturally considering all the time whether new measures are needed to tighten up the sanctions, and if any Orders are required the House will be asked to pronounce on them. But I think that the Rhodesian regime now know—they had their chance last December—that we are prepared to go on with these sanctions as long as illegality continues. The existing sanctions are already having a serious effect—

    451
    the second tobacco crop, and the rest—and they must draw their own conclusion from this. The whole thing means that they were concerned only to get their so-called independence, which no one else recognises. That was more important to them than progress on the honourable terms we offered them.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In order to amplify his earlier reply that 90 nations have replied to the United Nations question about sanctions, can the Prime Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the nations that have replied, and whether they have replied in the negative or the affirmative, or have procrastinated?
    The Prime Minister: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but if an appropriate Question is put down I will certainly see that one or other of us answers it, and gives the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister what study he has given to alternative courses of action open to Her Majesty's Government if membership of the European Economic Community proves impossible at the present time; and, in particular, what study he has given to the possibility of a form of association for a period of years.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 16th November, and to my Answer on 31st January to a Question by the hon Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).—[Vol. 736, c. 446–57; Vol. 740, c. 244–7.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Prime Minister agree that if, as some of us fear, full membership may not be possible to the present Government, some form of association might provide an acceptable second best, and have the Government made any examination of this possibility? Can he say whether it has been canvassed by him in any of the capitals of the Six?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to a Question in January, any alternative, compared with getting into the Community on the right terms, would be very much second best. I do not think that the question of association is one that the House will be very ready to contemplate. It means having to carry out all the rules of the Treaty of Rome without having any say about those rules, how regulations are drafted, and so on. Mr. Macmillan said in this House that Britain was hardly the sort of nation that could be a country member of a club of this kind.
    Mr. Henigasked the Prime Minister under which articles of the Treaty of Rome Her Majesty's Government intend to negotiate adjustments to facilitate British entry into the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister: No decision has as yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on whether or not to seek entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only six Articles of the Treaty of Rome must be changed automatically on the entry of any new member; and that all I ask is whether, in fact, Her Majesty's Government will, in principle, ask that any of the remaining 242 Articles should be altered to help them?
    The Prime Minister: I have said before in this House that, so far as the actual drafting of the Treaty of Rome is concerned, apart from those Articles automatically affected consequentially on entry of a new member under Article 237, the Treaty of Rome of itself, necessarily, need not be an impediment. We still have substantial difficulties to overcome, and I have never sought to disguise that. We are evaluating those difficulties and seeing what decisions we should take.
    Mr. Henigasked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will now make a formal application for membership of the European Economic Community under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Hefferasked the Prime Minister whether he has further considered the question of making an application to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 4th April to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas).—[Vol. 744, c. 30.]
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the procedures of the European Community for dealing with applications for membership and association from non-members are extremely slow, and that it would be to the benefit of the country for the matter to be decided one way or the other as quickly as possible? Will he therefore, with his other right hon. Friends, give consideration to an early decision in the matter?
    The Prime Minister: We are pushing on with this matter with the urgency that is required, and with the desire not to lose momentum, but this is a tremendously important decision affecting the interests of the country and the Commonwealth in a number of important degrees, and I believe that it is more important to get the answer right than to do it unnaturally quick. Of course, there may be long delays—one hopes that they will not be as long as on another occasion—if we decide to make application, but we have to study the best means if we decide to apply to go in on certain conditions.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the momentum built up as a result of his and his right hon. Friend's visits to the European capitals will be lost unless we make an early application? Would it not be better to make an application, certainly before May, which would give us an opportunity to get the thing settled within a reasonable time?
    The Prime Minister: As I made clear, I am very concerned about the problem of momentum. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been discussing these matters further with representatives of the Six who were at the W.E.U. meeting in Rome this week. I should not like to put a date on this. We shall come to a decision as quickly as possible. There are other consultations going on—the Kennedy Round, and other things—and we have to get the timing right. At the moment, it is the thoroughness of the inquiry that is taking the time.
    Mr. Heath: Last Tuesday the Prime Minister said that he would consider publication of the information he and the Foreign Secretary had gathered from their visits to the capitals so that the whole House and the whole country could read it as well as could private party meetings. Can he say what proposals he has for publication?
    The Prime Minister: Not yet. I will certainly go on considering that question. What we are concerned with is that, whether at private meetings or anywhere else, we do not breach confidences entrusted to us by expressing what was said by the six leaders of the Governments with whom we spoke. We are trying to decide in some way or another the form in which it would be suitable to make the information available.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather embarrassing to resist these repeated and impassioned appeals to pitchfork us into the Common Market? Does he not find it rather difficult not to give a definite reply? What is wrong? Can we not come clean about the matter? Where do we stand?
    The Prime Minister: I am not in the slightest degree embarrassed, and I am sure that I am not in any way embarrassing my right hon. Friend with my replies, but since hardly any hon. Member now considers that we should think of joining unconditionally—that has never been our position—and since we have now, I think, identified the main points, we are considering how they can best be dealt with before coming to a decision.
    Mr. Heath: We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will not breach confidence in regard to any information he gives party committees, but in this case is there any objection to giving information to the public in the form of a White Paper?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, I will certainly consider that, either by statement in the House or any other way. I am still in the process of deciding what may be said by my right hon. Friend and myself later in the day. We shall find out how meaningful it is and how it can be done without breaching confidence. I will certainly consider it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend tell us yet whether one of the problems which has been identified by the Government is the problem of the theory and practice of central countries in the European Economic Community applied to assist development areas? Will he give an undertaking that before we ever consider any application, apart from all the other considerations we have said we shall insist on, he will give a report to the House on what has actually happened in the Community on these matters and how it would conform with the assistance which this Government give to the development areas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, this is one of the important questions. My own impression is that this is less of a worry than I thought it was going to be because of the practices which the Six countries permit themselves to take, which go in certain respects a great deal further than anything done in this country by any Government. If we add to that the so-called "Green Paper" published a few days ago, there are still some anxieties about that, but I feel more happy about it than when we started on the tour.
    Mr. Longden: While it is true that no one in this House wants to join the Common Market absolutely unconditionally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—why did the Commonwealth Secretary, when he was in New Zealand, tell his audience that it would be several years before we got in and that was confirmed to me by the Prime Minister as being Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: He said it might be several years. We do not know how long the discussions, if we are to make an application, would take. On the last occasion they took a great deal longer than we or our friends in Europe would want. If an application is to be made, the House would want it to be a fairly straight basic application with three or four main issues to be dealt with in the negotiations and very many of the problems left for settlement after entry. But the biggest ones would have to be dealt with now.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a skilled man does not need momentum to maintain balance and that speed is a major cause of accidents?
    The Prime Minister: It is getting a bit difficult. I used to find in the days when I rode an ordinary bicycle that it was easier to maintain balance at speed than when the bicycle was almost stalling.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Speaker: On that philosophic note we must pass on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH APRIL—In the morning—
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Settlement Bill and of the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill.
In the afternoon—
Debate on a Motion to approve the White Paper on the "Torrey Canyon" (Command No. 3246).
TUESDAY, 11TH APRIL—As already announced, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 11th April.
The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Wednesday, 12th April, and Thursday, 13th April, and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 17th April.
FRIDAY, 14TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
As to the mornings—
On WEDNESDAY, 12TH APRIL, the business will be:
The Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (No. 1) Order and the Industrial Development (Eligible Assets) Order.
Remaining stages of the Uniform Laws on International Sales Bill.
On MONDAY, 17TH APRIL—
Second Reading of the Royal Assent Bill [Lords].
The Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order.
Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is very serious continuing anxiety about the situation in Aden. Could he therefore give an undertaking that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House informed? Will he also give an assurance that as soon as possible after the Budget debates have finished we can have a full day's debate on the situation in Aden in accordance with the undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary in discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill?
Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an explicit undertaking for a debate, which I repeat here. The right hon. Gentleman will be kept informed and a debate will take place.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend say what part the House will be playing in the great debate about Britain and the E.E.C. in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Crossman: The House seems to debate this subject at Question Time with the Prime Minister almost twice a week. We shall have to look forward and decide what we can do. I can assure my hon. Friend that, of course, there will be a full debate on this great issue.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Criminal Justice Bill has finished its Committee stage. The Government have promised a number of Amendments. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to convey to his right hon. Friend the urgent necessity of getting those Amendments down early, in order to enable us to frame our own Amendments to the Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I am very much aware of this problem, and I will give the message to my right hon. Friend. We shall try to take very good care that adequate time is given for hon. Members to see the Amendments before the debates take place.
Mr. Hooley: When will the House have an opportunity to discuss the latest Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Crossman: I am hoping that we can have a day's debate during the next few weeks.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the recent Report by the Services Committee of the House of Commons, which revealed very serious mismanagement of the catering services? Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of considering the possibility, which I suggested, that the Treasury's Report should be placed in the Library of the House?
Mr. Crossman: The question of a debate is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I am not completely convinced at present that the House feel's that we should give time to this subject, but I shall certainly consider that further.
On the second matter, I apologise to the hon. Member. I will give him an answer if he comes to me afterwards.
Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Motion No. 478, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the names of 86 of my hon. Friends?
[That this House regrets the convention which prevents hon. Members from questioning the Home Secretary on the activities of so-called Republican Clubs alleged to be carrying on illegal activities by the Northern Ireland Home Secretary; calls upon the Northern Ireland Home Secretary to produce evidence justifying the banning of these organisations and asks him to take legal action against those individuals alleged to have committed offences or alternatively to revoke his decision; further expresses its concern at the growing arbitrariness of Government action in Northern Ireland; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to ensure democratic government in the six counties.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his promise of a possible debate on Northern Ireland is inadequate, because normally it would be a debate on the Adjournment, which would not take in these factors? In view of the alarming situation in Northern Ireland, will he arrange for a debate on the Motion?
Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly consider the possibility, but I repeat that we have a day's debate on Northern Ireland and I am not convinced by what my hon. Friend says that all that he wants to say would be out of order on that occasion.
Sir H. Harrison: On Monday's debate, the Leader of the House will be aware that that is a day when we have a morning sitting and back-benchers lose half an hour's time. In view of the fact that many hon. Members have a constituency concern in this matter, will he recall the debate on the great flood on the East Coast in 1953, which was rather a similar debate, and consider the case for extending the time for debate by one hour?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the widespread constituency interest in this matter, as well as the general principles involved. I shall consider the question through the usual channels, but my own first impression is that a full day will be adequate for this subject.
Mr. Whitaker: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion 471?
[That this House congratulates the Leader of the House on the firmness and courtesy he invariably displays in the face of petulant provocation by Members of the Opposition; and fully supports his courageous attempts to overcome the difficulties of modernising the outdated procedures of Parliament.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a debate in the near future on the problems of world hunger, which are more important than many matters which we discuss in this House?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I have had time to see the Motion and I welcome the support given to it by my hon. Friends. I am prepared to consider the second subject, but I do not think that it can be in the near future.
Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest some action to be taken by the Government to deal with the British Theatre Museum? Will he consider some action on some of the Motions on the Order Paper so that we can reduce them and save a bit of paper?
[That this House deplores the imminent closure of the British Theatre Museum; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate urgent discussions with the Arts Council in order to avert a loss to historians, students and the general public]
Mr. Crossman: I have, of course, studied the Motion about the Theatre
460
Museum. This is something which the Government take quite seriously, but I do not see any chance of removing the hon. Lady's demand for action by immediate action within a matter of weeks.
Mr. Michael Foot: Referring to Monday's debate, would my right hon. Friend undertake to place in the Library a copy of the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition on this subject a few days ago, just in case the right hon. Gentleman is not able to participate in the debate and the same point is not pressed on Monday?
Mr. Crossman: I would not myself have thought that it was necessary to place a copy of that historic speech in the Library for us all to know what was said in it.
Mr. R. Carr: Would the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Technology, or, even more appropriately, the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement next week about the Concord, so as to clear up the uncertainty caused by the widespread reports yesterday of statements alleged to have been made by the Chairman of B.O.A.C.?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly pass this request on to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. John Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend very seriously consider having the Finance Bill sent to a Standing Committee?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider this suggestion, but I think that my hon. Friend will find, when we come to the debate on procedure, that there is a Report by the Select Committee on Procedure with a unanimous proposal by the Committee which is more likely, I think, to receive the acclaim of the House.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, if the House accepts the proposals made by the Select Committee on Procedure on financial processes, these will be operative this Session? Will he give a further undertaking that the debate on procedure will be rather wider than the two recent Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure implied?
Mr. Crossman: We had better wait for the debate before we decide what the

461
House is going to do about it. I think that the debate should be wider; though it certainly has to cover the three Reports which are now outstanding, I think that the debate ought to range wider than that. We might well consider, on the present experience, how we are doing in the matter of morning sittings, for example.
Mr. John Lee: Quite apart from the Bristol Siddeley affair, my right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread uneasiness on this side of the House about Government contract procedure. Can we have a debate on this subject on a very wide Motion some time in the near future?
Mr. Crossman: It is an important subject. It might well be debated, but I cannot hold out any prospect of having the debate in the near future.
Mr. David Howell: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the "Green Paper" put out by the Department of Economic Affairs is a rather new approach to public policy taking? Is he satisfied with the arrangements for the House to take part in this debate? Does not this reinforce the case for an all-party Committee on economic affairs so that we can discuss the very complex economic judgments contained in a document of this kind?
Mr. Crossman: We had better wait. We shall have the debates following the Budget. I have no doubt that in the course of those debates the "Green Paper" will be discussed. When we have seen how far that general discussion goes, it would be relevant to consider what is the next stage of detailed discussion which should take place on this extremely important proposal.
Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)? I feel sure that many of us were shocked by my right hon. Friend's statement that we shall not be inhibited in the ordinary debate on Northern Ireland.
Mr. Crossman: I said that we have a day's debate on Northern Ireland. I will consider the possibility of having a debate on the Motion, on which I know that a great number of hon. Members
462
feel strongly, but I can give no assurance that such a debate would take place in the near future.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When is the second instalment of the Government's statement on prices and incomes policy to come? Is it to be a separate statement, or is it to be wrapped up in some way in the general Budget debate?
Mr. Crossman: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the explicit assurance that it will be after the Budget debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Quite apart from the debate on the Budget next week, will the Leader of the House find a morning to discuss the urgent problem concerning seaside resorts as a result of the pollution of the beaches, hotel booking cancellations, and other damage caused by the disaster off Cornwall?
Mr. Crossman: I recognise that this is an important subject. We had better wait and see how Monday's debate goes. My hon. and learned Friend might be interested in the terms of the Motion which the Government table on that occasion.
Mr. Pavitt: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Motion standing in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself on the question of democracy in Sierra Leone?
[That this House, being interested and concerned with the economic and social welfare of Sierra Leone as a valuable member of the Commonwealth, expresses the hope that Siaku Stevens and other trade union leaders may soon be released to play a full part in the progress towards the restoration of a democratically elected Government.]
If it is impossible to arrange a debate in the near future, would it be possible to have a wider debate on the Commonwealth and possibly on the Commonwealth Secretariat?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that as one possibility.
Mr. Nott: Is the Leader of the House aware that N.E.D.C. and the regional councils will be able to examine the "Green Paper" on the S.E.T. in great detail, whereas it appears that the House will be able to do so only in the Budget

463
debate? Would he think again and consider giving us a full opportunity to discuss this extremely important matter?
Mr. Crossman: I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had said in reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) that we had better wait until we had had the Budget debate and then consider what further means we should use of discussing this in detail in the House. We should be very careful before deciding how we are to do this.
Mr. Orme: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), my right hon. Friend said that in the normal debate on Northern Ireland we would not be inhibited from discussing general Northern Ireland issues. How has my right hon. Friend arrived at this decision?
Mr. Crossman: When my hon. Friend reads HANSARD he will find that I did not say that. I said that I did not think that the general debate would exclude all the things my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) wished to say.
Mr. Ogden: Why does my right hon. Friend think it necessary to spend four days debating the Budget proposals, at the end of which time we shall all have said our little piece but very little will have been changed? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his colleagues in the Government that some of us like not only to talk about things, but to arrive at decisions? Why spend four days debating proposals?
Mr. Crossman: I am an ardent Parliamentary reformer, but still a traditionalist about the Budget debate. I think that usually the House finds the days well filled. They are a great opportunity for a general discussion on economic affairs, as well as on the Budget. I should have thought that it would be a mistake to change this tradition of the House.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Has the Leader of the House noticed Motion No. 488, "Paymaster General and the Prime Minister"?
[That this House, noting that the Paymaster General seldom answers questions in the House of Commons except to say,
464
'No, Sir', deplores his action in supporting the Prime Minister through the medium of an open letter to his constituents in which he attacks the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West, who was quite properly concerned to show that the cats which the Prime Minister leaves around are as troublesome to the nation as the Prime Minister's dogs are, apparently, troublesome to him.]
Since the Paymaster-General is obviously frustrated, and has no chance to speak in the House but has to issue statements to his constituency in support of the Prime Minister, could the Leader of the House offer an early debate on this Motion, which would give us a chance to hear the Paymaster-General at the Dispatch Box for a change?
Mr. Crossman: I have, naturally, studied this Motion. Indeed, I have actually discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that the Paymaster-General regards it as one of the most important Motions which has appeared for some time. Greatly venturing, I should like to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might encourage the Leader of the Opposition to settle his differences with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) by allotting a whole Supply Day to this.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How will the arrival of the Budget papers be heralded in the House this year? Will it be by discreet action by the Patronage Secretary, or by the waving of a white handkerchief from the Box behind Mr. Speaker's Chair?
Mr. Crossman: In order not to remove all drama from our proceedings, it is better to wait and see how it will happen this year.
Mr. Lomas: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 460 standing in the names of myself and 54 other hon. Members?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce in this session permissive legislation allowing the use of reflective number plates as an aid to road safety.]
In view of the coming holiday season, when tragedies once more will occur on

465
the roads, will my right hon. Friend consider having an early debate on this matter and on the whole question of road safety?
Mr. Crossman: I understand the importance of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is studying this question. I cannot promise Government legislation this Session, but there are other methods open to private Members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE)
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
A Bill has been published today which, if it receives the approval of Parliament, will give me power to provide data processing services and facilities for sale to customers.
This is an important extension of Post Office activities. Computer usage in this country is much less than it should be. A great deal is being done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, with the co-operation of industry, to promote the efficient use of computers, and I believe that the Post Office can help this work by providing a National Data Processing Service. It is the purpose of the Bill to enable this to be done.
The Post Office has about £4 million worth of computer equipment already installed and working. By 1971, we aim to have 20 large modern computers in operation up and down the country. We use, or are planning to use, computers for a wide variety of jobs—from routine clerical work such as the preparation of telephone bills to the better management of resources in such fields as the planning of telephone networks, and for research and development into such matters as the transmission characteristics of satellite communication systems. Commercial-type applications include accounting, payroll work, stock control and the scheduling of vehicle movements.
To plan and implement these computer projects the Post Office has a large and
466
growing force of skilled systems analysts and programmers. It also operates a range of data transmission services which have been developed to exploit the use of computer facilities to the full.
There is here, therefore, a firm base on which to build a national data processing service capable of meeting a wide variety of customer needs.
I am sure that this new service would meet a widespread need, especially among the smaller businesses and organisations which are unlikely to be able to justify computers of their own. The first step would be to test the market and if, as I would expect, this went well, a full national service would be developed as quickly as possible. A start would certainly be made this year.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the Post Office would not have or seek a monopoly of data processing facilities and would offer its services on a wholly commercial basis. Indeed, it would be prepared to make these services available to private computer bureaux. I am confident that the Post Office could operate successfully a data processing service on this basis.
It is very important that a start should be made as quickly as possible. But I have been advised that this could not be done under my financial powers under the Post Office Act of 1961, which sets out the purposes for which I can spend money out of the Post Office Fund. These purposes do not include such activities as the provision of data processing services; hence the need for the new Bill.
The Bill is a simple enabling Bill and very uninformative, and I felt it right that potential users of the Service should be told of our intentions at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Bryan: We welcome what the Postmaster-General has told us of his proposals, in particular, the assurance that the service will be on a non-monopoly and fully commercial basis.
I have two questions to put. First, has there already been a market survey to gauge the demand, and what findings has that survey produced? Second, how soon will the service be available and how widespread will it be? In other words, will the service be available to medium-size firms in the provinces as soon as it is to large firms in the big cities?
Mr. Short: We have carried out a certain amount of research, and we believe that there is a great deal of scope for a service of this kind.
We shall start the service this year. The intention is to use unused capacity in our existing computers. We have at present seven modern computers and four or five older ones, and, as I have said, we hope to have many more in the next few years. There is spare capacity at present, and the intention is to use this spare capacity in the initial stages.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we welcome his announcement, since it is in tune with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Scarborough in 1963 and in exact tune with the contract which this party made with the electorate in 1964 and again in 1966? It is an example of the implementation of Labour Party policy.
Small businesses may find it difficult to know how to use systems analysis and data processing. What machinery does my right hon. Friend envisage for bringing to the attention of comparatively small businesses the ways in which they can make the best possible use of this excellent service?
Mr. Short: It is a matter for education. We are paying a great deal of attention to that. We intend, if Parliament approves the idea, to train about 100 systems analysts and programmers each year for the next five years.
Mr. Lubbock: We, also, welcome the Postmaster-General's proposal, although we think that it has taken rather a long time since the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough in 1963.
First, will British computers be used by the new service? Second, has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the needs of public bodies such as the smaller local authorities, the technical colleges and the regional hospital boards? Third, will the services of the new data processing centre be available to them as well as to small businesses?
Mr. Short: All the computers in the Post Offices are British. We have nine on order at present, and they are all British as well. We shall be prepared to sell our services to anybody who is prepared to pay for them.
Mr. Dobson: I regard the Postmaster-General's statement as particularly welcome. My first question relates to the cost which will be levied on the user. Will it be a cost at other than cost level? In other words, will there be a reasonable profit to the Post Office in it? Second, what will be the exact position of the private bureau operators? Third, can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will be able to keep secure the confidentiality of information which is being processed?
Mr. Short: The costs will be very small in the initial stages because, as I explained, we intend to start the service by using spare capacity on computers which we have already, building up as demand builds up. The training and equipment to which I referred a moment or two ago will cost about £9 million over five years.
The private bureau operators will be able to purchase our facilities. They will have to pay for them, but we shall make our transmission lines and all our facilities available to them if they wish to use them.
The Post Office, of course, has a very high reputation for confidentiality, but we would ensure this further by a system of keys available to customers and/or access points into the system.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Why has the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to make this statement in advance of the report from the I.R.C. on the important inquiry which it is making into the relationship between the telecommunications industry and the Post Office? Is one of the reasons why he has had to make his statement today that the Post Office has over-committed itself in computer investment only to find that it cannot make full use of the investment already committed?
Mr. Short: I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my statement. I said at the end that I felt it only fair and right to tell potential customers at the earliest possible moment. The Bill is now available, but it has only two Clauses and is very uninformative. I felt that anyone who might be contemplating purchasing computers or setting up bureaux would like to know what we proposed to do. It will be some time before the Bill comes forward for its Second Reading debate in the House.

469
There is no connection whatever between this and the I.R.C. investigation, which is a survey of the telecommunications industry and its relations with the Post Office. It is not concerned with this matter at all.
Mr. David Price: First, on the financial side, over how many years is the Postmaster-General working his depreciation calculations, and what rate of D.C.F. is he using? Second, on the technical side, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that all future computers which he buys for this service will have random access rather than sequential access?
Mr. Short: Detailed points of that kind will have to await the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this initiative by his Department will be warmly welcomed by the business community? Is he aware that the use of these machines for information storage and retrieval, particularly for scientific information, has considerable export potential? In the light of that, will he be willing to receive, or is the Department at this stage ready to receive, proposals from learned societies and private enterprise for this purpose?
Has my right hon. Friend allowed sufficient money for education and propaganda directed to the business community to let businessmen know of the existence of this service?
Mr. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comment. We are always willing to talk to anyone. If people wish to come along to discuss the matter with me or any of my officials, we shall be glad to see them. On the question of education and propaganda, my hon. Friend can rest assured that we shall sell this service adequately.
Mr. Sharples: Will the computers be used on a 24-hour basis, or will the existing restrictions still be applied?
Mr. Short: I imagine that that will depend on the demand upon them.
Mr. Molloy: While all fair-minded people wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on this further modernisation of the Post Office and provision of a first-class service, may I ask whether the new
470
service will be linked with the giro system?
Mr. Short: Yes. That is a very important aspect of the system, and it will make it much more attractive to business firms. Business firms which intend to use the giro will be able to use it through this system.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: What discussions has the Postmaster-General had with the bureaux, what contact has he had with the Ministry of Technology, and in what way will the National Computer Centre come into this? What arrangements is he making to provide computer advisory services and software as well as hardware among the facilities provided in the Bill?
Mr. Short: We certainly intend to use the National Computer Centre, and we co-operate closely with it, especially in the work it is doing on programming. My officials have met a wide variety of people on this matter and have been in the closest touch with the Ministry of Technology throughout.
Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? The statement made by my right hon. Friend today is presumably a speech in connection with the introduction of the Bill—the First Reading, as it were. Generally, Bills are introduced formally. Already, my right hon. Friend has not been able to answer a question, or has deferred it until the Second Reading. Am I right in my assumption of the procedure?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is an accurate picture of what has happened today. It is a little unusual.
Mr. Tilney: How soon is the service likely to be available to Merseyside? Will the charges for data processing compare with present charges made by private enterprise bureaux and for the use of corporation computers?
Mr. Short: The system must be competitive. There is no question of the Post Office's having a monopoly. It will not get any business unless its charges are right. I cannot say how soon the service will be available to Merseyside. We hope to start the service this year, as soon as we get approval from the House, but I cannot at present say whether it will be available on Merseyside this year.
Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answers to questions this afternoon suggested that he defines "purely commercial basis" in a very odd way? Are not overheads to be allocated to customers of the service?
Mr. Short: Certainly, overheads must be calculated. The Post Office is on a commercial footing now, and must make a profit each year. We must generate roughly half our capital requirement.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), could we say that we welcome this perhaps unorthodox and novel procedure as a useful courtesy to the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is a comment that the hon. Gentleman has a right to make.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
  Order for Second reading read.
  4.4 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  A few weeks ago we had a valuable debate which was initiated by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and which ranged widely over the many difficult social problems arising from the misuse of drugs. In that debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I outlined the Government's attitude to the recommendations made by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction in its second Report, and we then foreshadowed the introduction of the Bill which is before us today.
  It is fitting that at the outset I should pay tribute on behalf of the Government to the late Lord Brain, who was Chairman of the Committee, and to his colleagues for their careful study and the clear guidance they have given us. The matters they were called upon to consider have challenged the wisdom of experts in many countries for many years.
  It is a measure of the Committee's good work that its recommendations have won general acceptance in principle from both the medical profession and the public. I have seen criticism that the Committee did not look at the whole drug problem before recommending action to deal with heroin addiction. But the scope of the Committee's inquiry was determined by the terms of reference it was given when it was reconvened in July, 1964, and those terms of reference were confined to the prescribing of addictive drugs by doctors, a matter which then appeared to be in need of review in the light of evidence of increasing addiction.
  However, the Committee recommended that a Standing Advisory Committee should survey, and advise upon, the whole field of misuse of drugs, and that new Committee is now well established. We had hoped that Lord Brain would launch the Committee, and he had agreed to do so. Our plans suffered a severe setback with his untimely death. We have, however, been fortunate to secure the services of Sir Edward Wayne, Regius

  473
  Professor of Medicine at the University of Glasgow.
  If I do not speak today about the wider aspects of the problem, it is not for want of concern about them, or because I do not realise that addiction to hard drugs has its roots in the larger field of drug abuse.
  The Bill is short, but it paves the way to a major change in the organisation of treatment for addicts. I stress the word "organisation", because to a large extent the basic principle of what has become known as the British system for the treatment of addiction will remain unaltered. In the United Kingdom, unlike many other countries, the addict has always been regarded as a sick person and not as a criminal, in both its Reports, the Brain Committee reaffirmed that principle, and the Government fully accept it. In this country, doctors have always had the right to use drugs of their choice in the treatment of organic disease, injury and related conditions. We intend to leave that right untouched.
  Since the First World War, doctors have also been free to administer, supply or prescribe dangerous drugs to addicts. In doing so, they have been expected to comply with certain principles laid down by a Departmental Committee, the Rolleston Committee, which examined the matter in 1926.
  Those principles presuppose, first of all, that the general practitioner will make every effort to cure the addiction. If those efforts fail, however, the doctor may continue to prescribe dangerous drugs—and now I quote from the Report of the Rolleston Committee—
  '… where complete withdrawal produces serious symptoms which cannot be treated under the ordinary conditions of general practice, or where the patient, while capable of leading a useful and fairly normal life so long as he takes certain non-progressive quantities. usually small, of the drug of addiction, ceases to be able to do so when the regulated allowance is withdrawn."
  In 1961, the Brain Committee, in its first Report, gave general support to the principles laid down by the Rolleston Committee, but expressed its belief that institutional treatment only was likely to be satisfactory.
  The Committee did not then recommend the establishment of treatment centres because it believed that addiction was on
  474
  too small a scale to justify this. The House will recall that, in 1960, the total number of known addicts was 454; the number of heroin addicts was 68. In 1964, the Brain Committee was reconvened to review a changed situation. By then, the total number of known addicts had risen to 753 and of heroin addicts to 342. Heroin addicts under the age of 20 had risen from one in 1960 to 40 in 1964; and heroin addicts between the ages of 20 and 34 from 52 in 1960 to 219 in 1964.
  I want now to give the up-to-date picture for 1965 and 1966. In 1965, the total number of known addicts was 927 and 521 of them were addicted to heroin. In 1966—and I stress that the figures are still provisional—there were 1,139 known addicts, of whom 749 were heroin addicts. This is a net increase of 212 more addicts between 1965 and 1966 and a net increase of 228 heroin addicts in that period. Thus, in the last three years, the number of known heroin addicts has more than doubled, from 342 to 749. That heroin addiction is a real problem is clearly shown by the fact that 90 per cent. of the addicts whose addiction was not therapeutic in origin were addicted to heroin and that about 200 of the 749 heroin addicts were under the age of 20.
  What have been the factors responsible for these increases? As the House will be aware, the Brain Committee concluded that over-prescribing of heroin and cocaine by a small number of doctors had created a surplus attracting new addicts. If over-prescribing has been the source of drugs for the growing number of addicts, it is right also to ask what has been the motive drawing more and more young people to join their ranks.
  I must admit that we know all too little about this aspect of the problem. Doctors are now faced by numbers of young addicts of a type not known before in this country. By their numbers and by their rejection of any society but their own, and by their pursuit of new addicts, they threaten to overload the capacity and to cloud the judgment of the most dedicated general practitioners. I do not wish to under-value in any way the patient and sympathetic support and help given by a number of doctors to many difficult addict

  475
  patients. We have already had experience of the difficulties that arise when a general practitioner feels unable to continue to care for a large number of addicts. The risk is high when a doctor falls out that his patients may look not to another doctor, but to other addicts and to illicit sources for their supplies.
  I have quoted the figures for known addicts. It is anyone's guess how many others stand behind them and may be supported by them. Some hon. Members may feel that even these figures are still small. That is true, but it is the trends which are alarming. Hon. Members may recall that, earlier this year, an American research institute estimated that there might be conceivably 11,000 or more heroin addicts in this country by 1972 if recent trends continue. This is one measure of the future threat.
  The immediate problems are simple to express. First, can we organise the supply of drugs to the addict so that he receives no more than he needs? Secondly, can we do this in such a way that the addict is not only discouraged from making use of illegitimate sources of supply but feels encouraged to seek treatment, cure and rehabilitation? I think that there is a delicate balance to be sought here. The addict must feel that his future lies with the doctor and not the drug pedlar and society must be assured that the addict cannot easily become a pedlar of his own medicine.
  The Government have, therefore, decided that the treatment of addicts, particularly of the heroin and cocaine addicts, must be put on a more organised and resourceful basis as a matter of urgency. In the debate of 30th January, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health explained his plans for treatment and rehabilitation. He will no doubt have more to say about these plans when he speaks later in the debate.
  The overall plan in the Bill is based on four important measures—notification of addicts, the setting up of advisory panels to which doctors may refer if in doubt as to whether a patient is an addict or not, the provision of special treatment centres, and research.
  Why should we need notification? We need it because the present system of
  476
  identifying addicts is slow and cumbersome and because central records may help doctors to deal more knowledgeably with new addict patients. We want advisory panels to help the general practitioners under the new arrangements more readily to detect addicts.
  Why treatment centres? We need them because the Brain Committee laid stress in both its Reports on the view that institutional treatment offered the only satisfactory hope of cure and because the staffing and other facilities at treatment centres should offer a better assurance both of more accurate prescribing and more comprehensive treatment. As for research—we still know too little about the motivation of addicts and the most effective ways of dealing with them.
  I said earlier that the medical profession had expressed general agreement with the principles of the Brain Committee's recommendations. I should add that an outline scheme of the legislation was sent last October to all the interested professional organisations and no objections were received. The Council on Tribunals has been fully consulted about the proposed machinery of enforcement and is in agreement with the proposals. The Bill has been prepared on the basis of the outline scheme.
  I come now to the Bill. It is concerned solely with those addicted to "hard" drugs, particularly with those pitiable creatures whose enthralment brings them late at night to the pharmacies in Piccadilly and elsewhere to obtain their next "fix". The Bill is designed to help these addicts, to stop them using illicit sources, with their rich harvest of human misery and degradation, and to prevent addiction from spreading. Legislation cannot, of course, cure addiction or abolish the drug problem overnight, but the Bill paves the way, as I have said, for a new organisation to deal with the "hard" drug problem.
  Clause 1 extends the powers to make regulations conferred on the Home Secretary by Section 11 of the 1965 Act and under the extended powers he will be able to make regulations to require the notification of addicts by medical practitioners and to prohibit medical practitioners, except under licence, from providing addicts with specified drugs.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends that the medical profession

  477
  shall be fully consulted in the preparation of these important regulations. The regulations will, among other things, have to define addiction. They will have to specify the drugs which are not to be provided to addicts for the treatment of their addiction except under licence.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to specify initially heroin and cocaine but the power will be available to specify other dangerous drugs later on should experience prove this to be desirable. The Brain Committee gave reasons for the introduction of special controls over heroin and cocaine. The figures I gave just now show that these are the drugs to which most of the new addicts have become addicted.
  The regulations will have to lay down the circumstances in which notifications to a central authority—which, it is envisaged, will be the Home Office—will be required, and the procedure for notification. Notification will have no legal consequences of any kind for the addict. It will merely indicate to the central authority that a particular doctor has attended upon a patient whom he considers, or suspects to be, addicted. The doctor's notification may have to be verified in certain cases; and this would be done by inquiry of the doctor through the regional medical officers of the health departments. The central record itself will be used, as the Brain Committee recommended, to answer doctors' inquiries. It will also be used for research and statistical purposes.
  At present, the Home Office obtains information about prescriptions of dangerous drugs from routine police examination of records kept by pharmacists. This routine scrutiny will be continued, and will provide a means of ascertaining addicts who have not been notified. The police will be informed, as at present, when a case of addiction is made known to the Home Office, so that the relevant prescriptions can be taken into account in the routine police scrutiny of the pharmacists' registers.
  As regards the advisory panels to which I referred just now, no provision is necessary in the Bill. Advisory panels will be organised under the National Health Service.
  The regulations will make provision to allow doctors to continue, without restriction,
  478
  to prescribe any dangerous drug in the course of medical treatment unrelated to addiction. If I may put that another way, the regulations will not prevent a doctor from prescribing one of the specified drugs—say, heroin—to an addict where that drug is needed for a medical purpose other than the treatment of addiction.
  I come now to the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Because notification of addicts and prescribing for addicts closely involve the exercise of professional judgment, the Brain Committee felt that it would be inappropriate for a court of law to deal with the doctor who seemed not to have complied with the new requirements which it was proposing. It suggested that the appropriate tribunal for this purpose would be the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council, which deals with questions of infamous conduct in a professional respect. This recommendation was considered by the General Medical Council, but it felt that it would be more appropriate to set up a special medical tribunal.
  Although we would all hope that enforcement machinery would never need to be used, it must, nevertheless, be provided and we have, therefore, devised another solution, which includes provision for an "appeal" stage which hon. Members will consider to be necessary. This will not prejudice the General Medical Council taking up any case where a doctor's prescribing appears to involve infamous conduct in a professional respect.
  The Brain Committee recommended that the sanction for enforcement of its proposals on notification and prescribing should be withdrawal of a doctor's authority to prescribe, supply and administer dangerous drugs. Clause 1 gives effect to this. Contravention of the new regulations would not—I emphasise "not"—be a criminal offence. A doctor would be liable to conviction before a court only if, after withdrawal of his authority, he supplied or prescribed prohibited drugs.
  Clause 2 provides for the investigation of contraventions to be undertaken by a special tribunal to be constituted as laid down in Part I of the Schedule. In this way doctors will themselves play

  479
  a major part in determining the professional issues involved.
  The provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 and of the Schedule may appear somewhat involved. We believe, however, that doctors are fully entitled to proper protection in relation to their dealings with addicts, and provision for this purpose, with proper safeguards at all stages, must necessarily be elaborate. We shall be very ready to consider any suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the procedure in the Bill at a later stage.
  How will contraventions, if any, come to light? I mentioned just now that the police would continue to scrutinise records of prescriptions. The Brain Committee described clearly in paragraph 32 of its Report how information from this source would be used to identify any case of unauthorised prescribing. Contraventions may come to light in a variety of other circumstances. For example, an addict may be injured in an accident and come to notice in a hospital, or he may appear before a court and be found on medical examination to be addicted.
  It will be the duty of the Home Office drugs inspectors to make the fullest inquiry into any unaccountable prescribing or apparent failure to notify an addict. As envisaged by the Brain Committee, the individual doctor will be interviewed by a regional medical officer of the health department and given every opportunity to explain his treatment of the persons suspected to have been an addict at the relevant time. If, at that stage, it is clear that the doctor had taken all proper safeguards, including consultation with an advisory panel, that might well be the end of the matter. If, after full informal inquiry, there appears to be a case for formal investigation, the Secretary of State will refer it to a tribunal.
  Innocent failures to notify would not attract any sanction. What the machinery is primarily designed to deal with is the case, if it should ever occur, of the doctor who wilfully refuses to acknowledge that a patient is an addict and resolutely continues to prescribe restricted drugs for him.
  Hon. Members will see that paragraph 4 of the Schedule provides for the Lord Chancellor to make rules of procedure
  480
  to be followed by the tribunal. These rules will provide necessary safeguards for the doctor. They will, in particular provide for the doctor, among other things, to be legally represented.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the provision in paragraphs 10 and 16 of the Schedule. These give the tribunal and the advisory body power to recommend payment of the expenses incurred by a doctor in proceedings before them. This is intended to deal with the case in which the doctor is judged not to have a degree of culpability which would make it reasonable for him to have to bear the expenses of legal representation.
  I can deal very briefly with the remaining Clauses. Clause 3 contains supplementing provisions. Subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to give a direction at any time cancelling or suspending a direction withdrawing a doctor's authority to provide patients with such drugs as are specified in the direction. Each case of withdrawal will be kept under review with a view to restoring the doctor's authority as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so.
  Clause 4 enables regulations under the 1965 Act to provide that the contravention of particular regulations shall not constitute a criminal offence under Section 13 of that Act. It will also allow the Secretary of State to apply the safeguards of the tribunal and advisory body procedure in cases in which a court has found a doctor guilty of an offence under the Act and consideration is being given to withdrawing the doctor's authority. In this way it will be possible to deal with all withdrawals by a common procedure.
  So much for the terms of the Bill.
  Hon. Members will observe that it does not give effect to the Brain Committee's recommendation that there should be a power to detain addicts who wish to break off voluntary treatment.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health explained on 30th January the Government's reasons for thinking that it would be right to proceed without this power until further experience shows that it is essential. With this exception the Bill gives effect to the main recommendations of the Committee, and as it stands this is its sole purpose.

  481
  As I said earlier, we are well aware that this is not the whole of the problem of drug abuse.
  Studies of other aspects of this problem, including proposals for research, are being undertaken in the Home Office and the Health Departments, and by the new Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. It is possible that some of them will point to the need for further legislative action.
  The police are resolutely tackling the problem of illicit drug trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining, as a matter of urgency, the controls exercised over and the arrangements made for the safe keeping of drugs in the premises of manufacturers, wholesalers, and pharmacists not only dangerous drugs controlled under the 1965 Act, but also the amphetamines and similar drugs scheduled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964.
  My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to put his views before the various interests concerned. It is possible that, if additional controls are found to be desirable, he may wish at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill to propose the addition of some suitable provision for this purpose.
  But, as I have indicated, there must first be consultation with the interests concerned, and I am not in a position to say more today.
  To sum up, the Government believe that the changes in the organisation of treatment for addiction contemplated by the Bill are important and urgent. The changes will be made in full consultation with the medical profession. There is general agreement that some changes will involve a delicate matter of balance. We want to build on the experience of the past, not destroy it. We want also to retain the confidence of addicts.
  No one doubts the vital importance to them of a smooth transition from one regime to another. The cost of failure would be a major expansion of illicit traffic, and of addiction, and the frustration of all hope of helping those who can no longer help themselves.
  Much of my speech has inevitably been devoted to the machinery for dealing with doctors. If, as I believe, doctors will collaborate to make the new scheme effective, the tribunal may never have to meet.
  482
  It would be wrong to view the Bill as a Bill against doctors. Its aim is to improve help for addicts, and I hope that on that basis the House will unanimously give it a Second Reading.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Lady for the exposition that she has given on the Bill, and for much that she has said about drugs in general. For our part, we are glad to have this evidence that the Government now accept that we face a serious, and on the figures given by the right hon. Lady, perhaps a deteriorating situation. Further, we welcome the awareness which the right hon. Lady showed that addiction, with which the Bill deals, has its roots in the larger sphere of drug abuse. At this stage, I would add only one comment to what the right hon. Lady has said. The Government have a big sphere of responsibility here, but so have a great many other people. We shall not beat this with laws alone.
  There are limits to what we can do here, and it is important to stress this. Many people outside the House have a grave responsibility for the young in this regard, and we must do all that we can to make them aware of it. With this Bill we embark on a new, uncharted and perhaps hazardous course of action, against the spread of drug addiction. In effect, and I do not think that the right hon. Lady will contradict this, a handful of doctors—in my belief not more than seven or eight—have compelled us to take this course.
  As Lord Brain put it:
  "The activity of a very few doctors who have prescribed excessively for addicts."
  That is the reason for the Bill. Lord Brain told us in July, 1965, about this, and it will have taken us nearly two years to act on this warning. During this time, as the figures given by the right hon. Lady make plain, the situation has got a good deal worse. She admitted that the official figures were to be taken with reserve.
  For 1966, the right hon. Lady gave us the figure of 1,139, and said that it was anyone's guess what the total may be. My own guess, backed by some information which others have, would be around 2,000. I do not think that that would be too far wide of the mark. But we simply do not

  483
  know. One must regret this delay, although I am fully aware of the reasons for it. I know that the negotiations with the medical profession have not been easy, and I accept, also, that in this baffling area there will never be a final or very satisfactory solution. Having chosen this course, we must now spare nothing to make sure that it works. If we fail, then we will be in very serious trouble.
  May I add to the tributes paid by the right hon. Lady to the work which a great many people, professional and voluntary, have been doing in this area. They have been doing what they can while we have been deciding what we can do. I am not much troubled by the machinery laid down by this Bill. I appreciate the precautions which the right hon. Lady laid stress upon. In part, it is at variance with earlier advice that the Rolleston Committee and the first Brain Committee offered, but I accept that there has been a great deal of change since then. It is apparently what the doctors want, though I am bound to say that in my view they would have been wise to have retained more responsibility for their own discipline; but that is for them and not me.
  The crux of the matter is this: in effect, we have decided to wean narcotic addicts off general practitioners and on to treatment centres. That means not only those who are now getting drugs from doctors, but an unknown, and I fear a considerable, number who are getting drugs not from doctors but from other addicts who have been getting excessive amounts.
  The minority are to be treated and a majority, at least for a start, will be maintained. I want to say nothing to make this very difficult transition even more difficult, but we must know what we are doing. We have opted for a compromise, we have accepted, as the right hon. Lady said, the principal Brain recommendations save one.
  Lord Brain urged powers for compulsory detention of addicts. That has been rejected, on balance, and I do not quarrel with that. I understand the dilemma, but we must realise the consequences. It means that those addicts who are unwilling to submit themselves for treatment must be maintained, not privately but publicly. The Government have no
  484
  option but to take part in a régime which, for many of the addicts, will be a hopeless régime. Some addicts can be stabilised, others for psychological and physical reasons cannot. Their need will grow, and if they do not accept treatment they will eventually be destroyed. That is a very serious state and it is not one that we should underrate, albeit we may accept the course that the Government feel that they must take.
  I realised how serious a step this was when I read the other day part of the report of the President's Commission on Crime in the United States. It puts on record a statement by the American Medical Association. It is supported by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in these words:
  "Ambulatory clinic plans (dispensing drugs to out-patient addicts through clinics established for that purpose) or any other form of ambulatory maintenance (giving stable doses to outpatient addicts) are also medically unsound on the basis of present knowledge".
  I am aware that not all doctors here or in the United States would agree with that judgment. None the less, that was the judgment of the A.M.A. in 1963, and it stands today in the United States.
  However, we have elected to take this course, and I think that the next point which arises is this. The scale of this operation, considering the relatively few involved, will be very big. Do the Government realise just how big it will be? I know that these administrative arrangements involve detail, but, in my view, getting the details right is absolutely crucial to the success of the approach. I wish to touch for a moment or two on some of the details which I think are important.
  I sense a disquieting gap between the Minister's estimate of what might be needed by way of money and skilled manpower and the estimate which I have had from doctors and psychiatrists who are already at grips with this problem. I must ask this question, to which the right hon. Lady made no reference; I expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will refer to it later: what estimate has been made of the cost of these arrangements? The Bill refers to negligible expenditure on tribunals, should the need arise and fees, but it says nothing about the cost of the outpatient clinics or in-patient treatment.

  485
  From where will the money which is needed come? We asked the Minister of Health this question in an earlier debate, and he said that he did not think that the cost of treatment would be large in relation to the total cost of the hospital service. But it will be additional and, in my view, relatively substantial. If it is not added, the money will have to be found from existing resources. Which resources? I must ask what additional resources are being allocated.
  It is not only a matter of money. Addicts are prodigal of skilled staff. A small unit dealing with nine addicts requires about three skilled people who, in other circumstances, would be sufficient for 60 patients. I hope that as many as possible of those already engaged in this work will be enabled to continue with it. But we shall obviously need even more, because we shall gather in addicts who so far have been nowhere near medical supervision or attention. Where is it proposed to establish the out-patient clinics? How many shall we have? I should be grateful if the right hon Gentleman would say how long they will be open, because this is very important from the staffing point of view.
  This is talked of as a London problem, and so predominantly it is. But suppose that London accounts for two-thirds of the known and unknown addicts—say about 1,600. We cannot, alas, limit the facilities to London. The Bill covers the whole kingdom. It shuts one door everywhere, and wherever there are addicts another door must be opened. To provide sufficient centres and staff is absolutely crucial.
  To put it bluntly, the new régime must appear to be an attractive proposition to the addicts. They must be drawn to it. Having had the opportunity of talking to some addicts who were undergoing treatment, I sense that there is a gap between the present régime and the régime which is in prospect. Unless the addicts can be induced to move from the present system—the system which the Bill closes—to the new system, we shall be in danger of creating one thing which we must avoid—an illicit market controlled by criminals.
  I do not wish to dwell too heavily on this point, because it is easy to exaggerate, but it would be unwise of us to under-
  486
  rate it. As the Home Secretary knows, this is a very easy field for crime and very difficult for enforcement, because drug peddling is consensual. There are no complaining victims; there are only willing sellers and ready buyers. That is the deadly thing about it which makes it such an appalling subject for the criminal field. I do not want to exaggerate it, but it would be silly to ignore it.
  Someone with great experience of this subject has communiciated with the Home Office. It is not an official document, so I can quote from it. He wrote:
  "It would seem, on the face of it, to be quite likely that it"—
  he meant the Mafia—
  "is watching the situation here with some interest and is probably alert to three primary considerations: the size of the pool of current addicts, its rate of increase, and the proportion of addicts who are or will be unable to get the heroin they need. When all three, taken in conjunction, reach a critical level the trade can be put on a proper footing".
  Thus, the safe transition from private medicine to public clients becomes very important.
  I know that there will have to be contrived a very delicate balance between offering every encouragement to the addict to accept treatment and appearing to trap him into treatment. As the Minister knows, we are dealing with a very wary and suspicious group. Their approach to the out-patients' clinics will be the approach of mice to baited traps. How will their need be assessed? This is a very important detail.
  For proper assessment, about two days in-patient treatment is desirable. But not many will readily submit to it. There will be a natural temptation to cut down on over-prescribing at clinics. Yet, in my view, it is imperative that clinics continue to over-prescribe to a degree.
  The life of the addict is very complex. It costs him about £10 a week to live. He spends about £3 on the doctor and £7 on the chemist, according to my information. For these sums he relies largely on what the Army once called the "unexpired portion of the day's ration" which he can sell, at current prices, for £1 a grain to those who are not going to doctors, and he can sell some to addicts going to doctors but who are not getting enough.

  487
  It is true that under the Bill all will get drugs free. The addict's staple companion will have to be notified, and he will get them free. The companion who is not yet perhaps under medical care must be notified. He must join the system, or he will enter illicit channels. But, even so, it is my view that addicts will not readily accept the bare minimum.
  In a recent speech, the Home Secretary talked, quite rightly, of clinics
  "where prescribing of drugs will be most strictly controlled".
  That is all right as far as it goes. But I must add that it is exactly what the addict fears. Unless he gets a margin, there is a danger that he will go elsewhere. We must face the fact that some addicts will be able to work and that some will not. To those who cannot work we shall have to give National Assistance. Not everyone will like this. There could be a public outcry. But it it is part of the price which we must pay for making the system succeed, and I would support it all the way.
  An addict has made a suggestion to me which I pass on to the Minister of Health because I think that it is a good one. He said that to gain the confidence of the addict, which is so important, the Bill's vesting day might be postponed for a short time and addicts allowed to draw prescriptions alternatively from their present doctor and the prospective clinic until they are familiar with the clinic and are assured that they will get what they hoped to get. So important is this element of confidence that I put forward the suggestion as being psychologically sound.
  I come now to in-patients, of whose number we have no clear idea. I understand that it takes about five or six months to treat in-patients, and that I know can be done in the mental hospitals. But what arrangements will there be for the follow-up? Relapses are all too frequent. Is the discharged patient to be supervised on discharge, and, if so, by whom? Will there be anything like Nalline centres? Will there be hostels where a helping hand can be given?
  We shall have to divide the in-patients into two categories, those regarded as
  488
  temporary civil commitments and those charged with criminal offences. What is to be done about the second category? Shall we, as in America, offer an addict offender the choice of going to trial or being committed to treatment with the new system which is coming in? If that is to happen, how long would the commitment be and where would it be? When the offender is discharged, what supervision will there be under the system? Who will check up on him?
  I am aware that some prisons now have psychiatric wings where treatment can given, but that is rather too limited, I think. The real need for treatment is not in prison, but on remand. It is in the first stages of a charge that the offender who is an addict undergoes the pangs of what is called "cold turkey". Once he has suffered those, it is extremely difficult to get him to accept treatment in any circumstances. That is something which wants to be looked at.
  Another small but very different category is the heroin addict who is suffering dangerous self-neglect and must be rescued. This addict is not uncommon. One medical officer outside London has successfully invoked Section 47 proceedings under the National Assistance Act as revised in 1951. Is that sound? Can we rely on that method of rescuing addicts who are found in extremis and who, unless they are rescued, will die where they are? If not, ought we to consider incorporating something in the Bill?
  That seems to be the nub of the problem, but there are one or two other considerations arising from the Bill, one of which the right hon. Lady referred to when she mentioned the problem of security arrangements. I know that we should welcome any suggestions which came from the Home Secretary for tightening up on manufacturers, wholesalers and chemists who handle not only dangerous drugs but barbiturates and amphetamines. I see evidence that the manufacturers are trying to improve security, but some wholesalers are still flagrantly careless, and so are many chemists. The all too frequent and successful raids indicate where our defences are weakest. If the right hon. Gentleman needs our help here, he can be assured of our support.
  I must question for a moment our machinery for this. I am sure that it is

  489
  right for the Home Secretary, as he has, to take charge of the Bill, but, in the long run, does it make sense to add the problems which will arise from this Bill and other matters which now call for close and undivided attention to the administration of his own and two or three other very busy Departments?
  Ought we to have something akin to the Bureau of Narcotics or Bureau of Dangerous Drugs, with a director answerable to the Home Secretary, but outside the immediate orbit of the Home Office? We ought to consider that. At least one responsibility of such a body would be the preparation of proper information for dissemination to the public.
  I have raised with the Home Secretary already the question of police powers. There is a short point here. The police can arrest without a warrant, but they cannot search without a warrant and, where drugs are involved, this seems to be a very important thing to be able to do. Where they have reason to suspect the carrying of firearms, I understand that they can search without a warrant. There is a case for offering them similar powers in respect of dangerous drugs, because the delay in getting a warrant, particularly at a weekend, can sometimes be decisive.
  The right hon. Lady said very little about "soft" drugs, although she admitted that it is related to the subject under consideration. It is accepted that it is not just a social but a medical problem and, in relation to the Bill, we must accept that we have adolescents who may not only become addicted to these drugs, but who can become dependent on barbiturates and amphetamines. Where do they come in these arrangements? Really, we need field workers to identify them, and units well away from the heroin units where they can be treated. Is there a possibility of adding some such machinery to that which is to operate under the Bill?
  We shall make very little headway until we can persuade the medical profession to reappraise the wholesale prescribing of barbiturates and amphetamines not in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, but in tens of millions. I must say that it makes no sense for the police to go round raiding and stripping young people at parties to find drugs, some of which their elders
  490
  treat as a staple diet. The posture against the young becomes morally untenable.
  That brings me to the difficult matter of cannabis, or marijuana. It is being strongly urged that enforcement under this Bill is weakened by the inclusion of marijuana or cannabis on the list of dangerous drugs. A great many people besides "pop" singers believe that we should be in a stronger position over heroin, which is deadly, if we ceased to put in the same category cannabis, which is not. Speaking for myself, perhaps the right answer is that we cannot possibly relax the law on cannabis until we know much more about its effects and side-effects. For that reason, it is an urgent candidate for the kind of research which I understand is to be set up concurrently with this Bill.
  Superficially, cannabis, or marijuana, appears less dangerous than L.S.D. which, in certain circumstances, indubitably can induce madness. But we do not know the facts, and in view of the controversy which is running and the relationship to the Bill, an urgent inquiry is needed. There is a mass of material on the subject, and we should devise a plan of research.
  Personally, I go some way with the comment made by the medical correspondent of The Times earlier this week. On the argument about cannabis, he observed:
  "How to sort out this problem—a complex of morals, law, and medicine—is going to be a difficult task, and it may well be that the final answer will involve a drastic alteration in the present permissive moral outlook of the community—and particularly of parents."
  There is a lot in that, and nothing in the Bill or in the regulations which the Home Secretary is to prescribe should lead us to think otherwise.
  Nothing in the Bill will safeguard parents who get woken up by policemen and told to collect their children, supposed to be staying with friends, from a sleazy club or clip joint. The Bill alone will not reclaim this alarming sub-culture which has developed in London and other big cities. Hon. Members besides myself will have seen the fringes of it and the young people who have rejected their homes or been rejected by their homes, living rootless, jobless existences in the twilight of what we ludicrously call "swinging London".

  491
  That is one hard core of the problem. There are many strands. There is the sub-culture, the anti-authoritarian spirit which is abroad among some, and there is the mood of rejection among a minority of the young. In my view, they make it a particularly difficult field of activity for legislators.
  As long as we are careful to avoid exaggerating what we can do with a Bill like this, it does not matter. The Bill, for all its good intentions, really does no more than scratch the surface of a very complex human and social situation, and we should be wise to stress our limitations and how much more is demanded of others, including parents and teachers, some of whom tend to take an uncommitted and rather neutral attitude.
  When I began to take an interest in this problem I formed the view that it was a symptom of our easy-going society. Drugs, it seemed, were the ultimate disproof that permissiveness paid off. I have come to see this as only partly true. Fundamentally, this curse springs from something else. It springs from inadequacy, from the fact that in the modern industrial society a great many people, starting with the school drop-outs, find themselves below, not the poverty line, but what I term the adequacy line. This touches a great many in our society today. They may be housewives, they may be grown men, but mostly they are adolescents, and they suffer this sense, to which a modern industrial society gives rise—and not only here—of inadequacy.
  I think that that is partly what drugs are about, and partly what this Bill is about. The cure will be a very long and difficult quest. The Bill—and I do not say this offensively—is a small pill for a big illness, and to find the remedy for that illness will, I think, test us all very severely.
  5.1 p.m.
  Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: We have been informed that it is now the policy of the Government to have drug addicts treated at special centres, and it will be interesting to hear in due course from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health where and in what manner he intends setting up these centres. I expect that several of them will be needed for London, and one in
  492
  each of the large cities in the country, and it is my hope that these centres will be at teaching hospitals, but these are details which I hope the House may be able to discuss on a future occasion after we have had the opportunity of hearing the Minister's proposals for these centres.
  I merely say now that I am very glad to know that proper facilities are to be provided for the pathetic cases of drug addicts, and I should like to underline a point made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and that is the importance of these centres being made attractive to drug addicts. After all, the centres will not serve a very useful purpose if the drug addicts are not willing to make use of them.
  The Bill demands two changes in medical practice. As we have been reminded this afternoon, these changes follow the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction which sat under the distinguished chairmanship of the late Lord Brain.
  The first of these changes contained in the Bill is to require notification of addicts by medical practitioners. The second is to prohibit medical practitioners, except under licence, from providing addicts with specified drugs. As a general rule I am strongly opposed to medical practitioners having to fill in more forms, as will be required in the notification of drug addicts, and as a general rule, also, I am strongly opposed to restrictions being placed on medical practitioners in the treatment of their patients, but in these instances when we are dealing with this problem of drug addiction I accept both these changes as being necessary.
  The figures which have been given to us showing the increase in drug addiction are alarming, and no responsible Government could possibly stand by idly watching this menace grow. I have heard no objection from any of my medical colleagues, and I am sure that the medical profession as a whole will accept the Government's proposals as inevitable and essential.
  Whether these measures will prevent the further spread of drug addiction remains to be seen. I hope that they will achieve their object, but if they do not, then maybe the Government will have to take further action, and certainly all of us will have

  493
  to give the matter a great deal more thought.
  It is clear that the Bill will not prevent a doctor from being able to prescribe dangerous drugs in the usual small quantities which are used in the treatment of accidents and illness. It will prohibit the supply by him only of dangerous drugs to addicts—other than by medical practioners under licence, presumably at the special centres—for the treatment of drug addiction.
  I believe that that restriction has become necessary, bearing in mind that we want to stop the spread of addiction, and I would like by way of illustration to quote a case which came my way professionally very recently. I mention it just as an example of what is going on. The patient is a young man in his early twenties. The background history is that of an unhappy childhood. The father died when the patient was a small boy, and he has received no affection from his stepfather. He grew up into an unstable, somewhat irresponsible youth.
  A few years ago he started to smoke "reefers". Twelve months or so later he took "pep pills", and 18 months ago he proceeded to take the "hard stuff". He is now a heroin addict. He told me that he could obtain heroin without difficulty. He knows a doctor in the East End of London who is sympathetic towards addicts, and who gives him a prescription for the amount that he requires. He said that when the doctor asks him how much he requires he always tells him a quantity which repesents twice his needs. He visits the doctor as a private patient, and he pays 30s. for the brief consultation and the prescription. He then takes the prescription to a chemist who hands him the heroin and charges him 30s. as a dispensing fee. Thus, it costs him £3 to obtain his supply of heroin. Half the supply satisfies him for a week, and he sells the other half in the West End for £3, thus obtaining the money for the next week's supply.
  Apparently he has no difficulty in selling his surplus, but, having seen this patient and realising the extent of his addiction, I am sure that if he encountered difficulty in disposing of his surplus he would attempt to create a market by inducing others to take the drug, and so would make more drug addicts. As this is actually happening, it is essential that drug
  494
  addicts should be given no more than their necessary requiremens, and I believe that the necessary control can be exercised only by the measures contained in the Bill, namely, by a central authority knowing who are addicts, by addicts being treated at special centres, and by medical practitioners, apart from those under special licence, being prohibited from providing dangerous drugs for addicts. I believe that it is imperative that these steps be taken to try to prevent a further increase in drug adiction.
  I may have seen more drug addicts than other hon. Members. The cases are pathetic and pitiful. One sees in them a physical, mental and moral deterioration. they lose interest in their work; they lose self-respect and respect for others, becoming untidy, slovenly and neglectful. The process of deterioration can go on to a disintegration of the personality. These people become notorious liars. They do not differentiate between truth and untruth. The answers they give to questions and the statements they make are related to what they consider to be best in their own interests, regardless of truth. They are unreliable in speech and action.
  Many who fall victim are emotionally unstable and inadequate types of personality. These characteristics of emotional instability and inadequacy are not uncommon among the young, and it is youth in particular which needs protection against these terrible dangers. The measures contained in the Bill are directed towards adequate treatment for addicts and the protection of others by attempting to remove at least one source of supply of the drugs. I certainly give the Bill my support.
  5.11 p.m.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Not for the first time I rise to speak with some diffidence in that I follow the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who is a doctor and a psychiatrist, and, therefore, speaks with expertise. He in turn followed my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who, in an outstandingly humane speech, proved that he has made himself an expert—in the best sense of the word—on this squalid subject. I shall shortly explain why I have become interested in it.
  First, I want to pay my personal tribute to Lord Brain, whom I knew for many

  495
  years, both in his capacity as a neurologist—when a member of my family was his patient—and also when I was at the Ministry of Health. I know what an outstanding personality he was and what an immense strength he has been in terms of the wise advice that he has given to Governments at different times.
  I only have one painful memory. I was at the Ministry of Health and he was president of one of the royal colleges, and we were engaged in one of those almost endemic battles with the medical profession on the subject of pay. I found myself confronted with a Lord Brain who was white in the face with anger across the table in the Ministry. But he never let that interfere with our relations outside.
  The Bill takes new and exceptional powers to deal with a new and exceptional situation. It is concerned with a problem that is baffling to the experts; indeed, the experts themselves are really ignorant. I agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley that these exceptional powers are thoroughly justified. On paper, they look frightening, but we need not be too squeamish about them. Nevertheless we must realise that they represent a large infringement upon the liberty of doctors to prescribe.
  The tragedy is that the permissive policy of which we have been so proud and which allowed doctors complete freedom, has broken down. Throughout its duration it has undoubtedly frustrated the organisation of a large-scale illegal supply by racketeers. The system works well, and has broken down, apparently, only because of a small minority which has abused it.
  In his Report, Lord Brain referred to there being six doctors who over-prescribed. As I came to the subject fairly recently, I have read the Report only in the last few days, and in it there is this incredible sentence:
  "Thus, we were informed that in 1962 one doctor alone prescribed almost 600,000 tablets of heroin for addicts. The same doctor on one occasion prescribed 900 tablets of heroin for one addict and three days later prescribed for the same patient another 600 tablets 'to replace pills lost in an accident'".
  One simply cannot understand the mentality of a doctor who would be so criminally lax or so laxly criminal, what-
  496
  ever it is. That is why we have to adopt this new system.
  The burden of operating the system will fall on the hospital service and, in particular, on certain designated teaching hospitals in the London area. I understand that on present plans three or four teaching hospitals will take part. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if that is not the case. As the chairman of a teaching hospital, I know that the Minister of Health is already aware of the fact that all those involved are only too willing to co-operate at all stages. The only regret that some of us feel is that the discussions which have taken place recently have been rather hurried. It would have been better if the discussions had been started a year or so ago. I do not say that in a carping or critical way.
  As my right hon. Friend said, this will be a very expensive business. Quite apart from the vast need for research into the subject, it will mean an expensive form of treatment for a very few patients. The nub of the whole matter will lie in the financing of the treatment. As a layman I want to ask a question which I hope the Minister will answer at the end of the debate. As I understand, notification of addicts implies a central register, and I understand that that register will be kept by the Home Office. I want to put in a plea that it would be preferable for the Ministry of Health to have responsibility. The Minister of State said that we had always treated the addict as a sick person and not as a criminal. I think that that is right. To stress that side of the matter it might, therefore, he wise to allow the machinery to be operated by the Ministry of Health rather than by the Home Office, which has other associations.
  There will have to be constant consultation between doctors and hospitals and between Government Departments. Hospitals frequently curse the Ministry of Health, but they do know their way about the Elephant and Castle better than Whitehall and would prefer the devil they know to the devil they do not. This could be justified, as it is a public health problem.
  The nub is the financing. It is gossip that the Ministry of Health has not been successful in wheedling any extra funds from the Treasury. If so, I am sure that

  497
  the right hon. Gentleman fought a very good fight in the cause. But I regret it. We will be told that this extra item will have to be lumped in with the other National Health Service expenditure. No doubt this will not seem very much when compared to the total of £800 million, but it is outside the normal service to patients of a general or teaching hospital.
  It will have to be given top priority, which means that something else at the bottom of the priority list will have to suffer. Every hospital has a long list of appointments to be filed in the course of the normal development of its normal district services. Some of these appointments will have to be deferred because of these new commitments. It may be that, say, only two registrars and four or five nurses will be needed, but those extra appointments will mean that other departments which have been waiting for years to expand their services will have to wait even longer.
  Some hospitals—this is the fault of the system—have bitter experience of having been given a special job by the Ministry and a special allocation for one year only to find that the next year the allocation went on their normal maintenance budget. They feel that they have not enough money. I plead with the Minister to see that those who will be asked to act as his agents in this matter will have a special grant separate from their normal maintenance budget and that it will be kept separate for many years.
  The right hon. Lady rightly pointed out that everything in the Bill and in the mechanism to be set up is provisional and is bound to change and develop. For that reason alone, those who are the willing agents of the Minister and anxious to co-operate should have special financial treatment. I have spoken on a narrow point, but I cannot help feeling that it is also important.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I recall with some sadness that, when I visited the United States some years ago and discussed some of the problems of our health service and was asked about the provision which we made for drug addicts and alcoholics, I stated the truth in answering that it was not a particular problem here. We must
  498
  recognise that this problem has built up with remarkable speed.
  I pay tribute to the valuable and thoughtful speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). All of us welcomed it very much. We are living in a society where abuse of alcohol is accepted more or less—rightly or wrongly—and in which nearly every household has a plethora of drugs. It is worrying that in many ways this is part of our society's atmosphere, in which parents are commonly prescribed drugs for relatively minor complaints. I share the right hon. Gentleman's feeling that it is a little hard to vent our anger and bitterness wholly upon the young when they are living in such a society. We must ensure that some of our anger is directed elsewhere, at the problems of this society.
  It has been said that there are grave dangers of an increased black market should the new system of treatment centres and special out-patient facilities not attract the known addicts and those about whom we know little. I would therefore reinforce what has been said about the vital importance of ensuring that adequate facilities are available and adequately financed. This is very expensive in money and manpower.
  It is not only a problem which affects the capital city, but in some ways it is even more difficult to set up and man centres in areas in which the number of cases is relatively small. Here there will be even less willingness to make the necessary provision for what initially may be only a few cases. Yet it is vital that provision should be made there as well as in London, where we know the acuteness of the situation.
  The other danger which we have all realised arises from the Press and television publicity of this issue. I do not blame those concerned, because this is a public issue which should naturally be discussed. What is dangerous is that a generalised condemnation of all drugs gives the idea that the danger is of the same level for all. Although this is demonstrably untrue, those who listen to this and are in danger of becoming addicted and are already taking one of the "soft" drugs may think that therefore the information about the "hard" drugs is equally inaccurate. We should give

  499
  special attention to this feaure of the problem.
  That simply means that there is an overwhelming need for more reliable information about the effects of the great variety of "soft" drugs as well as of the "hard" drugs. Considering for how long the Americans have been faced with this problem, it is amazing that we have so little reliable information about this subject. We must obtain completely accurate information if we are to move forward in the right way.
  One of the dangers of marijuana is that, while it is not an addictive drug, it can easily lead to its takers going on to "hard" drugs, and what can follow from that is really dangerous. We do not know how many people who take marijuana later move on to taking "hard" drugs. We know quite a lot about how many of those who are addicted to heroin started by taking various forms of "soft" drugs, but we do not know the proportion of those who take "soft" drugs who later go on to "hard" drugs, and why. In other words, we must get accurate information about this and other matters if we are to frame the right social action.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford referred to L.S.D. and he was right to say that we are appalled by some of the consequences resulting from the increased use of this drug. Many tragedies, including suicides, have occurred, but we have very little information about the number of people taking L.S.D. Until we get better information we will not be able to frame effective action, either legislative or social.
  I need not urge my right hon. Friend to realise the immense importance of social work in this matter and I agree with what has been said about the small contribution that legislation can make in some respects. On the other hand, I am aware of some of the wonderful work that is being done by social welfare workers and I hope that, in the setting up and running of the new centres, we will ensure not only that adequate medical staff is available but that adequate welfare staff is also available to do the necessary follow-up work. I hope that, at the earliest possible opportunity, the advice of those who have been devoting
  500
  themselves so selflessly to this work will be sought.
  I accept, as we must, the urgent necessity for the Bill and hope that it will be passed rapidly. I agree, however, that we are moving into a sphere about which we know little and about which we may need to take further steps.
  5.34 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am conscious of the fact that in addressing the House today I am addressing hon. Members who have great knowledge of this subject, professionally, politically and socially. I, too, can claim to have a fair knowledge of the subject. I have had the responsibility of dealing professionally with drug addicts and I have also had the even more distressing responsibility of dealing professionally with the wives, husbands and parents of drug addicts.
  It would be impossible, unnecessary and unwise for me to attempt to give my views on every facet of this important issue. I am sure that I will be best serving the interests of the House if I concentrate on some of the points which may not arise during the debate. In concentrating on these points, I will tend to stress the dangers that lie ahead with the passage of the Bill, although I do not want it to be thought that I do not support the Measure. I wholly support it, but certain dangers and warnings should be mentioned because it is vitally important that the Department should be aware of them.
  In the serious and alarming situation which faces us we have a dilemma for the politicians, the general public, and particularly the doctors which is well nigh insoluble. Many hon. Members have referred to the undoubted fact that if one cuts off the source of supply to a drug addict, that addict is immediately forced to create other addicts to find the wherewithal with which to obtain further supplies. This is well known and is the pattern that has been noted in the United States, where extremely restrictive legislation exists and where there is a flourishing black market.
  Once an addict's supplies have been cut off, he is under pressure—having no other source of supply—to go to the black market. But first he must obtain the funds with which to buy his black

  501
  market supplies, and to obtain these he is forced to create other addicts. In other words, if we take the wrong step now—something which we could easily do; a number of pitfalls lie ahead—we will be in danger of causing an explosion and thereby escalating the problem.
  The dilemma of a doctor who is faced with an addict, a group of addicts or a society in which there is a percentage of addicts is this. If he is given compulsory powers to take a patient into some sort of custody, however humanely and compassionately that is done, he will cure that addict. However, he knows that if he gets compulsory powers which are effective, he is then creating a situation in which other addicts will be created. The alternative is to allow the doctor to supply the drugs. But in that case one is saying to the consultant psychiatrist or doctor, "You may give these drugs, but you may kill these addicts". One is thereby killing them to benefit the community as a whole and to prevent the problem from escalating.
  It should be emphasised that the period of delay which has occurred in bringing forward this legislation has been occupied with discussions with the medical profession. The delay has not arisen because the profession has had any desire to protect its integrity, to preserve its autonomy or to protect its rights. The delay has been occasioned by the simple fact that the members of my profession who have been conducting negotiations with the Government have for a long time been undecided about the best steps to take—not in the interests of the B.M.A. or the profession, but of the patient. It is difficult to decide how rapidly we can proceed with compulsion or to what extent we should allow a permissive scheme to operate. I therefore do not join with those who have criticised the Government for having taken time to introduce this legislation, for it is right that they should have given careful consideration to the timing of these steps.
  Having said that the medical profession is still undecided about the best route to follow in the interests of the patient, I must also say quite clearly that it would be difficult to find a doctor who is opposed to the kind of measures here envisaged. There is much talk about the profession's jealousy of its freedom to prescribe, and so on, but I have no personal knowledge
  502
  of any doctors who feel that this legislation will clip their wings or deprive them of the freedom they have hitherto enjoyed.
  I have served on a number of statutory bodies representing general practitioners—on one committee representing 3,000 of them—and I have not heard a solitary expression of opinion that this Bill constitutes some kind of attack on their freedom which must be resisted. Indeed, had doctors felt that way they would probably have asked me to resist on their behalf. They have not done so. They are wholly on the side of the Ministry in this matter, and are quite willing to see such steps as this taken. Their only anxiety and doubt is as to what measures are likely to be the most effective and attended by the least danger.
  I want to point to a number of possible dangers and, with all humility, to deliver a few warnings. It is absolutely essential that whatever provisions are made—and here I refer to the many steps envisaged in the Bill and also to the parallel steps that are being taken by the Minister of Health for the provision of clinics, treatment centres, and so on—they should be implemented with the utmost humanity, compassion and care. Any tendency on the part of the new treatment centres to become institutionalised in the worst sense, to become formal and impersonal, will defeat the object we all have in mind, and will result in the problem going underground, though only temporarily.
  In the temporary period when we had compulsory measures to deal with the problem of venereal disease I was in charge of a hospital board that was treating patients, getting information about contacts, sources of infection, and so on. Hon. Members will remember that special legislation was provided when there was a serious outbreak of this disease during the war. I then had experience of one or two establishments. In one, the scheme worked perfectly efficiently because the work was conducted with humanity and compassion. The patients did not feel that, in some way, they were venturing into a place where they would lose their personal rights. They had no fears of that. I found other establishments where, though the rules were the same, the atmosphere was different. As a result, one

  503
  either did not get the patients in the first place in order to treat them, or they tended to disappear.
  It is absolutely crucial that restrictive measures should not precede the availability of these other resources. If one closes down supply in one area without in advance making sure that the supply is opened up in another, although with all proper controls, supervision and so on, one is in precisely the same peril as in cutting off supplies.
  Another point is the undoubted clinical importance in the treatment of drug addiction of preserving a close personal relationship between the physician and the patient. I know that the alleged close personal relationship which is supposed to exist between patient and doctor is something that today is perhaps getting into some disrepute. Indeed, to read some of the things the doctors say of their patients and some of the things the patients say of their doctors, one might come to the conclusion that the close personal relationship has descended into one of complete and undisguised hostility. That may be true in some cases, but if we are to have any success in treatment of drug addiction it is essential that some relationship should be preserved between doctor and patient—
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the very setting-up of these specialised units will in itself provide this very special relationship? He is stressing very much the aspects that concern us, quite rightly, about the doctor-patient relationship, but is perhaps not stressing adequately just how exhausting this relationship can be. I believe that at the present moment the general practitioner relationship to the addict is far more inadequate than the specialised relationship that will exist between the psychiatrist, the consultant psychiatrist and the patient in the specialised unit.
  Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I, too, have been exhausted in that way. I realise that the special relationship does not necessarily exist in the general practitioner's sphere, and it need not exist in the clinics unless we see that it does exist. However, as I have said, I am entirely
  504
  in favour of this Bill, and am now merely stressing a number of points that I believe to be of crucial importance if the establishments are to work. It would be possible for us to establish centres that were understaffed and overworked, and in which there were rapid changes of personnel so that the same doctor did not remain for very long. That would be totally destructive.
  The Minister must see that the arrangements are such as to provide continuity of care and treatment, so that the type of relationship of which I speak is preserved. That is important, just as it is important in alcoholism, and just as it is important in psycho-neurosis also, and, as we have with us the Minister of State, Home Office, I would add just as it is important in the probation service. One cannot have a functionary whose identity changes from day to day. We want someone who can win the confidence of the patient—and we must regard the drug addict as a patient rather than as a criminal.
  It is important that a fair degree of discretion should be left to the general practitioner in arriving at a proper professional decision on what does or does not constitute an addict. That will apply if the range of drugs is increased as is the obvious intention. The right hon. Member for Ashford, to whose speech I listened with very great interest, and which I entirely commend, rather emphasised the general question of people's reliance on phenobarbitone, sedative drugs, tranquillisers, and the like. This is a problem of course, but we would be in a most desperate situation if the individual general practitioner started notifying as addicts certain people who find that they can continue in life reasonably tolerably with assistance, whereas they break down without it.
  Let us not forget that many of these drugs about which the House is now very rightly alarmed are of immense benefit to medicine, to doctors and to their patients. It is true that drugs have dangers. One will not get a drug with powerful effects without having a drug with dangers. If we were to throw away every drug that had any possible danger we would finish with no valuable drugs at all. If we said that we would never use a new drug unless it was found to be safe, we would never use new drugs at all. Some of the

  505
  drugs that have had the most striking effect in changing our mortality and morbidity statistics, and have changed the whole picture for many people by giving them life instead of no life, are dangerous drugs, and do certain people harm.
  Some of these drugs are perhaps addictive. We know about the new anti-depressive drugs and their effects, but it would be unwise to say that they are dangerous things and that we would be better without them altogether. Certainly let us look at the dangers and provide against them, but we would be unwise if we tended to try to get rid of a drug merely because from time to time it has a particular danger of this kind.
  As a number of hon. Members have said, we must undertake more and more research into this whole problem. I should like research to be particularly concentrated on the question of determining as far as possible who in the community happens to be at risk. It is a great mistake to run away with the idea that addictive drugs are something hovering in the air waiting to alight on someone and that that person is doomed. This is not so. I have had experience, as no doubt many doctors have, of people who have taken addictive drugs for very good reasons and they have been able to give them up without any difficulty. I have known others who have taken two or three doses and have been in an intolerable state because of a craving which only after a long period have they overcome.
  The danger of drug addiction varies enormously from person to person, from adult to adult and child to child. We do not know anything like enough about who is at risk and who is not. We want to know more about why this problem has spread so much among young people whereas formerly it was very much less prevalent among the young than among adults. We want to know the relative importance of hereditary factors. As a politician I like to regard environmental factors as well-nigh crucial in everything. One is inclined to think that one could put society to rights always by adjusting the environment.
  That is a happy feeling because it gives hope for the future, but there is more and more evidence accumulating to show that there are very powerful hereditary and genetic factors in this matter of which
  506
  we should have proper notice. Recently, as the Home Secretary is clearly aware, there have been studies in prisons of chromosome abnormalities. These have an important bearing on who has tendencies to be a criminal. We may not be able to solve the problem solely by dealing with environment. We have to find who needs watching and special care in the early formative years and in the very vital and crucial period of adolescence.
  I hope that we can think about these things and about research. We cannot dismiss the problem merely by blaming parents. This we tend to do in regard to the young and we think that all that is needed is to put right home life. This is not sufficient. I have found young people living in perfectly well adjusted families and who have had every opportunity in life who yet have become addicts, while others living in conditions which one would expect to produce an addict have not become addicts.
  This is a growing problem which changes in society. In a sense it is a melancholy fact of medical history that as we progress and get rid of many of the old diseases—we are to be congratulated on the fact that malnutrition and social diseases due to the absence of plumbing, such as plague, rickets and that kind of thing, have gone—new diseases arise to take their place. This problem in a sense is one of the new diseases. At the top of the list of new diseases there is a whole host of psychological and psycho-neurotic conditions which seem to stem almost entirely from our way of life and from certain hereditary trends in the community, and these have to be looked at very carefully.
  This Bill deals, and deals quite effectively, with some of the symptoms of the disease, but that is all it does. It is welcome for all that and I support it fully, but I hope that when it finally arrives on the Statute Book, when its various provisions are implemented and parallel provisions made by the Minister of Health are implemented, we shall turn our attention speedily to getting down to discovering, curing and eradicating this underlying disease.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I had not intended to join in this debate, but it is too much to expect any woman to sit here all afternoon and to listen

  507
  to the gentlemen without getting her oar in. I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I am concerned because I think it right to stress that, whilst we are all very much in agreement with the provisions of the Bill, this is an opportunity which we should take to stress very much the wider problem of drug addiction.
  I always feel that drug addicts are not so much immoral as ammoral. They are extremely difficult for the general practitioner to deal with. This is why in the past there have been some cases—fortunately a minority—in which members of the medical profession have found it much simpler to pass on an addict to be dealt with by someone else, because the addict brings social problems. He is prepared to lie and to make it difficult for the doctor to find out when he is telling the truth and that he is not prepared to go to any lengths to get supplies of drugs.
  This is part of the problem, but we should stress the aspects with which we can deal and the new forms of preventive medicine we have to deal with the problem. We must know which of our young people need drugs and how they can be helped.
  In a decade it has become fashionable to accept this support. We still regard a minor form of alcoholism as socially acceptable. Many people start the day with an odd drink and do not regard it as at all odd, but when we get to the point at which we can understand that it is the person who starts with a small support and then goes on to need larger and larger support and when we can tell why people need this kind of stimuli we shall have gone a long way towards recognising the difficulty of the problem.
  Only on one occasion have I had to take amphetamines. That was when I was acting on the stage in a play by Brecht and I had to lug a great cart around the stage. I dunned my husband for a small amount of amphetamines in order to keep me going. I was absolutely horrified at the effect which they had on me. They made me completely invincible. After quite a small dose I firmly believed that I could do whatever I liked. Thinking back I shudder to think what would have happened had I been in charge of a car.
  508
  I was convinced that my judgment was superior to that of everybody else and that I could make no mistakes. These are not ideal circumstances for an actor, but at least there is no danger to anything except one's own reputation. I was struck by the fact that it was possible for somebody easily to take a socially acceptable drug and react in a startling fashion. There is far too much ease of acceptance. We turn to the amphetamines to help us with slimming and other problems. We do not always realise exactly what we are letting ourselves in for.
  I hope that more money will be forthcoming for treatment centres and trained social workers. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us that these centres will not be mere poor cousins of existing National Health centres, that they will not merely treat people already addicted, but that they will provide support for people in the long and difficult period after they return to ordinary life. The difficulty is not only that someone who has been addicted might not want to be treated. The difficulty is that, even after he has received treatment, he will return to the circumstances which made him want drugs for support in the first place.
  We are still not taking the right attitude towards the increasing number of drug addicts. I find it dreadful to be told by a mother, "My child is such a nice child and so easily led. I now discover that she has been brought up in court on a drugs charge. My husband and I had no knowledge of what was happening to her or of the sort of life she was leading. We do not know what to do or where to turn to". Such things can easily happen in modern times and we all have a responsibility to ensure that at that point—or preferably even earlier—trained psychiatric advice and medical assistance will be available to help such people.
  Generally, I very much welcome all the provisions of the Bill. However, I hope that it will merely be a small step in the right direction and that we shall go on to tackle many more of the problems connected with the treatment of addicts. I hope that the House will also say today that we are all concerned in this problem and that it is no use lecturing others. Morals cannot be legislated for. Personalities cannot be legislated for. We must

  509
  legislate to such effect as to remove the opportunity for any criminal section of the community to look for an easy, ready market, make enormous profits, and ruin the lives of many young people in the process.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. I have no quarrel with any of its provisions. The arrangements seem to be eminently fair to the medical profession, and I was glad that the Minister of State said that the Government would be ready to consider any suggestion for the improvement of its provisions, especially the Schedule. I hope that the Bill secures a swift passage.
  It is understandable that there may have been impatience about the delay in bringing forward the Bill. The Brain Report was published over 16 months ago. Since then we have all become aware that the problem which the Brain Committee sought to remedy has worsened and become more urgent. If, however, the delay has resulted in the responsible Ministers carrying through their negotiations with interested parties more successfully and arriving at the right decision, it would be wrong to indulge in any carping criticism.
  However, not a day passes without the Press reporting a police raid on a coffee bar or a sleazy club frequented by teenagers, or arrests for possession, or stories about pop stars and drugs. "Pop" stars even write to The Times on this subject now.
  On this matter, I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I think that such publicity, though it is about an extremely unpleasant subject, is to be welcomed, if there is to be a proper public awareness of what is happening and what could happen.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) riveted the attention of the House. His humane and knowledgeable approach to this subject is well known. I agree with him that there are others outside the House who have a responsibility in this matter, notably teachers and, above all, parents.
  All this publicity about drug abuse may be evidence of greater vigilance on the part of the authorities. I hope that it is.
  Dr. Winstanley: I agree that publicity is necessary so that the problem can be made known. Publicity is a good thing. Is not the danger the manner of the publicity, when drug taking is presented by the Press as part of the good life, instead of as part of an early death? There has been a tendency to present drug taking as part of high life generally rather than as dangerous.
  Mr. Braine: There may be such a tendency in the newspapers which the hon. Gentleman reads, but I would acquit our Press—certainly, the newspapers that I read—of anything of the kind. The Press has done its level best to focus attention in the last year or two upon this growing menace which is undermining so many young people. I would not attack the Press on that score.
  An awareness of this danger must be brought home to parents. Parents, in the first analysis, are responsible for their children. As the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) illustrated in a most moving speech, often parents do not know what is happening to their children.
  I was saying when I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that this publicity may be evidence—I hope that it is—of greater vigilance on the part of the authorities. Equally, it suggests that the problem has grown, and is growing, in extent. All this underlines the fact that the Bill cannot be judged in isolation.
  Indeed, the Bill deals with only one aspect of the drug problem and with only one category of drugs—the dangerous drugs of addiction. It is a response to a particular situation within a much larger problem. It leaves the state of the law in relation to drugs in general in an unsatisfactory condition. Its success will depend wholly on the extent to which the Government provide really effective treatment in the proposed centres. There is some reason to believe—I hope that the Minister of Health can dispel the doubts on this score—that the Government's provisions in this regard are likely to fall short of what is required.
  I want to develop these criticisms in a little more detail. Why are the Government still unable to bring forward comprehensive legislation covering the whole field of drugs—their manufacture, their

  511
  supply, and control over their use or abuse? Why do we have such a lagging, timid, piecemeal approach to what the medical and pharmaceutical professions, and many Members of the House, too, consider to be a related problem?
  Four years ago, after the thalidomide tragedy, the Cohen Committe recommended the establishment of what we now know as the Dunlop Committee on the Safety of Drugs, and at that time it advised also that there was urgent need for comprehensive medicines legislation. This was accepted on all sides. I was at the Ministry of Health at the time, and I remember that we received inquiries about it from the Labour Party, then in opposition. Legislation was, if I remember aright, in a fairly advanced state of preparation when we left office in 1964. What has happened since?
  With respect, I submit that it is not enough to say that the Bill before us today is concerned only with dangerous drugs and stems from the limited though important recommendations of the Brain Committee, while the matter to which I have just referred relates to medicines generally and stems from the different recommendations of the Cohen Committee. As so many speeches in the debate thus far have shown, there is a clear link, which the Brain Committee was precluded by its terms of reference from considering, between "soft" drugs and the more dangerous substances covered by this Bill. The law regarding "soft" drugs is still far from satisfactory.
  Some people tell us that the taking of marijuana, hemp and the amphetamines is harmless. This was the subject of Mr. Manfred Mann's eloquent plea in the correspondence columns of The Times. That is nonsense. For some time now the World Health Organisation doctors have been worried that cannabis smoking is not only debilitating and dangerous to health, but its users graduate to heroin. This has been a well-established fact in the world drug scene for some time. In this country, until recently, it has not been a serious problem, but there is now plenty of medical evidence that young people addicted to heroin started on the so-called "soft" drugs.
  In a hospital not far from here, there were last year a number of young nar-
  512
  cotic addicts who had previously taken amphetamines, and they had started to do so at the average age for the males of 16½ and for the females just under 16. There is plenty of evidence that there is a direct connection between amphetamine taking leading on to heroin addiction. But this legislation does not deal with that problem at all.
  I was interested to hear that there may be a possibility at a later stage of the Bill of considering strengthening its provisions in respect of certain matters, though these were not clearly specified. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on this when he replies. It is true that amphetamines have been on the scheduled list since 1964, but there are other drugs—I shall not mention their names—which can still be bought over the counter without prescription and which, technically speaking, are neither drugs of habitation nor dangerous drugs, but which, nevertheless, can lead and have led people, including young persons, down the path to more dangerous habits.
  My first question to the Minister, therefore, is this: when are we to have the comprehensive legislation which the medical and pharmaceutical professions have been expecting for some time now?
  My second point concerns the treatment facilities for drug addicts. I am sure that the Minister will concede that it has been extraordinarily difficult for us to find out what has been done or what is being done in this field. On the one hand, we know that the number of known addicts is rising sharply and will rise further. In other words, we know what the likely demand should be on the basis of the known figures. On the other hand, the provision of treatment centres, if I understand aright, is not expected to cause an appreciable strain on the resources of the National Health Service.
  On 13th February, I asked the Minister of Health to state
  "the estimated cost of the special centres it is proposed to set up for the treatment of drug addicts, and whether this will be financed out of additional Exchequer money or by cuts in other parts of the National Health Service."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Such an estimate cannot yet be made."
  I would like to know whether he is in a position to give us an estimate tonight.
  "All hospitals are given additional money each year for developments, and I do not expect

  513
  the cost of these additional treatment facilities to require cuts in other parts of the National Health Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 5.]
  That was a perfect Parliamentary Answer. It was short. I am sure that it was absolutely accurate, but it did not tell us anything that we did not know already.
  Considering the difficulty in the hospital service now of finding enough money to meet existing priorities—no one knows this better than the Minister himself, who is battling valiantly to maintain an efficient service for the patient—that Answer was quite extraordinary. It can only mean that he does not expect that the treatment centres will cater for very many addicts or cost very much money. That is the only conclusion one can reach, unless it is proposed that other services are to be cut, and I cannot for a moment believe that the Minister contemplates that. I hope, therefore, that he will be a bit more forthcoming when he replies tonight.
  What alarms me about the proposed arrangements is that the Government are doing two things under the Bill which, unless I am mistaken, are incompatible. They are banning the prescription of "hard" drugs by the general practitioner before we can be certain that we have an adequate network of treatment centres throughout the country, adequate, that is, to deal with all the known addicts and the others who are not known, but who, we hope will be attracted into treatment centres.
  Hitherto, the view has been that the problem is limited to London and a few big centres. I assume that the Minister has abandoned that idea and that he now knows that it has been rapidly spreading through the country. If an addict is unable to find a treatment centre near his home, he will not use the facilities. Yet he is now to be deprived of any chance of treatment by a doctor on his doorstep.
  The Government have rejected the idea of compulsory treatment for hard drug addiction, which is the practice in the United States of America. They may be right. It is a difficult question touching upon the liberty of the subject. Perhaps we ought to experiment first to find out whether a voluntary system is likely to work. But some doctors already working in this field tell me that they
  514
  are certain that compulsory detention is necessary if permanent cure is effected. The Americans seem quite convinced of this both on medical grounds and for other reasons.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the President's Commission on Crime in America, which took the view, supported by the American Medical Association, that out-patient treatment in clinics was not the answer and that compulsory detention was necessary. This has since been followed up by legislation. I entirely agree that we should treat the addict as a sick person and not as a criminal, but we should not forget that the addict is a person who—some of the speeches in the debate have emphasised this—can draw others into the same behaviour. In the American narcotics law, an addict is defined as
  "… any individual who habitually uses a narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with respect to his addiction."
  In other words, it is recognised that he is a danger not merely to himself but to society as a whole. Detention on the American pattern is a pretty drastic remedy.
  I am not criticising the Government for not following that course. They may or may not be right; only time will tell. But it follows as surely as day follows night that if treatment is not to be compulsory, and we are to treat addicts as sick people and not criminals, they should have access to doctors in the community who will be under an obligation to prescribe the minimum necessary for their needs. In any event, during rehabilitation there will have to be such doctors in the community to deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter as to what happens to the addict who has been to a treatment centre, and then returns to the community. How is his rehabilitation to be effected?
  That brings me to a suggestion that I wish to make. The Bill is framed on the Brain Committee's recommendations, which were made at a time when there was not considered to be an illicit traffic in drugs. That situation may have changed. We have been talking about known addicts going to the treatment

  515
  centres, but we know that a large number of people not registered with the authorities are addicted to drugs. What about them? Where are they to go?
  If it is impossible for the addict to get drugs legally he will get them illegally. Banning treatment by general practitioners will create a vacuum. I suppose that the Government think that by setting up a few treatment centres they will solve the problem, but the American experience should be a terrible warning to us. Because of the big money involved, the vacuum will be filled by criminal elements. Britain has been relatively free from the horrible trade in narcotics until now. The Government may be taking a step—I hope that they are not—which will encourage the growth of that traffic here unless the treatment centres cover the whole country and offer really effective treatment to the addict.
  It seems to me that there is a simple way round the problem. I return to the suggestion I made in the debate on 30th January, namely, that a network of approved doctors should be set up to whom addicts can go, doctors who are specially trained and equipped to deal with the problem. It may be that they will have to be specially trained and remunerated, but I am sure that they can be found. That is not a novel idea; it was suggested by the B.M.A. working party, which recommended that in addition to the treatment centres panels of approved doctors should be set up throughout the country, similar to the doctors on the obstetric list. I hope that on this point the Government will look at arrangements they are making to meet a problem, which is all the more disturbing since neither they nor we, after all the discussion, really know how grave and extensive it is.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: The debate has ranged widely, as it should, and it has been one of its good features that we have set the Bill in the broader picture of drug addiction as a whole. But I should like to deal more narrowly with the Bill.
  First, the Bill creates a system of notification, and I want to say nothing on that. Secondly, it sets up a cumbrous piece of machinery to discipline a very small number of over-prescribing doctors
  516
  —an enormous nutcracker to crack a very small nut. The Brain Committee's estimate of not more than six such doctors has already been quoted in the debate. I find it hard to understand why the ordinary procedure of medical discipline failed to deal with that phenomenon, involving a small number of doctors, and with the glaring examples quoted by the Brain Committee and again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). I do not understand how abuses on that scale have been allowed in a profession which has its own procedure for self-discipline.
  Nevertheless, the Brain Committee said that the present self-disciplinary powers of the medical profession were inadequate to deal with the problem, and every medical hon. Member who has spoken today appeared to agree. I accept that. But it is very important that new sanctions, if they are needed, should as far as possible be the normal ones of medical discipline, and that the threat of the courts should be avoided.
  It is no good saying, as one can legitimately say, that the courts are only a very ultimate deterrent. The fact is that under the Bill the ultimate deterrent is the court, and I should have thought that it would be better to have the same deterrent as the medical profession imposes on itself for other forms of unprofessional conduct, namely, de-registration.
  We were told by the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, that the General Medical Council had declined to take part in the Bill's disciplinary provisions. I regret that. It is a pity to establish a totally different disciplinary procedure in this matter, and I cannot see the need for it. I do not think that it is a very large matter. I should have thought it far better to build it into the existing self-disciplinary procedures of the profession.
  If one talks in terms of an ultimate sanction in the courts there is a real risk of deterring a certain number of the dedicated and bona fide doctors who are interested in this work. We shall have to encourage doctors to take an interest in the matter of treatment and do nothing to discourage them, but we shall discourage them if we talk of courts and the criminal law.

  517
  The second and much more important effect of the Bill, flowing from the first, is to set up a completely new system for the treatment of drug addiction based on licence—the Home Secretary's licence. I am worried that it is to be his licence and not that of the Minister of Health. We are all agreed that over-prescribing must be stopped. But from that point on a licence should be granted only for strictly medical reasons of providing the best form of treatment. Surely it is the Minister of Health and not the Home Secretary who is best qualified to do this.
  I hope that the Minister of Health will say something about the actual machinery which it is intended to set up to supervise the granting of these licences. When he spoke in January, he talked as if the treatment centres would in every case be in the psychiatric wards of hospitals. He certainly gave me that impression. In this, he was following the Brain Committee, although that Committee used slightly less strong words. It said that these centres might be in psychiatric wards while he said that he envisaged that they would be.
  I queried that attitude in the January debate and I want to expand a little on the point. I regard it as the most important thing that I have to say tonight. I believe that if we must have a licensing system it must be as flexible as we can possibly get it. It must provide within it for treatment in different places and in different ways. Many hon. Members have stressed the experimental nature of all we are doing and our lack of knowledge. If this is so, surely the treatment centres must be set up in many different ways and we must be willing to experiment.
  This, in particular, is why I have asked about the type of licensing system envisaged. I believe that there will have to be a continuing search for new methods, not just the setting-up of centres in hospitals. There will have to be a continuing process of licensing. I am not sure that the Home Office is well qualified to do that.
  One cannot say—and the Brain Committee certainly did not—that psychiatric wards are the only acceptable places for treatment. I believe that they are likely to deter a great many addicts. I am not saying that the treatment centres should not be under the general control of
  518
  psychiatric hospitals, but that they should not necessarily be actually situated in the hospitals. Otherwise, I repeat, we will deter many people who should be going to centres.
  There will probably be in the first place—and here I echo something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—the need to maintain a certain number of general practitioners as licensed treaters of addiction. In January, the Minister was extremely evasive on the financing side. I hope that he will be less so today. He said that it would be up to the regional hospital boards and that they had money for development. I simply do not believe that the boards will find themselves able to devote enough of their scarce resources to this extremely expensive and labour-demanding form of treatment. The figure of one in three has been quoted. I have heard a figure as high as one in one.
  If the Minister sticks to his plan of treatment of all addicts in psychiatric wards, there is bound to follow a shortage of treatment facilities for addicts and if that happens then we are straight on to the black market. The evidence was given to the Brain Committee, reported by it and repeated again today, that if we do this we shall be needlessly be making the same mistakes as the Americans made a generation or more ago and about which they continuously warn us.
  We shall need a much more flexible and experimental system of treatment than either the Minister or the Brain Committee have so far suggested. I accept that it may be necessary to license for reasons of prevention of over-prescribing, but I beg the Minister to reconsider the sort of places in which treatment should take place. It is absolutely vital that there should not develop a gap between the present situation and a future situation.
  Everything I have suggested is possible under the Bill. The terms of licensing are extremely broadly expressed at the moment. It is possible to provide all sorts of treatment under the Bill. But the fact is that the Government have firmly given the impression that there will be treatment only in hospitals. This is widely believed to be the case. The Government must indicate their plans very clearly and very soon.
  To begin with, general practitioners are at the moment under notice, as it were,

  519
  that they are to be prevented from prescribing. It is clear that a certain number of doctors at present are going out of this particular form of treatment. I do not think that new general practitioners are likely to start providing for addicts if they are told that shortly they will have to stop again. So the gap can come simply because this Bill is passing through the House and before new provisions can be made within the National Health Service.
  If it is even believed generally among addicts that a gap of this sort is likely, then we already have the opportunity for a black market to step in. It is known that there are black market channels in "soft" drugs. These channels could easily be switched, if the circumstances arose, into "hard" drugs. Therefore, the critical point will be reached over the next few weeks and months unless we can successfully bridge the gap between the present system which, although it has produced a limited amount of over-prescribing, has prevented a black market and has made the great majority of addicts go for some form of treatment, and a future system which I accept may have advantages. We are running a serious risk of falling into a gap between the two with results that could be disastrous.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aber-deenshire, East): I welcome the Bill, but I have considerable reservations about the whole way of tackling the problem which go much deeper and wider than this Measure. I accept the vastness as well as the tragedy of the problem. I understand that drugs of one sort or another are easy to make or to obtain and that, in an almost literal sense, the problem is beyond human control. But are the Government apparently to concentrate on the question of addicts alone and leave those approaching addiction to the mercy of the drugs until their condition ensures them the mercy of the Bill? That seems to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
  Where is the line to be drawn as to what constitutes a dangerous drug? This is a matter of great perplexity to the layman, who does not know much about the subject and who has probably never seen the Schedule listing dangerous drugs and who, anyhow, would be baffled by the names in it if he had. For instance, I
  520
  have always imagined that the real danger of drugs comes when they take over the person and the taker's craving for them masters him to the extent that he cannot say no, and eventually they destroy his health.
  If that is so, I imagine that some medical opinion would think that we did not have to go any further than tobacco, especially if there is any truth in the view that in some ways it is associated with cancer. But that is only one of many points in this subject when Parliament finds itself in a difficult and baffling position. Drugs can also be dangerous for others when, for example, they affect a person driving a motor car. The pedlar can have the most dangerous influence of all on other people.
  In that context, almost any drug can render its taker a source of possible danger to others. It is a dangerous thing with which we are dealing and I believe that it is impossible to divorce the sad increase in drug taking in this country in recent years from the rest of the moral rot of which, unhappily, we now have so much evidence in Britain.
  I know that at the moment it is fashionable to consider almost any kind of moral sickness as a disease which can be treated and for which no one need feel too responsible. It is a convenient way of looking at any problem, but if one accepts that, one marks the acceptance of that problem in greater or lesser degree for ever more. It cuts the chance of a permanent cure and we shall never have a permanent cure to drug taking unless we in Parliament make it clear that drug taking is wrong for a start. That is one obligation on Parliament.
  Another is our example. I am not one of those who believe that Parliamentarians have to be limited solely to their legislation. I think that our example can do much in Britain for either good or ill, but I do not believe it to be logical for someone in the grip of the tobacco habit or the drink habit, for example, to think that he has a word which he can say to a young person in the grip of heroin; nor to the pedlar who sold it to him.
  Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not question a word he is saying, but it is a little wide of the Bill which we are debating on Second Reading.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am sorry if I have spread too far, Sir.
  We are faced with a major problem and we have to consider every way in which we can meet it. We are in a difficulty if we do not approach the moral aspect of the problem as well. This is the difficulty which we will meet when we approach young people particularly, because young people are logical and when they have seen opinion in Parliament become increasingly permissive on so many other issues, they will find it hard to understand why Parliament even tries to draw a line at drug taking. Parliament will doubtless be able to explain it to its own satisfaction, but I doubt very much whether it will be able to do so to theirs as well.
  Moreover, there is another anomaly about this legislation which may not help to make it any more effective. We have been told that its introduction is necessary for one thing in order to control the pedlar and that only if we make this traffic illegal can we stop it. However, we have been told exactly the opposite about, for example, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. In that connection we were told that only if the traffic were made legal—
  Mr. Speaker: Again, I do not question what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he cannot review the whole state of morality in the country on this narrow Bill. He must keep to something which has to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I was merely pointing out that to try to have it both ways does not make legislation particularly convincing. Personally, I believe that it is unduly optimistic to think that once a practice has been legalised it can, therefore, be controlled.
  There is also doubt whether the measures proposed in the Bill will be effective even for the limited objectives at which the Bill is aimed. Much will depend on the amount of money which is spent. A similar kind of exercise with alcoholics has not been adequate. If distribution of heroin by the hand of official bodies does not work, the addict will clearly be drawn to the black market, with infinitely worse results for both him and society as a whole.
  522
  I want to fight drug-taking in every way open to us and the Bill is at least an instrument in the battle, for which reason I welcome it. However, I still believe that the real malaise lies much deeper in the moral and spiritual starvation in this country which Parliament must solve before this kind of symptom, which is what drug-taking is, will itself disappear. Heightened standards and the re-establishment of character as a national aim is essential and the greatest necessity is a target big enough to interest and include everybody. Restrictive measures by themselves will not be enough.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I have listened to every speech in the debate, from which I have learned a great deal. Normally, Home Office business rather tends to be attached to the legal and, rightly or wrongly, I feel that I move in that field with a certain amount of assurance, based on some experience. But I do not feel the same sure-footedness with this aspect of the subject. For that reason I was particularly glad that the opening speech from this side of the House was delivered with such skill and eloquence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), whose special interest in this problem has been a great deal of help to the House and a great deal of help to his colleagues who have had to speak about it. As I do not claim to be in any way an expert on the subject, I shall confine my remarks to one or two practical comments.
  Anybody who reads the Bill, as the right hon. Lady pointed out when she moved the Second Reading, will realise that the substance of the policy to which it is designed to give effect is not written in the Bill itself. The Bill is an enabling Bill, enabling the institution of regulations and the mechanism for enforcement, but the success or failure of the policy will depend upon the things which are done on the ground. The right hon. Lady told us something about those things, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will tell us something more.
  He has opted in favour of treatment centres. These have the support of the Brain Committee and there has been little

  523
  serious criticism of them in the debate this evening. But how many are there to be? How will they operate? What will they look like in practice? If some of the figures which we have been given are correct, that is to say, my right hon. Friend says that there are about 2,000 addicts of one sort or another at present in existence of whom he said—and he may be right—that about 1,600 are in London, how many centres are there to be and where are they to be placed? I doubt whether there will be more than ten. That means that 160 addicts will attend each centre. I am trying to get a picture of what is to be done. How often will those addicts have to attend the centre? One has a mental picture of 160 addicts attending each of these centres at least once a day.
  How often will they have to attend? How many doses will an addict have to receive at the centre? Will he receive all of the dose there, or will he be given some to take away with him, and if so how will he administer it, and how often? Presumably it will be quite a formidable administrative problem if people who are on the verge of leaving ordinary life altogether have to attend a centre for treatment, to receive treatment at regular intervals, and have to attend in considerable numbers possibly meeting other addicts and possibly taking away some quantities of the drugs to which they are addicted.
  There is a very real evil to be corn-batted, but the advantage, such as it is, of the present system is that the addicts are spread over a number of doctors, and not concentrated at centres, and they receive their treatment in private. When these centres are established, the approach of these addicts to them will be something which can be observed, indeed reported in the Press if need be. How does the Minister view that?
  There is also the question of money. The Minister must give us an answer about the financial arrangements. We all know enough about financial administration to know that one of two alternatives must be true. Either the money to set up these centres, which will not be inconsiderable, will be new money, or it will not. I understand the constitutional point made by the right hon. Gentleman in January that we did not, apparently in
  524
  theory at any rate, earmark grants to hospitals. I understand the importance of this, but in the last analysis the money will either be new or it will not.
  If it is not new money, someone else will suffer for the institution of these centres. My hon. Friends have made it plain that, although one may not be able to put one's finger on who is to suffer, some of the things needed so badly by the Health Service will have to be done without unless new money is available. Will not the right hon. Gentleman come clean and tell us that in spite of the point about earmarking, in substance, the money to provide these centres will be new money?
  He ought to do so. One realises the danger of an Opposition pressing for expenditure. The Prime Minister can get up and say that we are very keen to demand reductions in taxation, at the same time pressing the Government to provide new money for expenditure. There may be something in this, but it will not be the first time that an Opposition has suffered in this way. It may also be one of the duties of an Opposition to press a Government for suitable expenditure. Will the right hon. Gentleman not tell us where the money for these centres is to come from?
  There has rightly been a certain amount of discussion as to the relationship between these so-called "hard" drugs and the "soft" drugs, sometimes of the modern kind with letters of the alphabet to describe them. There has also been discussion of the older kind like cannabis. This was quite rightly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. Cannabis is hashish. Hashish is the actual drug which gave the name "assassin", because the assassin was a man who committed deliberate and violent murder under the influence of hashish. He was employed by the Old Man of the Mountains, as he was called, the Sheikh al Gibal. One should realise that a very great number of mental patients in the Near East are hashish addicts.
  I am told that I must not use the word Addict in connection with hashish. There is an esoteric distinction which we must observe between addiction, which is only applicable to heroin and morphine, and dependency. My right hon. Friend tells me that I am dependent on chocolate,

  525
  but not addicted to it. This is all very well; these philosophical distinctions are very important indeed.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in winding up, will say that he will not be lured by "pop" singers or stars who write to The Times about letting up on cannabis. I hope that he and the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend will pursue the addicts of hashish or pot, or marijuana, or whatever it is called, with the utmost severity that the law allows. I hope that they will find themselves in the Old Bailey, and, however distinguished their pop position in the Top Ten may be, that they will be treated by the judges at the Old Bailey as criminals deserve to be treated, and I hope that there will be no mercy shown them at all.
  That really sums up what I want to say in principle about the Bill. I thought that there was a good deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) had to say about smoking. Whatever one can say of heroin, it does not kill 20,000 people a year, as cigarettes do, but it would be out of order to pursue that matter. We have said on this side of the House that we would give the Bill a fair wind and I hope that it may be said that we have kept this promise.
  We may take a little credit for it, because when I told the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of this I rather sensed that he was in difficulties with the Government in getting Parliamentary time for the Bill, so the Opposition can take a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that the Bill has been introduced into the Government programme. At all events we are very glad that it has.
  We did not think it altogether suitable for a Second Reading Committee. Although it is not controversial, a number of quite important issues of principle are involved. It would have been possible, not very long ago, to conceive that there would have been strong opposition to some of its proposals. After all, a doctor has to notify the authorities that his patient, who may have come to him for some other reason—as a result of a road accident for example—is an addict.
  He is not allowed to prescribe for addiction, except under the regulations, allowing for treatment. If he does in the
  526
  last resort, and after having gone through the enforcement procedure, he can be directed not to prescribe. If he ignores this, he renders himself liable to very heavy penalties. It was right to bring all these things on to the Floor of the House. Those of us who have been in the Chamber to listen to it have heard a very profitable debate. I am very glad that it has revealed such relatively unanimous approval of what is to be done.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of State as well as for myself when I say that we cannot complain of the reception which the Bill has had today. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) asked me to confirm that the Opposition had redeemed their promise to give the Bill a fair wind. I am very happy to do that. I can say that they have more than redeemed their promise, because they insisted on a full day's debate. We have managed to get through the debate in rather less than a Parliamentary day.
  Members have ranged very widely over problems resulting from the misuse of drugs, over possible solutions to those problems and, naturally, in more detail, over the action being taken or proposed by the Government, including the contents of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State described very clearly the need for the Bill and commented on its principal Clauses placing new statutory duties and restrictions on doctors. I do not think it necessary for me to cover the same ground. I should like to remind the House, as did my right hon. Friend, of the perspective in which the Bill should be seen. It does not, and could not, stand in isolation. It forms an essential part of a scheme of interrelated measures designed to check the spread of addiction.
  The Government were mildly criticised in one or two speeches—I think that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone mentioned it—for failing to tackle the problem of dependence on those drugs which are not categorised particularly as dangerous—I do not like calling them non-dangerous drugs—such as the amphetamines and barbiturates. I assure the House that the Government recognise that dependence on these drugs

  527
  presents a serious problem which affects many more people than those addicted to heroin and cocaine. But our approach is to break down drug problems into manageable sizes. We have attempted to do this with the "hard" drugs. Even so, very careful preparations and a fairly elaborate scheme of measures have been found necessary because of the complexity of the problem.
  The Government are not by any means complacent about the forms of drug dependence which are not the subject of the Bill. The problem of addiction to the "soft" drugs will be watched very closely. I understand that the Advisory Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) is a member, is looking into it, and should further legislation be appropriate the Government will be very ready to bring it forward.
  Nearly all hon. Members who have spoken have asked a number of questions about treatment centres and particularly about the method of financing them. I wish to deal with both problems in a moment. Before doing so, may I deal with one or two specific points.
  I echo the tributes paid on both sides of the House to the very thoughtful speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford. The House knows the very great interest which he has taken in this subject over many years, and we are very glad to have him as a member of the Advisory Committee. He said—and I certainly do not dissent from it—that with the Bill the Government are embarking on a new and possibly hazardous course. We are not unaware of the risks associated with what we hope is the best course by which to proceed. Nevertheless, we are acting in accordance with the best professional advice which we could get.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford mentioned that the medical organisations in the United States take a different view from us as to the best solution. Fortunately, the problem is very different on the other side of the Atlantic; and I think that all of us profoundly hope that it stays very different. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of invoking Section 47 of the National Assistance Act in cases in which a heroin
  528
  addict is suffering dangerous self-neglect. I am informed that in some cases the Section might be appropriately invoked, but there are many difficulties, not least the fact that the sanctions, when one considers the nature of the problem, are almost derisory. However, we will give further thought to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ashford about the need to ensure that addicts who have been deprived of their source of income through the new arrangements should have recourse to what is now the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I am sure that he is absolutely right. They must be enabled to live as part of the process of treatment and, we hope, rehabilitation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) reassured the House that the measures proposed in the Bill are acceptable to the medical profession. I was very glad to hear their confirmation of what the Government understand as a result of the very considerable consultation which we have had. These are exceptional restrictions to place on a profession, but, nevertheless, the profession recognises, as does the House, that we are dealing with an exceptional problem.
  The right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) dealt mainly with the question of treatment centres. He said that it was a pity that notification of addicts should be made to the Home Office and not to my Department. Notification will be dealt with, if I may use the phrase, on the "medical network". Notification will be made to the Chief Medical Officer of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Chief Medical Officer of the Home Office just happens to be my Chief Medical Officer as well. I hope that he is, to some extent, reassured by that.
  I wish to say something about the arrangements for treatment. In the last debate, I outlined the facilities which hospitals are to provide. Briefly, the new role of the hospital service is the provision of out-patient clinics for people addicted to heroin and cocaine who are not, for the time being, willing to undertake withdrawal treatment. Out-patient clinics will be linked with in-patient services either at the same hospital or at

  529
  another hospital so that an addict who attends as an out-patient can be given withdrawal treatment as soon as he is ready to accept it.
  Last month, I sent a memorandum to hospital authorities setting out the facilities which are required for the treatment of people addicted to heroin and cocaine and asked them to introduce the new outpatient services on a small scale immediately and to be prepared to expand both out-patient and existing in-patient services at short notice to meet the increased demand which is expected to flow from this legislation. It is generally considered desirable to separate the treatment of heroin addicts from the treatment of other patients. Some addiction clinics may be held in existing out-patient departments but outside the usual hours and perhaps in the evening, while others may be provided in separate premises.
  As the House knows, and as the right hon. Member for Ashford confirmed, the main concentration of addiction is in the London area. I have asked the boards of governors of London teaching hospitals with psychiatric departments to take on the major share of the out-patient services and the regional hospital boards to be mainly responsible for in-patient services. I expect that a number of hospitals will provide services of both kinds. Detailed planning is now proceeding, and practical questions of additional staff and accommodation are being dealt with. It is essential that hospital facilities should be ready to cope with whatever demand may arise when the regulations come into effect. It is important that the load should be fairly spread among the London hospitals, and I am very pleased that this has been recognised and accepted by them.
  Out-patient facilities are available to a limited extent already in two London teaching hospitals. Plans for the expansion of one of them and for the introduction of out-patient facilities at four other London teaching hospitals are now well advanced. Subject to the necessary staff being recruited, I hope that they will be available very soon.
  I hope that hon. Members will not press me at this moment to give the names of hospitals, because it might mean that addicts would tend to concentrate on them and the load would not be spread
  530
  evenly. General practitioners in the areas concerned will, of course, be made aware of the services as they become available—
  Dr. Winstanley: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the availability of services and in which hospitals they will be available. Would he confirm that no consultant psychiatrist at any hospital who is at present treating drug addicts will have to stop as a result of this Measure?
  Mr. Robinson: I would not like to anticipate exactly what will happen administratively about the licensing procedures. I am dealing at the moment with the provision of treatment centres. The point which the hon. Gentleman has made could perhaps be made in Committee.
  There are four further teaching hospitals which will introduce a service, but these cannot start until the necessary accommodation is built. I have asked for plans to be drawn up urgently. In addition, there will be a contribution to out-patient facilities from the Metropolitan regional hospital boards. Out-patient facilities may thus be expected to be available generally in London before the legislation is put into operation.
  Hon. Members have expressed anxiety about how the costs will be met. For fairly obvious reasons, the cost of the additional facilities cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. But, as I said in the debate on 30th January, it is likely to be very small in relation to the cost of the hospital service as a whole. I repeat that all hospital boards are given additional money each year for developments. They are given new money each year, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. In general, I would expect them to be able to finance these treatment facilities in this way.
  Let me assure the House that in the coming year, the hospital service is getting something like £50 million more than it had last year. Some of that is for increased pay and prices, but there is a very large part in that sum of new money for new developments.
  Tn-patient services will be mainly at psychiatric hospitals, and I am sure that regional hospital boards will take that into account in allocating resources to hospital

  531
  management committees covering psychiatric hospitals where there will be in-patient treatment facilities.
  I appreciate that it may be more difficult for the teaching hospitals whose budgets are a good deal smaller than those of the regional hospital boards. It may be more difficult for them to absorb the cost of the new service, even though they, too, get development money. They are aware that I am prepared, should it prove necessary, to make sufficient money available to them out of the very small contingency fund which my Ministry holds back for matters of that kind. Therefore, I see no reason why the development of the new facilities should be impeded by financial considerations.
  New money has to be allocated every year on the basis of priorities, so therefore I have new money for this and other services. I am also pressed in the House to expand the facilities for intermittent dialysis for patients suffering from chronic renal failures, and this, also, costs money. Hospital authorities have to balance priorities within the amounts allocated to them. But I have no anxieties that these services will be restricted on any financial grounds.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Even if I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's argument about there being enough new money available, which I cannot with all sincerity say that I do, will he bear in mind that, from the point of view of watching the development of this service, in all the accounts of hospitals dealing with out-patient treatment it ought to be shown as a separate item so that some kind of check can be made by him as to how these developments are progressing?
  Mr. Robinson: If the right hon. Gentleman suggests merely a refinement of present accounting procedures, that can be considered. It would be of great interest to know what it costs.
  The point which I was developing is that we are making new money available and if I may for a moment make a political point, it is being made available in greater measure than was ever achieved by the party opposite when it was responsible for the National Health Service.
  General practitioners will be informed through executive councils of the hospital
  532
  treatment facilities which are available for these addicts so that they will know where to refer those whom they are at present treating and those who seek treatment. When general practitioners have been notified of such hospital facilities, I hope that they will start to refer addicts to them even before the legislation comes into operation. It will be in the interests of the patients if we can achieve a gradual transition of addicts to the hospital service rather than a sudden shift which would be more difficult to meet satisfactorily.
  As the House will realise, the hospital service and the statutory provisions of the Bill are complementary ways of seeking to eliminate the excessive prescribing of heroin and cocaine which has tended to spread adiction. I want to give an assurance of our intention to take necessary precautions against excessive prescribing in the hospital service. To take up the point which was made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, addicts will receive sympathetic treatment by professional staff who understand their needs. The precautions are designed for a single purpose, and that is to prevent addicts from obtaining more than they need.
  First, the Bill provides for the licensing by the Home Secretary of those doctors who will be authorised to prescribe or supply restricted drugs. The details of licensing are at present under consideration, but, in answer to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) the present view of my right hon. Friend and myself is that in selected National Health Service hospitals the doctors who should receive licences are consultant psychiatrists in charge of treatment of persons addicted to heroin and cocaine, and certain other medical staff under their supervision. Where treatment is provided in approved centres outside the National Health Service similar criteria should no doubt apply.
  Secondly, the form of treatment and the decision whether to supply an addict with drugs will rest with the licensed doctor. It is expected that, where possible, dosage will be determined by a short period of in-patient observation, but that will not be a condition of out-patient treatment.
  Mr. Worsley: On the subject of licensing, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that it will be done by a medical

  533
  authority or by the Home Office? I am not clear what he intended.
  Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for drug control and, if the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill, he will see that at all stages my right hon. Friend is acting on the advice of representatives of the medical profession. There are advisory committees and advisory panels, either wholly or predominantly medical, set up as part of the arrangements under the Bill.
  Thirdly, a scheme is being devised to prevent an addict from receiving supplies simultaneously from more than one hospital. The House will understand if I do not go into the details of the scheme which will enable hospitals both to check from a central index the identity of patients addicted to heroin and cocaine, and to be informed of any other hospital which might be providing treatment. Information about patients will, of course, be kept and used in confidence.
  Finally, when a licensed doctor decides that an addict requires heroin, and this should be by way of prescription, it is necessary to eliminate the risk that the addict may tamper with the prescription. The arrangements which we have in mind are that the prescription shall be sent from the hospital direct to the hospital pharmacy or to a named retail chemist, and should not be given to the addict himself. Also, to avoid placing more than the minimum supply of drugs in the hands of an addict, there should be provision for the doctor to specify the intervals, for example one a day, when a supply should be dispensed.
  I am confident that a satisfactory scheme will emerge from our discussions with the Pharmaceutical Society and chemists' representatives. This is, I think, part of the answer to one of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, who asked whether it does not mean that addicts will have to go every day to get one day's supply.
  Mr. Deedes: Would it be indiscreet to ask—I hope not—whether this will involve an identity card system?
  Mr. Robinson: No. Everyone has a National Health service number, and the number will figure in the arrangements, but perhaps we can discuss the details at a later stage.
  534
  I hope I have convinced the House that we attach great importance to preventing excessive prescribing, and that the hospital service will take suitable precautions to complement the measures in the Bill.
  The role of the hospital service is wider and more positive than this. We hope that when more addicts come to the new outpatient clinics, more will agree to accept withdrawal treatment, and that more will then be rehabilitated and restored to a normal life. Withdrawal treatment is, of course, only the first stage in the treatment, and obviously when patients leave hospital and return to their old environment there is a high risk of a relapse. This emphasises, as did many hon. Members, the need for effective rehabilitation, and this point was of course emphatically made by the Brain Committee. I share this view, and I am anxious to improve facilities for rehabilitation, but, as I told the House last time we debated this subject, there is no ready-made system of effective rehabilitation, and until one is evolved a high rate of relapse must be accepted as a feature of addiction.
  Meanwhile, perhaps I might try to outline our approach to the problem. A conference of psychiatrists has advised that from a given number of addicts very few will be willing to persevere through both withdrawal treatment and the subsequent period of rehabilitation. It would therefore be unreasonable to provide rehabilitation services initially for more than a small proportion of addicts.
  I recognise that if facilities for rehabilitation could be made more attractive to addicts, and more effective, demand for rehabilitation might increase, and this is my aim. I think it right, however, to warn the House that at present the scope for effective action by way of rehabilitation is limited by the reluctance or inability of many addicts to give up drugs.
  Mr. Braine: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is of great importance, and I think it underlines the suggestion made by the B.M.A. working party, which I repeated this afternoon, that outside the treatment centres there should be doctors in the community, specially licensed if necessary, to whom addicts can go, because from what the right hon. Gentleman said it seems that we are moving very slowly into the

  535
  provision of an adequate number of treatment centres covering the country as a whole. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that suggestion?
  Mr. Robinson: The Government have thought about all these possibilities, and have come to the conclusion, in conjunction with the profession, that it is better that the licences should be limited to those doctors who are functioning at treatment centres, and I am sure that these will not be so far apart that the great majority of addicts will not find them reasonably accessible.
  What do we know about the sort of facilities which should be provided for rehabilitation? The medical view of those with experience in the field is that the ingredients of rehabilitation are psychiatric supervision, social support, and regular employment, and that these should be provided in hostels run by local authorities, or by voluntary bodies, or jointly. It is clear that the rehabilitation of drug addicts is an area in which there is much need for experiment, that there is as yet no standard formula for general adoption, and that there is scope for valuable contributions by voluntary bodies.
  I would not wish to give the impression that there is at present no provision for rehabilitation apart from the statutory services. There is, for example, the well-known convent at Spelthorne St. Mary, and the wide experience of the Salvation Army includes the care of addicts. Recently, the National Association of Drug Addiction, the Midland Committee for the Prevention of Addiction, and the Hill Farm Enterprise, also at Birmingham, have taken steps towards providing services for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. The Government welcome the initiative of these and other bodies, and think that they can be most valuable when they are linked with the statutory services.
  The hon. Member for Chelsea thought that the Bill contained a cumbrous piece of machinery, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman expressed some sorrow that the disciplinary machinery could not be within the aegis of the General Medical Council. The hon. Gentleman said it was a pity that the Council had declined
  536
  to take this on, but it is a fact that the Council considered it was inappropriate for it to assume this responsibility, and it was therefore necessary to work out alternative disciplinary machinery, emphasising the provisional nature of these decisions all along the line. It appears a little cumbersome when described in the Bill, but basically it is fairly straightforward, and I think provides all reasonable safeguards for members of the profession.
  In this speech I have informed the House in some detail of the action which the Government have in mind, and in conclusion it is perhaps hardly necessary for me to remind the House that our aim is not only to check the spread of addiction, and if possible to reduce it, but to try to establish the causes of this very disturbing social phenomenon, which are at present largely unknown.
  We are embarking on research on a good many fronts in connection with this problem, and I think I told the House during the last debate that later this year we shall be setting up a special research unit at the Institute of Psychiatry in the Maudsley Hospital. The Bill forms an essential part of our measures to check addiction, and I ask hon. Members to 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).

  DANGEROUS DRUGS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the control of drug addiction, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Miss Bacon.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Malton Post Office (Saturday Hours)
  Malton Post Office (Saturday Hours)
  Ross-on-Wye Post Office (Lunch Hour Closure)
  Ross-on-Wye Post Office (Lunch Hour Closure)
  Telecommunication Equipment (Government Factories)
  Telecommunication Equipment (Government Factories)
  Strathpeffer Post Office (Mail)
  Strathpeffer Post Office (Mail)
  Sub-Post Office, Swinton
  Sub-Post Office, Swinton
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Rental Charge
  Rental Charge
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Sound Radio Stations
  Local Sound Radio Stations
  Colour Television (Sale of Sets)
  Colour Television (Sale of Sets)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  New Town Corporation (Chairman's Salary)
  New Town Corporation (Chairman's Salary)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Officers (Courtesy)
  Immigration Officers (Courtesy)
BOARD OF TRADE
  North-East Development Area (State Industries)
  North-East Development Area (State Industries)
  Exports (Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and E.E.C.)
  Exports (Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and E.E.C.)
  Marine Engines (Exports to Yugoslavia)
  Marine Engines (Exports to Yugoslavia)
  Advance Factories, Wales
  Advance Factories, Wales
SHIPPING
  Merchant Shipping Act, 1898 (Salvage Rules)
  Merchant Shipping Act, 1898 (Salvage Rules)
AVIATION
  Concord Aircraft (Flight Routes)
  Concord Aircraft (Flight Routes)
  COMPANY BOARDS (GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS)
  COMPANY BOARDS (GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS)
  "TORREY CANYON"
  "TORREY CANYON"
  OIL POLLUTION
  OIL POLLUTION
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMY IN ADMINISTRATION)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMY IN ADMINISTRATION)
  PUBLIC CONTRACTS
  PUBLIC CONTRACTS
  OIL TANKERS (FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE)
  OIL TANKERS (FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  MINISTERS (OVERSEAS TRAVEL)
  MINISTERS (OVERSEAS TRAVEL)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Trade Balances)
  Hong Kong (Trade Balances)
  Mauritius (Registration of Electors)
  Mauritius (Registration of Electors)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Corporal Punishment)
  Royal Navy (Corporal Punishment)
  British Hovercraft (Vietnam)
  British Hovercraft (Vietnam)
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Plastic Flowers (Export Rebate)
  Plastic Flowers (Export Rebate)
  Nationalised Industries (Exchequer Investment and Interest)
  Nationalised Industries (Exchequer Investment and Interest)
  Government Boards (Chairmen's Remuneration)
  Government Boards (Chairmen's Remuneration)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  School-Leavers, Wales
  School-Leavers, Wales
  Limb Fitters (Report)
  Limb Fitters (Report)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Prices and Incomes Act 1966 (Orders)
  Prices and Incomes Act 1966 (Orders)
  Lowest-Paid Workers
  Lowest-Paid Workers
COAL
  Prices (Scotland)
  Prices (Scotland)
  Production (Imported Energy Equivalent)
  Production (Imported Energy Equivalent)
  Increased Prices
  Increased Prices
GAS
  Sales Revenue (Domestic Consumers)
  Sales Revenue (Domestic Consumers)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
ELECTRICITY
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Construction Industry, Scotland (Output)
  Construction Industry, Scotland (Output)
  Brick Stocks
  Brick Stocks
SCOTLAND
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Electricity (Price Increases)
  Electricity (Price Increases)
TECHNOLOGY
  Concord Aircraft (Sonic Bangs)
  Concord Aircraft (Sonic Bangs)
  Departmental Staff (False Remuneration Claims)
  Departmental Staff (False Remuneration Claims)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Revenue)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Revenue)
WALES
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Cardiff By-Pass
  Cardiff By-Pass
  Occupational Guidance Service Unit, Cardiff
  Occupational Guidance Service Unit, Cardiff
  Coalmining Industry (Disabled Persons)
  Coalmining Industry (Disabled Persons)

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

THE F111K AIRCRAFT
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 whether they can now announce details of the agreed modification costs that have been made with the United States Government for the British order of the F111K aircraft.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): No, my Lords, but before placing the order for the balance of 40 F111K aircraft, we had available up-to-date cost information from the United States Government which made it clear that, excluding United States money inflation, our earlier view that the total unit cost of this aircraft, including the special British features, would be about £2,500,000 was still valid. Discussions on the final figure for the supplemental ceiling are, however, still in progress with a view to fixing it at the lowest possible level. I will give the House the figure when it is agreed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether any further major re-designs or modifications to the aircraft are still being planned by the manufacturers, General Dynamics, particularly with the air intake problem? Secondly, could he comment on the rumour that the cost of spares for this aircraft will have to be considerably increased by the manufacturers in order to recoup their soaring costs of research and development, and will come well above the normal ratio between the value of an aircraft and support costs? Lastly,
1072
could the noble Lord confirm that the modifications which will be agreed by the British Government will completely satisfy the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that I have noted all those questions. I am not aware of any major modifications, other than the ones which at the moment are going on with regard to the engine and the engine intake. On the question of the cost of spares, as I think the noble Earl is aware, we shall be paying the same price as the United States Air Force under the co-operative logistic system. There is no reason to suppose that there will be a great escalation in the cost of these spares as a result of the research and development costs to which he has referred. What the final price of spares will be I cannot say, beyond expressing the view which I expressed earlier, that the support costs are still likely to be lower than they would have been with the TSR.2. I am not sure whether I have answered all the noble Earl's points. If there is one which I missed, I am sorry.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I also asked whether the modifications completely satisfy the requirements of the Royal Air Force.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords. We are still satisfied, and we have had definite assurances that the aircraft will meet the R.A.F.'s minimum requirements.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the costs of the spares are in any way geared to the cost of the original aircraft? Is there any percentage basis? Otherwise, does it not seem that the Government may be charged a very high price indeed for the spares?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is obviously a relationship, but I do not think it is very easy to give a direct correlation. In the long term, costing estimates are made on the best information available as to the amount of the cost of the spares. But certainly there is no reason to anticipate any great increase. I imagine that the noble Earl is concerned particularly in relation to the cost of the engine. Although this may be a little higher than was originally estimated, it is not going to be a very significant figure in the spares support.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 whether the order for the supply of automatic test equipment for the F 111K Aircraft will be placed with British or American firms.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, this matter is still under consideration. It is hoped to reach a decision in the very near future.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he could comment on the strong rumour that the Ministry of Defence endeavoured to place this order with an American firm before consulting any British firm? Also, could he explain why British firms have been consulted so late in the day?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the rumour is unfounded to the extent that the Supply Department in this country is the Department which places orders for defence equipment. However, this is a highly sophisticated and highly specialised piece of equipment the research on which has already been carried out in the United States, and I think it was only natural that we should originally turn to the system available in the United States. But I assure the noble Earl that British firms have now been given a chance to tender.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an estimate of the value of this equipment when the order is placed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would rather not mention any figures.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that before this order was placed our deficit with America was serious, and that since the order was placed it is now chronic and will get worse? Will he see to it that every endeavour is made to get the work which British firms can do as a part of this order?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. Even if the American equipment is
1074
ordered, much of it will be sub-contracted in this country. What I have said is that what is now under consideration is the possibility of the British system, Elliott's, being ordered.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any estimate of what the total sterling content of each F111K will be?
LORD BESWICK: I am not quite sure what the noble Earl is talking about. I am discussing a piece of test equipment for the aircraft, and not the aircraft itself.
EARL JELLICOE: I should have thought it was perfectly clear what I was talking about. The Government have often given a figure in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. as the total British content of the Phantom. I was wondering whether there was any similar percentage figure which the noble Lord could give for the F111K.
LORD BESWICK: As I understand it, the question which the noble Earl is now putting is one which should have been asked on the first Question this afternoon. I could not bring myself to believe that the noble Earl was so late in the day.

THE NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION: MEMBERS' SALARIES
3.13 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the members of the National Steel Corporation are to be paid salaries of over £20,000 and, if so, why they are to be remunerated so much more highly than the members of the Boards of other nationalised industries.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Power announced in another place on March 15, the Government have decided that the annual salary range normally applicable to members of the National Steel Corporation should be as follows: deputy chairmen, £20,000 to £24,000;

1075
full-time members, £15,000 to £19,000; part-time members, £1,000. In view of the Government's incomes policy, the salary ranges for deputy chairmen and full-time members will be cut by 121½ per cent. for a period of two years from the date of establishment of the Corporation, giving reduced salary ranges of £17,500 to £21,000 and £13,125 to £16,625 respectively. The Government's decision takes account of special circumstances in the steel industry, including its existing salary structure; the fact that it is a manufacturing industry in which the National Steel Corporation will not have a monopoly, and the need to provide a ceiling high enough to enable salaries of lower levels of management to be equated with those of their opposite numbers in the private sector.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. May I ask him whether he really believes that, for sums of the order of £20,000 and upwards, he will buy a personnel which is significantly superior to that which can be bought for half that amount? And, if so, are we then to draw the inference that the members and chairmen of other nationalised industries are of second-rate quality?
LORD SHACKLETON: The answer to the first part of the noble Lady's supplementary question is: Yes, my Lords. We believe that the best way to obtain (I do not think I used the term "buy") the most able and competent people to run this industry is by paying these salaries, which are related to those applying in the industry at the moment. They are not as high, I may say, as are paid in certain sections of industry.
As regards the second part of the noble Lady's supplementary question, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power referred to this in another place on April 4, and said that it is not yet possible to say when it will be appropriate to carry out a review of the salaries of board members of other nationalised industries. The timing of that review, and the review itself, will have to take into account the needs of the industries, movements in other salaries and the Government's prices and incomes policy.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is my noble friend expressing
1076
the view that a Labour Government which has a traditionally socialist policy must at all times make its pattern of incomes conform to that of a capitalist society?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lady is not aware, apparently, that she is not living yet in a fully socialist society. This is an old dilemma for the social democrat, as she knows. If we want to get the best people to make a success of a nationalised industry in a mixed economy—and I hope that everybody believes in the importance of the success of this industry—we believe that it is necessary to pay something which is approximate to "the rate for the job."
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, do the Government intend to follow up their conversion by reducing taxation, so that these men can take home a little bit of their large salary?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the precedent for this kind of salary was set by the Conservative Party in the case of the railways at £24,000 a year? Although I think this sum is fabulous, could he say why, whereas in the case of a dustman or a lorry driver who receive £10 or £11 a week if he gets an increase it is inflationary, in this case it is not?
LORD SHACKLETON: There is, of course, no increase here, because many of the leaders and managers in the steel industry are at present receiving salaries of this kind. Since this is a new rate for a new job, I do not believe that it in any way conflicts with the prices and incomes policy. But, as was brought out by the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens (I apologise for not answering it: I though it was rhetorical), it may be some comfort that a great deal of what is earned will in fact return to the Exchequer.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that persons so appointed will be people who believe in public ownership and not such individuals as we heard referred to a little while ago—namely, the deputy chairman of the Organising Committee, or whoever he may have been, who expressed a complete doubt about public ownership?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I have no doubt that anybody who takes a job in the Steel Corporation will be determined to make a success of it. Perhaps I ought to point out to the noble Lord that it is not a question only of the salaries of the very top management—and to some extent these are partly status symbols, in view of the taxation rates: it is, in fact, the relativity of salaries throughout the whole organisation, including those at lower managerial levels.
LORD BYERS: While not disagreeing with the noble Lord about the necessity of paying high salaries to get high quality, may I ask whether this is one of the reasons why the Cabinet on the whole get less than £10,000 a year each?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say I feel very sensitive personally on this.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, my noble friend has reminded me that we are not living in a fully socialist society. May I assure him that he leaves me in no doubt on that score?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has just made a serious point in referring to lower managerial salaries? Is he aware that the lower managerial officials in other nationalised industries are very much of the same calibre as those in the steel industry and that unless the top salaries are raised theirs cannot be raised with them?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that most of the points I make are serious. This is certainly a matter which will be considered in relation to any reviews. 1 think the whole question of salary rates between different industries is a very complex one. Speaking as one who has been involved in salary-fixing, I think it is striking to note the very wide range of differences between different industries.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the Soviet Union the Soviet Government pay top executives even higher salaries?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether I am
1078
wrong in assuming that a Labour Government, for the foreseeable future, accepts a mixed economy, capitalist, private and public enterprise?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady. Certainly for the foreseeable future a Labour Government will continue, while we have a mixed economy, to believe in it. I am afraid I missed the point made by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, it was about the salaries of the top executives in the Soviet Union.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I remember that at one time the difference in pay between a Russian Marshal and a Russian private was eight times that between a British Field Marshal and a British private soldier.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, in view of what has been said in the past about leap-frogging in wage levels, may I ask whether the arguments that are now being used will be taken notice of by the Government in connection with other people's salaries?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must reply that this is not leap-frogging. My noble friend could not have listened to what I said. These are rates that have been prevailing; and in this industry the rates are higher than in others. I urge noble Lords on this side of the House who have doubts—and I can well understand the argument that these salaries are excessive; though, happily, they are modified by the taxation system—to remember that this is essential in order to get the best people to make a success of this publicly owned industry.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I make it clear to my noble friend that I was not arguing about what the salary was, but that what was said by some noble Lords this afternoon would indicate that other people ought to be put up to the same level—that would not be my view—in other nationalised industries.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I apologise. I did not realise how helpful by noble friend was being.

ROAD SAFETY BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Road Safety Bill, may I seek the guidance of the House on the matter of timing? I understand there is an important and interesting debate to follow this piece of legislation. May I suggest that we adjourn consideration of this Committee stage at about five o'clock and that we should make a special effort at least to attain Clause 2 before doing so?
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Driving or being in charge with blood-alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit
1.—(1) If a person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in his blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test for which he subsequently provides a specimen under section 3 of this Act, exceeds the prescribed limit at the time he provides the specimen, he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding£100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or both or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both;

(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, if a person is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place having consumed alcohol as aforesaid, he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or both.

(3) A person shall not be convicted under this section of being in charge of a motor vehicle if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit.
Lord LINDGREN Lord LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1)(a) to leave out "four" and insert "three". The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if the three Amendments in my name on the Marshalled List are taken together; they all relate to the same purpose. The purpose of the Amendments is to remove the present right of a person charged to elect to go for trial at quarter sessions and by jury. The reason for moving the Amendment is that in these days when we are seeking to raise productivity the present system is a waste of time and money. Noble Lords will be aware that where the person elects to go for trial at quarter sessions there has to be a preliminary hearing at the petty sessional court at which depositions and evidence of all the witnesses, including the doctor, are taken, and then the presiding magistrate has to decide whether or not there is a case to answer. If he or she so decides, then the case goes to quarter sessions. That involves a considerable amount of time spent in clerical work behind the scenes by the magistrates' clerk; it involves the time of the magistrates and of witnesses; and, of course, time is money in all these instances. The whole procedure has again to be gone through at quarter sessions at an even greater cost than at the lower court.
What happens more often than not is that a person so charged goes to a solicitor and seeks to be advised as to the line of action he should take. Almost invariably the solicitor advises him to go for trial by jury and to have counsel at quarter sessions, because he is far more likely to get off there than he is at the petty sessional court. The theory is that in a jury of 12 good men and true, at least ten are more likely than not to say: "There, but for the grace of God, go I. "To support that good advice which solicitors give to their clients are the figures of cases taken by counsel at quarter sessions given by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger during a Second Reading debate. She quoted figures of convictions relating to cases taken before the pettv sessional court by the magistrates and before the quarter sessions by a jury. The essence of my argument is whether or not we are going to modernise our general procedure and make it much more effective, whether we are to save time and money

1081
and still to make effective what is a big safety factor so far as road safety is concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("four") and insert ("three").—(Lord Lindgren.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My noble friend Lord Lindgren based his case on two main points: first, that his Amendments are in the interests of productivity, in that if the case goes to a higher court the whole process before the magistrates has to be repeated; and, secondly,—and I think he would rate this as the more important leg of his argument—if the accused go to a higher court they are far more likely to get off. My noble friend says that when someone is charged in this way he goes to a solicitor who advises him to employ counsel, on the assumption, as I understand my noble friend, that ten members of the jury will be motorists who are likely to say: "There, but for the Grace of God, go I "It would seem to me perhaps a little exaggerated. In the mind of my noble friend there are a lot more alcoholics on a jury than I think occurs in reality. But certainly the figures he mentioned, which were quoted on Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, are very impressive; namely, that the proportion acquitted by the magistrates' courts in 1965 was between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. and the proportion acquitted in the higher court was 43 per cent.
I think it reasonable to assume that many people go to the higher court because there is a greater doubt about their case and because they have more reason to go. In any case, I would point out to my noble friend that if his Amendment were accepted a case might still go to jury trial although the accused would have no right to it. The manner of the trial would depend on the provisions of Section 18 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, under which the magistrates' court can decide to try the case summarily on the application of the prosecution or, having commenced proceedings with a view to committal for trial, after considering representations by the prosecution or the defence. It will be agreed, I think, that the proposal to withdraw the right to
1082
trial by jury is a very serious one which cannot be undertaken lightly.
I would also mention that the penalties in the Bill are already laid down for the offence of driving while the ability to do so properly is impaired by alcohol; and it would seem paradoxical, to say the least, when the Government are trying to make the law more effective, to reduce the maximum sentence for the new offence which is no less serious. Ever since 1925 when the specific offence of being drunk in charge of a mechanicaly propelled vehicle was created, the accused has had a right to trial by jury. This new offence is no less serious than its predecessors. The evidence for the new offence which my noble friend did not mention is based on a laboratory report, and will be much less readily controvertible than that needed to prove the existing offence, and therefore there is much less likelihood of a need for the issue to be decided by a jury. There will still be room for dispute on matters of fact; for example, whether an accused was actually driving or was only in charge of the vehicle. Moreover, the statutory defence for a man prosecuted for the "in charge" offence is being changed under Clause 1(3) of the Bill, and those who avail themselves of this defence are likely to raise tricky points which may be much more appropriate for trial on indictment than for trial in a magistrates' court. It seems appropriate that the accused should continue to have the right to elect for trial by jury.
I submit that, under this Bill, if it is enacted as at present drafted, there is far less likelihood of acquittal by a jury in circumstances where there would be a conviction by magistrates. To secure a conviction it will, in general, be necessary only to prove to the jury that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the prescribed limit; whereas under the existing law the jury may acquit, however high the accused's blood alcohol concentration, if they think the evidence justifies this. I think my noble friend has failed to make out a case for the Amendment and that there is a great deal to be said against it. I hope that the Committee will not approve it.
3.35 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to put the other point of view to the Committee, and suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has made out his case.

1083
My only claim to address the Committee to-day is that for a considerable number of years I have been trying these cases, both at petty sessions and at quarter sessions. In that sense I am impartial as between one court and the other. I have a very strong view that this is the sort of offence which could properly be tried by petty sessions, except those cases under Section 18 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, which has already been mentioned, where they can and should be tried on indictment. The present facts are that in a great number of cases, where it is not really necessary to have trial by jury at all, the defendant elects trial for reasons already stated—especially in these days when legal aid is provided, and when so many people get legal aid that many defendants have little, if anything at all, to lose by claiming a trial by jury, except some little inconvenience and delay. In terms of cash they have almost nothing to lose.
I think Parliament ought to make up its mind whether these are, or are not, proper cases to be tried by a summary court. If Parliament says they are proper to be tried by petty sessions, the right to a trial by jury should be removed. If it is decided that these cases are, in general, not properly triable by petty sessions then all such cases should be tried on indictment. I do not think this mixture of the two is a good way to proceed. I should like to emphasise—and it is my main reason for intervening—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about the cost of these cases. Having heard a good many of them, I am bound to say that I have been appalled by the cost which falls upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer as a result of a whole string of these cases going to juries. Your Lordships will appreciate that at quarter sessions the cost of a case is very much greater than at petty sessions, for a variety of reasons with which I will not trouble the Committee.
I should also like to emphasise a word used by the noble Lord, that doctors have so much of their time "wasted"—I use that word deliberately—on these cases. Having given evidence in the lower court they are summoned again, perhaps having to travel a great distance, to the quarter sessions. There, after waiting many hours for the case to be heard, or to be called
1084
as a witness, they have to go through it all again. Surely a doctor's time is valuable, and to-day there is such a great waste of it. It has been mentioned that four months is not a very long term of imprisonment. Nor is it, but in these cases sentences of imprisonment are seldom imposed. The number of times when a first offender, having been convicted on a charge of this kind is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, is practically nil. Indeed, a hardened offender would seldom be sent to prison; he would be fined heavily and disqualified for a considerable period. The point is of importance only when deciding whether an accused person should have the election of a trial by jury. If he is an old offender with several previous convictions, as we have already been told, he can be tried by a jury by indictment without having an election to do so. For these reasons—and I would emphasise the importance of the economic aspects—I am firmly of opinion that this Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I listened with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, had to say, but I am convinced that on this occasion, if this matter is pressed to a Division, I shall find myself in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I suppose it is quite natural that those who sit as magistrates—and I never have done—should think that if they are competent to try one case, they are competent to try all cases where the charge is of that offence. Indeed, Lord Merthyr's real argument was that if magistrates are competent to try any particular charge in a magistrates' court, it is quite wrong that the accused should in any event have the right of election.
I do not think we ought to look at this from the point of view of magistrates. Benches vary a great deal. Some are good, and some not so good. Nor do I think that we ought to be governed by considerations of cost in determining whether or not an accused person should have the right to elect trial by jury. This is a very valuable right for an accused person. I do not accept the view that, because magistrates may convict more frequently than quarter sessions, it follows that those who are acquitted at quarter sessions are wrongfully acquitted.

1085
Where there is no dispute about the case, a man does not elect to go for trial. Where a man has confidence in the Bench before which he comes, he is less likely to elect to go for trial. But I, for one, should not like to see this valuable right taken away by the device proposed, that of reducing the maximum sentence of imprisonment which, under the Bill, magistrates can impose on a summary trial for this offence.
I think it is an important safeguard for the proper administration of justice that an accused person can elect to go for trial for certain categories of offence. I have no doubt that if this Amendment were accepted, we should get a whole series of amendments to the law trying to achieve that the right to elect to go for trial should be abolished in all cases where, if that right was not exercised, the magistrates could deal with the cases themselves. It may be very tiresome for a bench to be told by an accused person that he would prefer to be tried by a jury, but that is part of our system of justice, and it should not be nibbled away. I hope that the Government will stand firm on this.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Like my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I have been the chairman of a bench of magistrates for many years. One thing that I can say about benches of magistrates is that they constitute a very competent court, and I have rarely come away from a sitting of my court without feeling that justice has been thoroughly done to all the people who had come before us. I am conscious of the fact that frequently a defendant chooses to go for trial by jury because he knows that the members of the jury will be fellow motorists and will probably take a more sypathetic view of his case than would the justices. But in these days most justices are motorists also, so I do not think that too much weight can be attached to that argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said that an enormous amount of money was involved when cases were remitted to quarter sessions. That is so, but I should not like to see the day when justice will be meted out on the basis of the amount of money that can be spent. Any amount of money is worth spending if a person arraigned on a charge is to get justice.
1086
I feel that those who wish to be tried by jury should be able to avail themselves of that opportunity.
It is recognised that under this clause cases will not be so serious as those with which we have been dealing in our courts in the past, and that many of them will be adjudged on mathematics, on whether the count is over 80 or not. Nevertheless, there will be borderline cases where it will be possible to argue, and if a man wants to argue his case before a jury we arc striking at a fundamental right of British justice if we say to him that there is no jury before which he can go. It must be borne in mind that under this clause a defendant can be sent to prison. That is a serious matter. And if he is not sent to prison and fined on conviction, then he is exposed to a social stigma which will remain with him in the midst of his community for the rest of his life. If a man does not wish to go for trial, I am sure that he will get as good a standard of justice from the local bench as from quarter sessions. But if we want to nibble at this right of the British citizen to be tried by his peers, then let it be done by a special Jury Bill and not by this backstairs method. I am opposed to my noble friend's Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
I regret that I do not feel able to support my noble friend Lord Lindgren and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on this Amendment. I feel that the right to elect trial by jury is of vital importance in a few disputed cases, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, have pointed out. I should have thought that the objections which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, are likely to become much less potent in future, if certain changes in procedure which are contemplated are introduced. They will simplify the process of commitment and also reduce the waste of time by introducing the automatic test by blood level. Persons who know that they have exceeded the level would be unlikely to enter pleas of not guilty, except where there was some doubt as to whether they were driving or other circumstances of that kind. Once this Bill becomes law, if the procedural changes contemplated come about I do not think that the attendance of the doctor would be required in the first court, and I doubt

1087
whether his attendance would be necessary in the second court. His evidence could probably be given by certificate.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I feel some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in his impatience with the many motorists in the past who have escaped conviction when they went to quarter sessions. We discussed this on Second Reading, and I quote again from the extract of the Metropolitan Police District quarter sessions that about one-third of the people who had more than 200 mgs, of alcohol in the blood were found not guilty. But this is the situation that exists now, and it is to be changed completely by this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has just told us. Once the offence is defined as 80 mgs, of alcohol in the blood, the difficulty of securing a conviction disappears because, so long as the evidence is solid on that, the court will be satisfied and will convict.
I should have thought that the noble Lord's anxiety here is a little out of date, if I may say so. I feel that the Bill will really meet the case and, as other noble Lords have said, in most cases accused persons will accept their being dealt with in the magistrates' court because there is no point in going any further if it is already established that the blood alcohol is over the prescribed level. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I must say that I am not altogether convinced. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested that benches vary. But lawyers vary, too. Judging by the way I have seen some of them abuse doctors in court when they were trying to get their clients off, on the basis that they could have hit their heads on the side of the car or something like that, I still believe that they will argue on the analysis of the alcohol content of blood.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Surely the noble Lord would agree that if Judges vary, the safeguard is the jury?
LORD LINDGREN: I did not say anything about Judges—I was talking about lawyers.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The point that has been made throughout is that it is not lawyers who decide a case, but the jury.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord is much more innocent than I had thought. The lawyer goes before the jury and plays on the jury. My contention is that, so far as a petty sessional court is concerned, where you have a bench of magistrates dealing with cases of this sort and general cases, week in and week out, and sometimes day in and day out, they are not quite so easily swayed by the oratorical powers of the defending solicitor or barrister. When it comes to abuse, I may say that sometimes lawyers do get abusive; and this may be why they are so effective in politics, because the poorer their case the more abusive they get. But in view of the desire of my noble friend to get on to a later debate, I will accede to the request and, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.51 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "material". The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will have noticed a number of Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and myself in an attempt to tidy up the wording of the Bill. I suggest that this Amendment may be a useful start. I submit that not only is a word superfluous here, but that the use of the word "material" in such sense is, so far as I can discover, without precedent legally, and if it is retained it should be defined in the Bill. I have been through as many legal dictionaries as I could find in your Lordships' House, and perhaps the best definition that I have found is the rather pompous one: that "material" means "of substantial import". I think your Lordships will agree that that meaning makes no sense here. In its meaning "of substantial import" one can have material alterations, material circumstances, material facts, material concealment of facts, material discomfort, material change, material error and so on. It is a word much used in the law of contract. But I have found no reference to "material time", and I very much doubt whether there can be such a thing.
If your Lordships look at page 30, line 25, of the Bill, you will see the phrase

1089
"material particular" used four times, and used in its correct meaning—though whether it ever means very much is arguable. I would bring it to the notice of your Lordships that as far back as 1877, in a case of breach of promise to marry, where the Act required
"material evidence in support of the promise of marriage",
Lord Justice Bramwell observed:
"I rather fancy it has somewhere been said that the word 'material' makes no difference in the meaning of the section."
That was even when it was used correctly. If there was any need to have a phrase here, then surely it should read, "at the relevant time", or something of that sort. But "material" has no precedent and no clear meaning. I suggest that at best it is superfluous and at worst it may well be confusing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("material").—(Lard Raglan.)
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said. I cannot think that the word "material" in this context adds anything whatever to the meaning of the subsection, and, therefore, I think it is better left out.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Raglan, and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, not only for the thought that they have given to this Amendment but for the many Amendments standing in their names to the first two clauses, which is evidence of the most unremitting and careful examination of the Bill and which on some occasions a little later on—although not on this occasion—will be found to have produced a useful result. Whether it is possible to agree with my noble friend on any of his Amendments or not, I hope that I shall at least be able to satisfy him and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as we come to each Amendment.
My noble friend said that the word "material" is unnecessary. It is just as well to read the subsection to which it refers. It says:
"A person shall not be convicted under this section of being in charge of a motor vehicle if he proves that at the material time circumstances were such that there was no
1090
likelihood of his driving it so long as there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit."
My noble friend said that he had searched and been unable to find any comparable use of the word "material" in past legislation. He obviously overlooked the fact that the drafting of this provision follows exactly that of Section 6(2)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. Both in this Bill and in the 1960 Act it relates to the defence of a person accused of being in charge of a motor vehicle after having consumed an undue amount of alcohol. So we have had this word "material" used in precisely this context for precisely the same offence for the last seven years, and apparently it has not caused difficulty to any court.
I submit, first of all, that since subsection (3) of Clause 1, which we now have under consideration, is parallel to the provisions of the second limb of Section 6(2) of the 1960 Act, it is desirable that the wording of the two provisions should be, so far as possible, identical. To introduce a difference in the wording of the two provisions might cause uncertainty as to the construction of both.
There is another answer to my noble friend, and it is that the word "material" does serve a useful purpose here. I submit that its effect is to limit the burden of proof on an accused person to proving what were the relevant circumstances at the time stated in the charge. If we accepted the Amendment moved by my noble friend, the burden of proof on an accused person would extend to the whole period when he was in charge of the motor vehicle. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: At first, when I heard the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I thought there was nothing in it, but now, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I am not at all sure that there is not a great deal more in it. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says that "the material time" means the time named in the charge. But, surely, the charge will not name the time, but the day, of the alleged offence. What bothers me are the subsequent words. It is quite true that you have the expression

1091
"at the material time" in a number of other Statutes. But here, as I read it (and the noble Lord read the subsection), the accused has to be
"in charge of a motor vehicle"
but has a defence if he proves that "at the material time"—and that means, I suppose, the time when the accusation is made, to start off with—
"the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit."
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what is the time within which such a probability can continue? It may be a matter of hours that there is still a probability of alcohol in one's blood exceeding a prescribed limit. May it, indeed, be a matter of 12 hours, or perhaps even the next day? Because if it does extend, or can extend, to that length of time does not all that time then become a "material" time? I hope I have made myself clear to the noble Lord, because I think the words:
"so long as there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit."
make the classifying of the words "material time" somewhat difficult. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, when he comes to reply again, could indicate the sort of length of time that might conceivably be covered by the words I have just read out.
I have heard it said that someone can go to bed after a good dinner, get up the next morning and drive to his office after breakfast, and still be found to have alcohol in excess of the prescribed content in his blood. I should very much like to know whether that is a feasibility. Supposing that just before he goes to bed, after dining at home, he takes his car from opposite his front door in the street to put it in his garage, and is stopped on the way. What is the "material time" then? Is it the time he is actually stopped by the police, or do the words cover the whole period up to the next morning when, to establish his defence, he would have to say, "I am going to bed now and by the time I wake up there will be no probability of the alcohol in my blood exceeding the prescribed limit"? I think we need to explore this matter a little
1092
More in relation to the words "material time".
LORD MERTHYR: Surely the "material time" is the time at which the defendant was driving, or was attempting to drive.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the wording of the subsection does not use the word "driving"? It refers to the person "in charge".
LORD MERTHYR: I think the noble and learned Viscount is quite right. I was thinking of the driving section. I think that an adjective is required here, but I strongly suspect that the word "relevant" might be better than the word "material", in spite of the fact that the word "material" has been used hitherto. I wonder whether we could consider at a later stage inserting the word "relevant" instead of "material".
LORD CONESFORD: I should have thought that "material" clearly meant "relevant" in this particular case and has done so in the previous Statutes. The words "material time" are so familiar to the law that it would be a pity to omit the word "material" here. I have more sympathy with some of the subsequent Amendments, which I had thought might be taken together with this. But I cannot see that the word "material" in this particular sense will do any harm to anybody. It will be for the court to consider what was the material time, and, although I have no doubt that it will be held to be the relevant time, I cannot see why we should alter a phrase that is so familiar to the law.
4.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I, too, am of opinion that "material" in this sense is the equivalent of "relevant", and I cannot see that the substitution of the word "relevant" here would make the situation any more clear. Indeed, my noble friend, in moving the Amendment, urged that the word itself was redundant and that we did not need it: not that we needed another word, but that we did not need the word "material". Of course, we have in subsection (4) given a definition of the "relevant time".
The point the noble and learned Viscount asked me was about the charge.

1093
The charge will, in fact, specify the time as well as the day. We have to visualise the circumstances. A person is stopped because a constable has reason to believe that he has alcohol in his body. He is then subjected to a breath test, and if the test is sufficient to justify the constable's suspicion he is asked to go to the station and is given opportunities to undergo laboratory tests. Of course there will he no question of a charge until they are assured by the tests that the constable's suspicions are confirmed.
The noble and learned Viscount will also have noticed in the Bill that there is power to keep a person suspected of having committed this offence at a station until such time as a breath test shows that the alcohol content in his blood is below the prescribed level. Therefore his friend who goes home and has a meal and then goes out will be in no danger at all, because he will not be allowed to go home until it is safe for him to go.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I really cannot accept that, because that is assuming that everyone is kept in custody until another breath test has been applied. I am dealing here with the statutory defence which this subsection gives to an accused person. It provides the defence that he shall not he convicted, although in charge of a motor vehicle, if the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as
"there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit."
That is the time period which I should like to have elucidated. How long could it be? If it is a long time, or indeed a short time, it would seem to be certainly in some respects a "material" time. I think we ought to have more elucidation as to how long that period is contemplated to be and might conceivably be. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it has no reference at all to the case where a man has been charged in a police station and detained in custody until he has been released on satisfying a breath test. This is about the ingredients of the defence. Surely, too, when a man is charged on indictment with this offence, the indictment will specify the date of the alleged commission of the offence but not the precise hour.
LORD STONHAM: I cannot visualise the circumstances in which the noble and learned Viscount envisages a charge where a person is able to show that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle. We are in this clause talking about a person being in charge of a motor vehicle, and the clause does not bite unless the constable has reason to believe that the person in charge has taken more than the prescribed amount of alcohol or has it in his blood. That cannot be ascertained until there has been a breath test, and if the breath test shows that the alcohol content is below the limit the point does not arise. If the test when he goes to the station shows it to he above, then under the terms of the Bill as it now stands he will not be released until the alcohol content in his blood is below the prescribed amount.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, because he has now convinced me that a man would be entitled to be acquitted of this offence if taken to a police station and kept in custody until he had passed the breathalyser test, because in those circumstances, he having been taken in charge by the police, there was no likelihood of his driving so long as there was any probability of his having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount—I cannot think he is doing this through ignorance of the Bill—has left out all the other aspects. The accused person, if the breath test shows a level of alcohol above the limit, is invited to agree that a blood sample should be taken. Alternatively, he is invited to give a sample of urine. He is invited to give it and is then left for an hour, after which he is again invited to give a sample of urine. Finally, as a third limb—and by now he has been at the station for some time—he is again invited to give a sample of blood. In those circumstances a period of more than an hour will have elapsed before all the options have expired. The noble and learned Viscount will be aware of the possible serious consequences of refusals, and it is only at that point, after all these refusals, that the question of when the person should be allowed to leave the police station arises. Then, again, he

1095
would not be allowed to leave until the police were satisfied that the blood content was below the prescribed limit.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I will not pursue this matter, except to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the light which he has thrown upon it. We are dealing here with a statutory defence and this particular subsection has nothing at all to do with any kind of test. However, the noble Lord has made it quite clear—and I am sure we are grateful—that the words "at the material time" refer to the time when the person was found in charge of the vehicle. If, having been found in charge of the vehicle, he is then taken by the police and kept in police custody until, in the police view, he is fit to drive, then it seems to me that he is bound to succeed on a defence under this subsection.
LORD RAGLAN: I am most grateful for the support of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and for the care taken by my noble friend Lord Stonham in replying. He said that this provision is already in the 1960 Act, but I do not think that makes it any better. My complaint is, as the argument between the noble Viscount and my noble friend has shown, that it could be made to mean almost anything one likes, and in fact nobody knows just what it means. I shall not press the Amendment to a Division, but I hope that in the light of the observations that have been made the Government will have a look at it again.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "the circumstances were such that". The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 1 contains the expression "the circumstances were such that". I have a pet list of expressions which, whenever I come across any of them, always cause me to ask myself: "Does this mean anything at all?". This phrase, "the circumstances were such that" is on the short list. It seems that in this context it means nothing at all. I believe that if your Lordships will read this subsection through twice, once including the expression "the circumstances were such that", and then a second time but omitting those words, your Lordships
1096
will arrive at exactly the same meaning on both occasions. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("the circumstances were such that").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: Here again, although it is a fact that does not impress my noble friend Lord Raglan, the wording we use in this subsection is exactly the same as the wording used in subsection (2)(i) of Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which provides a similar defence for a person who is accused of being in charge of a motor vehicle while impaired by drink or drugs.
I think it is a point of substance that if one has had a form of words in another Act which has worked for a period of seven years, and it is still extremely relevant to the legislation under discussion, there would have to be a strong case for using a different form of words now. Another point is that the offence under Section 6 of the 1960 Act and under Clause 1 of this Bill overlap to a large extent, and as the defence for the person in charge of a motor vehicle set out in Section 6(2) is parallel to some extent to that set out in this Clause, we think it is important that the wording should be identical; and to introduce a different form of words might well cause uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned in particular the word "circumstances". That word has been considered by the courts in the case of Morton v. Confer in 1963. That case shows that a court must look at all the circumstances and not merely at the intentions of the defendant. Therefore we feel it would be undesirable to effect a change of policy, not merely a deletion of what the noble Lord regarded as being unnecessary and redundant words. If they were deleted it would be a change of policy, because then the court could consider only the intentions of the defendant, and I did not understand that that was what the noble Lord had in mind. In view of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will agree that the words, however ugly they may seem to him, are necessary.
LORD ROYLE: With deep respect to my noble friend Lord Stonham, may I

1097
say that one does get a little impatient with this argument that because something is in another Act, however bad it may be, it must be continued into Acts for ever and a day.
LORD STONHAM: Is my noble friend saying that the Act which he has been administering in a court for seven years is bad?
LORD ROYLE: I agree that indeed there are many of them. For my sins, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and we are continually coming up against the problem of the language which is used in Acts of Parliament, which is clear to no-one, not even to noble Lords such as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The lawyers get a great living out of the crazy words which are used and the definitions which are included in Acts of Parliament. Surely the time has come now, and it may well be that this Amendment is the beginning, when we can start to simplify our Acts of Parliament and not have any superfluous words in them. I want to see the time when Acts of Parliament can be read by the man in the street and to some extent understood by him, and I get impatient at the view that something which is bad in another Act must be continued in a current Bill.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Royle that it is no argument for keeping the words to say that they have been there for a long time, or even for such a short time as seven years; but I think these words have a certain philosophical import. If they are taken out, a man has to prove in his defence that there was no likelihood of his driving. How does he prove that? In two ways: he can prove (a) that he is not that kind of chap; or (b) that he was in a situation or circumstances where it would be very unlikely that he could perform that act. These words seem to me to restrict the defence to some extent, inasmuch as they require that it should be shown that there is something in the situation which is likely to prevent a man from driving—such, for instance, as the fact that he has given his ignition key to someone else. If the words were taken out, it could then be argued on the character of the man, which I think would be unfortunate.
LORD ELTON: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that his Amendment is English and the Bill as it stands is jargon, but I suggest that in that way we raise a fundamental issue. I am all for substituting the English language for jargon, and I should like to do so in many places besides the language of Bills. I should like to see it in Government Statements and in editorials. But if we start on an attempt to turn Bills into English we shall have a pretty big job on hand. We have spent three-quarters of an hour, we have had some charming lectures, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I am myself an ex-Don, and I have found myself almost back in my old haunts. But I wonder whether, if we take this on, we are not going to find that every Bill we discuss takes us about four times the usual allotment, and whether we ought not to grin and bear the jargon, because at any rate the lawyers know what it means and perhaps that ought to be good enough for us.
LORD CONESFORD: There have been occasions when I have attempted to make verbal points which I thought were necessary in the interests of clear and precise English, and I should not hesitate to do it again. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Royle, but I think he was wrong in supposing that these words here had no effect of substance of which he would approve. I think the matter was stated correctly, as it so often is, by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and a decided case was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his first reply. If we were to leave out these words altogether what sort of defence could be raised? A man might simply conic and say that there was no probability, and, if he were believed, that would be sufficient proof. The words indicate that it is necessary to point to some external circumstances or facts as evidence, and therefore this is not mere jargon. It does, in my respectful submission, affect the meaning of what we are now discussing.
Therefore, though I think I am quite as enthusiastic as my old friend Lord Elton for the use of decent and precise English, I do not regard this particular case as an example where superfluous or unnecessary words have been used. I believe they are desirable to prevent the

1099
sort of construction to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, and to give effect to this subsection. They may not be particularly elegant, but they are, I think, clear and they follow previous Statutes. For those reasons I support what the noble Baroness. Lady Wootton of Abinger has said, and support the Minister in his contention that the words here are correct.
LORD AIREDALE: As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, we are proceeding rather slowly, and I think that on an Amendment of this rather limited scope I should be justified in pressing it only if the whole Committee were unanimously with me against the Government. As it is not, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "so long as there was any probability of his" and insert "whilst". The noble Lord said: We now proceed to the next line of the Bill, line 12 on page 2, and your Lordships will observe that the first word of this line is "likelihood" and the last word of the line is "probability". I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government attach a different meaning to those two words. If the two separate words remain in the Bill, lawyers will undoubtedly seek to attach different meanings to them, because lawyers will say: "If Parliament had intended the same meaning by these two words they would not have used two different words but would have used the same word" If, therefore, the same meaning is intended, I suggest that we get rid of the word "probability" at the end of line 12. That phrase, "so long as there was any probability of his", is a rather cumbersome expression and might well be replaced by the single word "whilst". That would tidy it up and substitute one word for a cumbersome phrase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("so long as there was any probability of his") and insert ("whilst").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: With the two previous Amendments I have pleaded in aid, first of all, that we have used the same words as were used in the 1960
1100
Act, and I have been so much impressed by what my noble friend Lord Royle said about that, that this time we have used different words. I very much regret, therefore, that, despite our reforming zeal, the wording used still has not met with the full approval of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
We have departed intentionally from the wording of the 1960 Act. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 provided that a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired. We have made this intentional change, because Section 6 of the earlier Act assumes that the length of time during which the ability of the person in charge would be impaired could be ascertained by a court. But there appears to have been no case dealing with this point, and it is reasonable to assume that it has not given any trouble.
If we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment, the duration of the time—and this is the point of substance—during which the person in charge of a motor vehicle had a blood-alcohol level above the prescribed limit might well become material to the issue of the case. The duration of the time could not be ascertained accurately, and there are two reasons for this. The first is that the rate of elimination of alcohol from the blood varies between different individuals, and indeed in the same individual at different times and in different circumstances, though the range of difference is not so great as the range of variation in the absorption of alcohol. The second reason is that the rate of elimination cannot be estimated until after the blood-alcohol concentration has reached its peak, in 15 to 90 minutes. The time of the peak will not be known. For these reasons, therefore, in this Bill we refer to the probability of a person "having alcohol in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit".
The difference in wording in this respect between this Bill and Section 6(2)(i) of the 1960 Act reflects the difference between a scientifically ascertained quantity of alcohol in the blood by a laboratory test and a subjective assessment of a person's ability to drive properly as a result of consuming alcohol. The proportion of alcohol under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, can be ascertained only by

1101
means of a scientific test. There would be no such test on which a defendant could rely to prove his defence if the change in subsection (3) which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks were adopted. I hope I have made that clear. This time it is a point of substance, not just a matter of words. The different words are deliberate, and I hope your Lordships will agree that they meet the point.
LORD AIREDALE: Nobody could accuse the Minister of not taking the greatest trouble to answer these Amendments. I am afraid that I still feel that this, subsection is rather untidily worded, hut I will not press the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if not to-day at any rate subsequently, could help me a little on subsection (5)? It seems to me, as I have understood the debate, that we are to have two offences, the original one under Section 6 of the 1960 Act and the new offence under Clause 1 of this Bill. I entirely appreciate that the defence set out in subsection (3), about which we have just been talking, is in effect the same as the defence set out in subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1960 Act, except that hitherto there has been paragraph (ii) in the 1960 Act which this subsection in this Bill now seeks to remove.
In the first place, it does not seem to me that this is the right place to bring the two defences into line. Schedule 1 to this Bill amends Section 6(2) of the 1960 Act specifically, and if we want to bring the two defences into line, surely that is the place to do it. Secondly, if we are going to refer to the second limb of the defence in Section 6(2) of the principal Act, one thing is clear: that section does not make it an offence to be in charge of a motor vehicle, which appears to he the reading of the description of the part of the defence that we are dealing with here.
I hope that I make myself clear to the noble Lord. It seems to me that, as is so often the case in legislation, the words in brackets are attempting to set
1102
out in shorthand the effect of the words which are being dealt with. I do not think they do anything of the kind. If we want to deal with this, would it not be much better to deal with it in the Schedule, get it out of the way there, and not to have, as it seems to me, a rather misleading point to meet in this clause of the Bill. Other noble Lords may want to make a speech on the Question that the clause stand part, but I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to that matter.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this matter. I confess that I have read this subsection at least twelve times, leaving out the words in brackets and putting them in. I have also studied the point about the second limb of the defence. I had not considered and, so far as I am aware, have not had any suggestion about, putting the section in Schedule 1. Certainly I will look at that, and at the same time will look at the other points that the noble Viscount has made. I am hound to confess that as a layman I think that there is some difficulty about the words in brackets. We will see whether we can clarify them.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows, I have given him notice that I wish to raise a debate on the Question that the clause stand part. Clause 1 is the principal clause of this Part of the Bill in defining the new offence of driving with more than the prescribed limit of alcohol in the blood. But due to the timetable that I know the noble Lord hopes we may be able to keep to-day, I do not intend to raise the debate now, but would wish to raise it on Clause 7, when we come to the definition of what is the prescribed limit. I trust that your Lordships will feel that this is a most important point, which it may be of general interest to your Lordships to debate, and that we should debate it sometime in the Committee stage.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Breath tests
2.—(l) A constable in uniform may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there or nearby, if the constable has reasonable cause—

1103

(a) to suspect him of having alcohol in his body; or

(b) to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.

4.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: Line 29 uses the expression "there or nearby." I think the adverb "there" poses the question, where? If you search in this subsection for "where", I do not think you find the answer. I think the answer is, "at or near the place where the requirement is made." These, I think, are not elegant words, but I have taken them from the next succeeding subsection; so that, whoever objects to them, I hope it will not be Her Majesty's Government. I think this would improve this subsection, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("there or nearby") and insert ("at or near the place where the requirement is made").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD RAGLAN: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Airedale in this Amendment. I think it is a useful Amendment, and it makes the meaning clearer.
LORD STONHAM: I am a fervent supporter of both noble Lords in their efforts to shorten the Bill by removing unnecessary words or changing the words for the purpose of greater clarification. But these two Amendments—I understand that we are considering Amendment No. 9 as well as Amendment No. 7—do not achieve that objective. The first Amendment lengthens the Bill by six words without, in my view, improving it in clarity. With regard to the other Amendment—
LORD AIREDALE: Could not we deal with Amendment No. 9 when we come to it, because I think it is quite a separate matter.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord wishes, we shall deal with Amendment No. 9 separately. I had understood the noble Lord to make reference to Amendment No. 9 when he said:
"at or near the place where the requirement is made."
I thought he read that out, and that is what made me think he was dealing
1104
with it. In my view, leaving out the words, "there or nearby" and inserting:
"at or near the place where the requirement is made"
does not add any clarification at all. It certainly does not make it any more clear to me. Perhaps we could insert the words that are proposed to be inserted and then see how it reads. It would read:
"A constable in uniform may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test at or near the place where the requirement is made if the constable has reasonable cause—
(a) to suspect him of having alcohol in his body…"
and so on. It seems to me that the words we have at present, "for a breath test there" mean at the spot where the constable confronts the person who is either driving or attempting to drive the vehicle. It is at that spot. Alternatively, if it is an inconvenient spot—there may be a great deal of traffic going by—and he wants the man to take a breath test, then he would do it as near as possible to that place—in other words, "nearby". For the life of me, I cannot see why it is not perfectly clear to say, "there or nearby", and why
"at or near the place where the requirement is made"
is any more clear. As it would mean adding more words, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to stick to the words we have.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If you put "there or nearby" after "provide", I think it would be a great improvement.
LORD STONHAM: In other words, the noble Viscount is suggesting moving the position of the words "there or nearby". I will have a look at that suggestion.
LORD AIREDALE: I think we are in entire and absolute agreement about what sense we intend to convey. There is much substance in what the noble Viscount has just said. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now, and perhaps we could all think about this before the next stage and possibly return to it then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: I find myself in some difficulty. We are to have an important debate on a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, which I indicated to him and to your Lordships' House we should try to start at about five o'clock this afternoon. The next Amendment is one to which my noble friends attach considerable importance, and I am quite sure that there will be need for a debate upon it, which clearly we could not complete within 20 minutes. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is not yet present in his place; therefore, one is in slight difficulties. I gather that if I keep talking for a few minutes it may be possible for the noble Lord to be here. I see that I am now able to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

OIL POLLUTION OF THE SEA
4.41 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the pollution of our coasts by oil and to the International Convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, oil pollution of our beaches is one of the most devastating calamities that can occur to our island shores. It has been building up for many years, ever since tankers have been transporting crude oil to the various refineries around our coasts. The whole matter has, of course, been highlighted by the stranding of the "Torrey Canyon" on the Seven Stones Reef near the Scilly Isles, perhaps one of the best marked navigational areas in the British Isles. I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the immediate and energetic steps which they have taken to disperse the oil, with not only the invaluable aid of the Royal Navy but also with the help of an armada of small ships—almost a Dunkirk effort. I am sure that we in this House would like to send to them our thanks and best wishes for the great work which they have done.
I am certainly not one of those who consider that steps should have been taken to destroy the "Torrey Canyon"
1106
before the last hope of salvage had disappeared. Unfortunately, a great deal is being said and written about this whole affair by many people who have little knowledge of the sea and maritime law. I must say that I was rather astonished to read the leader of a well-known and respected newspaper advocating illegal action and the destruction of the ship and its cargo by fire without waiting to see whether salvage could be effected. Apart from contemplating such an illegal act, perhaps the leader-writer had forgotten that some £4 million of the insurance was placed on the British market. Such action could have done nothing but harm to the possible strengthening of international co-operation in this matter.
It is a pity that the Prime Minister found it necessary to mar the good work he has done by referring to "flags of convenience", something which has nothing whatever to do with the matter and is used almost entirely for taxation purposes. Incidentally, British shipowners are prevented under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 from registering their ships outside the Commonwealth. British owners cannot fly flags of convenience; it just cannot be done. The Prime Minister suggested that by using flags of convenience it was possible to economise in the cost of oil imports or perhaps increase oil profits. On the contrary, the Liberian fleet is modern and built to a high standard, and the observance of international safety standards has been delegated by Liberia to Lloyd's Register. In fact, the "Torrey Canyon" was classed 100 Al with Lloyds. Flags of convenience ships are almost entirely manned by crews from traditional maritime countries, and I would say that there is no general evidence at all of any undermanning, either in numbers of crews or in their quality. In fact the master of the "Torrey Canyon" was regarded by the charterers as being highly experienced. Furthermore, the rate for the voyage was the market rate, and therefore there is no question of this being a cut-rate charter as has been suggested in some quarters.
Before dealing with the wider aspects of oil pollution I should like to refer for a few minutes to the organisation being set up in the Solent and Isle of Wight area to combat the menace of the oil which may arrive in this area from the

1107
"Torrey Canyon". I understand that a Junior Minister has set up an organisation in Portsmouth Harbour, but this has not yet been made known fully to the public locally. I suggest that it is urgently necessary that technical information should be made available to all harbour authorities and all concerned as to the best method to deal effectively with the menace in the Solent and Isle of Wight areas. In cases where booms are not being provided by the Navy—and I know that they are providing some—the smaller harbours and estuaries will also have to be protected, but it is not yet known what form the protection will take and where the materials should be obtained. Furthermore, what it is very important to know is the best means to be employed to remove and dispose of the oil when it has been collected together by the booms.
I suggest that it is very important that this information should be imparted to all concerned, including the general public. The Solent Protection Society, of which I am a member, is doing a great deal to assist in this matter, and I feel sure that the Minister will be able to count on the help of a large number of volunteers once the need is known and the magnitude of the problem put squarely before them.
I am sure that it would be a great mistake for holiday-makers to cancel their bookings. In the past, oil pollution of our beaches has been cleared before the season commences, in many areas daily, by shovelling it up, bulldozing it and carrying it away in lorries. No doubt this can be done again in addition to the other steps which are now being taken.
I should like now to deal in a more general way with the question of oil pollution. From time to time reports are received that large quantities of oil have been deposited on certain beaches. Holiday-makers have their clothes ruined and the beaches become intolerable for bathing and recreation. Many of your Lordships have no doubt seen the heart rending pictures of dead and dying seabirds, with their plumage saturated with oil. Last, but not least, the boating and yachting fraternity, which number many thousands from all classes, have the hulls of their boats covered with slimy black
1108
oil and there is ruination of their paint-work.
Perhaps it would not be out of place to draw your Lordships' attention to the various sources from which oil pollution comes. Briefly, it comes from tankers washing out their oil tanks and from oil-burning ships washing out their bunkers, and also from engine room bilges. There is also accidental spillage from oil refineries and other installations, but what is more serious is the release of oil from slowly disintegrating wrecks, and last, but not least, through collisions which occur from time to time. By far the largest cause of oil pollution is from oil tankers washing out their tanks with sea-water at sea. This must be prohibited at all costs.
The financial implications for local authorities are also very great. I under stand that only recently Chichester Rural District Council was faced with a bill of £10,000 to clear some 11 miles of beach of oil pollution. This is a very heavy, unexpected expenditure for any local authority, and I should like to make one or two suggestions about finance a little later.
The control of oil pollution is, of course, an international problem. I believe that the first steps to deal with the oil menace from shipping was taken at the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. I think I am right in saying that the discharge of oil was prohibited within 50 miles of the coast line in an area extending from the coast of North-West Europe into the mid-Atlantic, and this was agreed upon by 30 nations. Then, in 1962, the limit was extended to 100 miles, and the Convention also imposed a world-wide prohibition on the discharge of oil from ships of 20,000 MSS tons and over built after this amendment came into force. Governments which accepted this prohibition had to undertake to provide facilities to receive waste oil at loading terminals and at repair ports. I believe that up to date only 17 nations have accepted this amendment, and I think that is very disappointing. I hope that the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government can tell us what steps are being taken to bring other nations into line and what is the position at the present time.
There are, of course, many other organisations concerned with oil pollution. There is the Inter-Governmental Marine Consultative Organisation, known shortly as I.M.C.O., which I believe set up a sub-committee in 1964 to examine the matter on a technical basis. Also the great oil companies have not been backward in trying to find a technical solution. I believe it is Shell who have been experimenting with the "load on top" system, as it is called, which separates the waste oil from the washing out water when the oil tanks of a tanker are cleaned. The Board of Trade have also been active in trying to bring home to all concerned their responsibilities concerning oil discharge at sea. Many other bodies are working on various aspects of the problem. I might also mention the Institute of Petroleum, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Solent Protection Society.
I believe that about 80 per cent. of the world's crude oil is transported by ships owned or time-chartered by the great oil companies, which can of course to some extent be controlled, and I think that they are willing to co-operate. On the other hand, it must be remembered that there are some 600 independent tanker owners—not tankers, but tanker owners—whose co-operation is essential before oil dumping can be effectively controlled. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will now make a determined effort to get agreement among the many nations, and give a lead in this direction. Year by year the oil pollution menace is increasing, and I suggest that we must make every effort to get co-operation from all concerned.
I should like to refer again for a few minutes to the financial question. It does not seem right to me that local authorities should have to bear the whole burden of repairing the damage to their beaches, and I suggest that it should become a national responsibility. I have seen in the Press that Her Majesty's Government have indicated that they propose to grant up to 75 per cent. of the costs incurred by the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", and perhaps Her Majesty's Government would like to enlarge a little on that point to-night.
I suggest that there are several things which might be done in the future. Would it not he possible to have a number of
1110
specially-fitted decontamination vessels, which could be available at short notice? It might go a long way to reduce the cost of beach clearance if the oil could be dispersed before it reached the beaches. I suggest, also in the long term, that a disaster fund might be established by Her Majesty's Government which could deal with matters not only concerning oil pollution in a big way, but also cover other disasters such as Aberfan. I believe that France has established a new Marine Research and Training Centre to prepare captains and pilots for the handling and navigation of the very large tankers, and it may well be that we should do the same.
In passing, it is interesting to note that the maximum permissible draught in the Straits of Dover is between 75 and 80 ft., which would rule out its use by the very large tankers now under construction. A 300,000 ton tanker, of which I believe there are six now building, when fully loaded would have a draught of approximately 75 ft., but of course the danger to our Atlantic coastline would still exist. I know that the international situation for the control of oil pollution is far from satisfactory and difficult to handle, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give a lead in this direction and make a determined effort to bring about a world-wide solution. I beg to move for Papers.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very grateful, and I am sure that the House is also grateful, to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for the clear, forthright and non-partisan way—which I hope we shall follow throughout the debate—in which he raised this highly important subject. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I do my best to give a general picture with regard to oil pollution and its control and international Conventions, and make comparatively few comments at this stage on the "Torrey Canyon". However, I shall make some reference to it, and perhaps at a later stage I shall be able to deal with particular points which any of your Lordships wish to raise.
Any debate on the subject of pollution of our coasts by oil would be a worthwhile exercise at any time, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who like myself has been actively interested in this subject and in the efforts made to preserve the

1111
environment from inadvertent destruction, is bound to welcome this debate. Of course, it is very relevant because it is now taking place in the light of the very nearly disastrous experience—indeed, it was a disaster although it might have been an even greater one—as a result of the grounding of the "Torrey Canyon" on the Seven Stones rocks on March 18.
I should like to set the scene, because I think we are interested in this whole proposition, and this is a matter of great importance to this country, since for its size the United Kingdom has a very lengthy coastline. Indeed, one of our greatest national assets is our coastline where so many millions of our fellow countrymen go for relaxation and recreation. There are great natural beauties, and everybody, of course, has a great patriotism about his particular part of the country. These amenities, again, are greatly enhanced by the wild life which has suffered so grievously, particularly the birds, in this recent disaster.
At the same time, we must bear in mind that we live in a highly industrialised and highly mechanised society, and this situation requires an ever-increasing flow of oil and its many by-products. We have been fortunate in having vast quantities of coal, although the coal itself has also contributed to the pollution of our countryside, and it has certainly contributed greatly to our national eminence in the industrial field. But so far, notwithstanding the findings of gas in the North Sea, very little of the oil we use in this country is derived from indigenous sources, and the huge quantities of oil that we need have to be brought from the producing countries across the sea. As the noble Lord pointed out, this transportation involves at present certain processes by which, in some circumstances, an amount of oil may be discharged into the sea. Also, of course, collisions and other accidents and the many wrecks around our coast have contributed and poured large quantities of oil into the sea.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the problem of pollution arises mainly (and I think the noble Lord made this point) from what are known as the persistent oils. These are chiefly crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubrica
1112
ting oil, which do not disperse or evaporate of their own accord, although in time, of course, they are usually dispersed by the action of bacteria, by microbiological action. It is worth remembering that until a year or two ago, until the development (and I shall have something more to say on this) of the "load on top" basis, tankers were themselves putting a figure of about one and a half million tons of oil a year into the sea. I speak from recollection, but I think that was the figure. But, of course, this is not necessarily of persistent damage.
I have already mentioned the microbiological action, and your Lordships may be interested to know that ultimately the oil is disposed of. It is degraded by a series of oxidative microbial processes. In fact, the presence of micro-organisms in oil is often responsible for breakdown and subsequent lubrication failure, and in all cases the oil is finally oxidised to carbon dioxide and water. Your Lordships may be interested to know of some recent experiments. When tested on a laboratory scale, the rate of oxidation of oil on the surface of water by a mixed population of micro-organisms can be as high as the equivalent of 2·5 tons per square mile of surface. Of course, higher rates can be obtained with selected strains of micro-organisms, but we are in no position yet to treat the sea in this way. But I do not doubt that, with the advance in microbiology which is likely to be of such profound significance in other directions, this may be a device.
My Lords, if such a rate did obtain on the sea in theory the oil from the "Torrey Canyon" would be degraded in about nine to ten days, assuming that it was spread from the Seven Stones to Start Point and half-way across the Channel, and that the oil had a certain thickness. But this is a theoretical calculation: the rate is probably much lower. It is probable that the oil will become completely degraded in a period of two to three months. This may be a source of some comfort to your Lordships, when one realises the vast quantities of oil that are still going into the sea. Of course, it in no way minimises the nature of this partcular disaster, but oil has this advantage over certain other chemicals, which can be very much more persistent.

1113
The noble Lord gave us an interesting and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate account of developments in international co-operation and British initiative. The first United Kingdom Statute directed towards reducing oil pollution was enacted, as he said, shortly after the First World War, as long ago as 1922; and the first International Conference was in Washington in 1926. In the 1920s, British shipowners observed a prohibited zone of 50 miles around coasts, and their example was followed by shipowners in several other countries.
Following the Second World War, and the great and increasing pollution from oil, it was realised that, notwithstanding what I have said about its degradation, oil can travel very long distances, under the influence of wind and currents, in a short period; that control over discharges from ships on the high seas was therefore also necessary; and that this was most likely to be achieved by international agreement. In 1954, Her Majesty's Government convened an International Conference in London, and this recognised that the complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oils had to be achieved as soon as practicable. It was not possible at that time to fix a date by which it could be achieved, but a major step forward was taken in the signing of an International Convention.
In 1962, a further International Conference was convened by the Inter Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—IMco—and this Conference adopted some very important Amendments to strengthen the 1954 Convention. These Amendments come into force on May 18 next for all the member countries. And I may say here that 34 countries have now adopted the 1954 Convention, which has been in force for tankers since 1958, and all of these countries will be bound by the 1962 Amendments. They include nearly all the important maritime countries; and I am sure your Lordships will be glad to know, if you are not already aware of it, that one major maritime country which had not previously indicated its agreement—Japan —has now announced its intention to accept the Convention, which will mean introducing the necessary legislation. At this point, your Lordships may be interested if I say that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, played a personal part in
1114
encouraging the Japanese to accept the Convention.
I have already told your Lordships that the British Government initiated the 1954 Conference, and I think it is right to stress that over the years, and particularly in recent times, the United Kingdom Government and British shipowners have played a very prominent part in the deliberations of the International Conferences, as well as in the discussions at IMCO. In this work the Government have had the support of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution, of which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is Chairman, and I am glad to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to the fine work of this Committee and of Lord Jellicoe. I am only slightly embarrassed that I preceded him as Chairman of the Committee: we merely changed seats when the Government changed. In addition, in 1954 the Minister of Transport set up a Standing Committee to advise him on measures for the prevention of oil pollution, and this Committee includes representatives of shipowners, oil companies, dock and harbour authorities and others, who give the Committee's work their strong support.
I want to stress this point about voluntary support, because I believe that the Advisory Committee of which the noble Earl is now Chairman, of which I had the honour to be Chairman and for the setting up of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible, shows clearly the opportunity that exists for the individual voluntary body in mobilising world opinion —and this is very much a matter in which world opinion needs to be aroused so that Governments may be aware of the problem. I remember, in the efforts we were making at the time the legislation giving effect to the 1962 Convention was passing through this House, the help given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the Foreign Office, in pressing countries to accede to the Convention.
My Lords, the main work of IMCO (whose secretariat is in London) on the prevention of pollution is the responsibility of the Maritime Safety Committee and its Oil Pollution Sub-committe. It may be of interest if again I refer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to some of the provisions for reducing pollution and the extent to which these provisions are being observed. I should therefore

1115
like to describe briefly the processes that take place in oil tankers. The cargo tanks of oil tankers have to be cleaned and freed from oily residues after the cargoes have been discharged, and noble Lords with a nautical background will be very familiar with the Butterworth process. This is, of course, a lengthy process; and generally the clearing of these oily residues has to be carried out before the ship arrives at its loading port or before it enters port for repair or survey.
Moreover, when not carrying cargo, tankers need to ballast some of their cargo tanks with sea water to ensure stability. When this ballast is discharged, oil remaining in the tanks is also discharged, unless precautions are taken. For many years, tankers have adopted the practice of retaining tank washings, oily residues and oil contaminated ballast water discharged overboard. The residue of settling, separation of oil and water can take place and most of the oil-free water discharged overboard. The residue in this slop tank must be retained on board—and this is where the point about reception for these residues made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has revelance—and either pumped ashore at oil loading ports or tanker repair ports, or retained on board and a fresh crude oil cargo, if compatible, loaded on top of the residue. This latter process has become known as the load-on-top system, and I am glad to pay tribute to the initiative and energy with which most of the major oil carriers have adopted it.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in his seat. He will remember our talks with certain of the oil companies at an earlier time and, in particular, with Mr. Kirby of Shell International Tankers, who took such a great personal interest. Generally, credit is due to the oil companies for their responsible approach, at least in recent years. This has led to a very substantial contribution to the reduction in the amount of oil discharged into the sea as compared with the earlier situation in which the residues were liable to be jettisoned into the sea.
A separate, but equally important, aspect of the problem is that in many oil-burning dry cargo ships the bunker tanks from which fuel has been used have to be ballasted with sea water in
1116
order to maintain stability. This ballast water, which becomes appreciably contaminated by oil, must usually be retained until arrival within sheltered waters or even within port areas to maintain the stability of the ship. For the moment we must face the fact that oil may also find its way into the sea by leakage or accidental spillage from ships; or as a result of a collision.
But to combat pollution of the sea, the Convention provides, among many other things, for the prohibition of the discharge of persistent oils in areas of the seas known as "prohibited zones." These have been greatly extended. It is interesting for those who remember the original Faulkner Report to note how closely the Atlantic zone, which takes into account the Gulf Stream, matches the original suggestions of the Faulkner Committee back in 1952 or 1954. The Convention urges member Governments to implement its provisions in order that complete avoidance of deliberate pollution may be observed from the earliest practicable date; it encourages research into the improvement of ship-borne equipment for reducing pollution—this eternal search for satisfactory separators—and into the development of effective measures to deal with pollution when it occurs.
All Governments who are members of the Convention have agreed to give legal effect to its provisions and have undertaken to prosecute the owners or masters of vessels registered in their respective territories if there is sufficient evidence of an offence. Contracting Governments have agreed that the penalties imposed for discharges that occur outside their territorial waters shall be adequate in severity and not less than those imposed for discharges in their territorial waters. The provisions of the 1954 Convention were given legal effect for British ships by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955 and by Orders made under it. In addition the 1955 Act prohibits the discharge of oils of any type—that is, whether persistent or non-persistent—from British and foreign vessels into United Kingdom territorial waters. The 1962 Amendments will be given legal effect for British ships by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1963, whereby harbour authorities, conservancy boards and sea fisheries committees have power under the 1955 Act to prosecute offenders within their areas (mainly in

1117
territorial waters) and it is the Board of Trade's policy that they should enforce the Act within these areas.
These authorities act energetically and have undertaken most of the prosecutions under the Act. Of the 46 prosecutions undertaken in 1965 all but one were successful, and fines aggregating £4,750 were imposed. The maximum penalty for an oil pollution offence is £1,000 on summary conviction. On indictment there is no statutory limit. The court may award the whole or part of the fine to be paid for the defraying of expenses incurred in removing pollution. Two such awards were made in 1965, totalling £447. I realise, of course, that this sum is infinitesimal in comparison with the cost of the remedial measures after the "Torrey Canyon" incident—which incident, I might mention, it appears so far on estimate will cost this country something like £2 million.
Outside territorial waters the task of enforcement is more difficult, since ships may escape observation when far from land or if the offence occurs at night or in conditions of poor visibility. There is evidence that in the past some masters have deliberately evaded their responsibility. To assist in this task, the Board of Trade have standing arrangements with the Ministry of Defence, civil airlines and a number of maritime organisations whereby captains of aircraft and masters of vessels will report to H.M. Coastguard ships seen discharging oil and oil seen to be floating in coastal waters and take photographs. The Coastguard plot the likely drift of the oil patch and inform local authorities if and when it is likely to come ashore. These arrangements have recently been extended through the co-operation of the Chamber of Shipping and a number of fisheries organisations, who have agreed to ask masters and skippers to report ships believed to be discharging oil. Where possible, R.A.F. Coastal Command will divert an aircraft specifically to photograph the vessel in such cases. On the arrival of the suspected vessel in a United Kingdom port an investigation is made by a Board of Trade surveyor who has powers of inspection. There are routine inspections all the time to determine whether ships' equipment meet the requirement of the Convention. There were over 2,000 inspections in 1965. On the evidence of
1118
these inspections a decision would be made whether to prosecute, if it is a British vessel or a foreign vessel within territorial waters. Foreign vessels, when the offence occurs outside territorial waters, are reported to their Governments in accordance with Article X of the Convention.
It is recognised that much still remains to be done in the battle against pollution, and member Governments of the Convention will continue in their efforts, stimulated by public opinion, towards the ultimate aim of complete avoidance of the discharge. An important step towards this end, and one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is that all new ships of 20,000 tons gross or more to which the Convention applies and for which the building contract is placed on or after May 18, 1967, shall be prohibited from discharging persistent oil anywhere at sea. In addition, the size of prohibited zones for existing ships will be considerably extended. For example, discharges will be an offence anywhere in the North Sea and in all but two small areas of the Mediterranean. Work is proceeding as rapidly as possible in at least six countries on the development of a more effective oily water separator for dry cargo ships and, it is to be hoped, of a large capacity separator suitable for use on tankers.
I should like to say a few words at this stage about the "Torrey Canyon" incident and its aftermath. Very full statements have been made and many questions have been answered by the Prime Minister in another place and in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will have seen the White Paper (Cmnd. 3246) which was published on the same day, and which describes in considerable detail (and not in the skeletal detail to which The Times referred) the action taken by the Government, local authorities and many others who were directly concerned with this disaster. Having regard to these very full statements, I do not think that there is much more that I can usefully say at this stage, although I should be very willing to answer any points. But I think I must answer some of the criticisms which have appeared in certain newspapers this week on the judgments that were exercised by Ministers and others, and the decisions that were taken about the "Torrey Canyon".

1119
There was criticism of the decision to refloat the tanker, and of the absence of any positive information about the expert advice taken by Ministers in reaching their decisions. I can only say—again I am referring to The Times leader; the Daily Mail also had a leader which was rather longer than their extract from the White Paper—that in the opinion of the expert advisers of the Navy Department, and a representative of British Petroleum Limited, after a careful inspection on board the tanker, there was a reasonable prospect that, with the use of compressed air and other buoyancy aids, coupled with the very high spring tides of the weekend of March 25/26, the ship could be refloated and towed away, either to be sunk in very deep water or for the oil to be transferred to other tankers.
The reasons why other courses could not be followed were fully explained in the White Paper, and I have no doubt that these considerations were paramount, difficult as the judgment and the responsibilities were. There was criticism also of the time lapse between the breakup of the ship on the evening of March 26 and the first bombing. My Lords, the answer to this criticism is that after the break-up of the ship it might still have been possible to tow away some part of it, with a considerable amount of oil. Anyway, time was required for further consideration to be given to this possibility, and also, of course, it was necessary to warn shipping and to remove the Seven Stones Lightship.
The third criticism was why no preparations were made to lay charges on board the vessel and set fire to the oil, if this was finally found necessary. This criticism was repeated, despite what was said in another place, where it was pointed out conclusively that it would have been a most dangerous and hazardous operation; and we know how dangerous the state of the "Torrey Canyon" was at that time when gas was present and there was the risk that even a spark might cause a major explosion. Already one life had been lost.
Before turning to the future I will see whether there are any other points made in the speech of the noble Lord to which I should refer. Perhaps I might refer to one. I am a little surprised at his reference to local authorities being un-
1120
aware of the setting up of the Portsmouth operations centre. I know of his connection with the Solent Protection Society, similar to that of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, and the invaluable work that this body does. My right honourable friend Mr. Willey arrived in Southampton to set up the centre during the evening of March 28, and the following morning he met chief officers of the Dorset, Hants and Isle of Wight County Councils and Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth County Borough Councils. On Thursday he went to Poole for a conference with the local authority. I do not understand the noble Lord's point but if he wishes I would be glad to inquire further.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I was referring not so much to the local authorities but to all the auxiliary associations, like the Solent Protection Society, who were quite willing to help, but who knew nothing about the organisation and what could be done.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, up to a point it is also a responsibility of the local authorities to inform the Press. It may well be that the tremendous focus on Cornwall made it seem less urgent, but certainly the point is an important one, and I should be very surprised if the Solent Protection Society were not consulted or given an opportunity to express a view. The noble Lord made a number of other interesting points which I will not comment on now. I noticed what he said about flags of convenience, and I think something more will be said on this in the course of the debate. But at this stage, while the Inquiry is going on, I would rather not comment further myself.
My Lords, let us take a brief look at the future. It is the urgent concern of the Government to examine the international as well as the national problems which have been brought to light by the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. This embraces a very wide complex of questions involving research, maritime law and maritime practice, and our aim must be to strengthen, wherever it is necessary and practicable, international arrangements designed to prevent accidents of this nature, and to deal with the consequences if they should occur. Her Majesty's Government have therefore

1121
taken the initiative in convening an early meeting of the Council of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to consider such questions. The Council of I.M.C.O. will meet on May 4 and 5—it could hardly meet sooner, since thirty days' notice is necessary to summon it—and it may well be that in due course other international bodies will consider some of the problems.
Other Governments have responded very rapidly to our desire for such a meeting of I.M.C.O., and in so doing they have shown that they share our concern at the problems I have described. This is very welcome indeed, since on questions of international shipping we are of course dependent on the agreement of other countries in drawing up effective arrangements. We are also considering urgently what action we can take both, as I say, in relation to this country and the seaward approaches within our own control, and what we can do without waiting for international agreement. A whole range of subjects is urgently under study by the Government at the moment.
I am sure that the House would wish to be associated with the expressions of admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for those who have coped so splendidly—the Royal Navy and the voluntary organisations, the Army and the Royal Air Force, and especially the volunteer naturalists. These expressions were voiced earlier in another place. Many people have been interested, and great interest has been shown by other countries. It is almost impossible to list those to whom praise is due, which just shows what an emergency does in the way of stimulating morale, local patriotism, and willingness to help.
These efforts, and the efforts of the Government (and I am sure that the local authorities feel the same) will continue until the pollution has been completely cleared, and all these people will therefore continue to earn our gratitude. My Lords, many tributes have been paid. We have undergone, and certain areas are continuing to undergo, a very distressing experience. The one consolation we can, and must, offer to those who have suffered is that the lessons learned from this experience will be used in an unremitting and strengthened fight against pollution. I am sure that the noble Lord,
1122
Lord Teynham, can feel that he has made his contribution in introducing this important subject.
5.30 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teynham for the way in which he introduced this debate, and for his good timing. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the full and objective account he has given of this considerable problem, and for his kind words about me personally. As the noble Lord said, I must avow an interest in this matter, for I succeeded him as Chairman of the British Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution at Sea. The noble Lord, with his Parliamentary colleague, Mr. Callaghan, have fathered a healthy baby. I hope that it is still lusty. I hope that it will be even lustier when I hand it back to him in a short time.
Following the precedent established in this debate, I shall have little to say about the incident of the "Torrey Canyon". I assume that the noble Lord's slip of pronunciation—"Tory Canyon" —was inadvertent. Almost as much printer's ink has been spilled about the ship's miscarriage as the poor ship herself spilled oil. I should like to take this opportunity of joining in the tributes to all those who have helped to deal with this unprecedented catastrophe—Services, volunteers, scientists and local authorities—and I am prepared to give the Government such credit as is due to them.
I have only two critical questions to put to the noble Lord at this stage—and I am speaking now not as Chairman of the Advisory Committee but as from these Benches. The first is this. We read in paragraph 6 of the White Paper that:
"neither legal nor financial considerations inhibited Government action at any stage"—
a robust and sensible statement; and when confronted with a national hazard like the grounding of the "Torrey Canyon", a robust and sensible attitude. But I find it rather hard to reconcile this statement with the words which the Under-Secretary for the Navy was widely reported as having used at Devonport on March 20. He said:
"All I can say at this juncture is that until the owners have declared the ship a total loss there can be no question of destroying it."

1123
Was Mr. Foley misquoted? If not, how can these two statements be reconciled?
Secondly, I hope that the noble Lord, despite what he said earlier (and here I am following my noble friend Lord Teynham), will be able to confirm that the fact that this vessel was sailing under a flag of convenience was not a contributory factor to the accident. It certainly does not lie with me, and it is not my wish, to defend flags of convenience; but I think that all of us, including the Prime Minister, must be scrupulous about our facts here. And one fact is that the record of the Liberian merchant navy, the largest in the world to-day, I regret to say, in this matter of third party claims—and I think that this is as good a yardstick of efficiency and operating standards of a merchant fleet as any other—is as good as, if not better than, the record of any other merchant fleet in the world to-day.
The "Torrey Canyon" accident was unprecedented. It is clearly right that the facts should be established to discover how she managed, in a calm sea and in fairly clear visibility, to impale herself on the Seven Sisters. It is clearly right that we should learn whether thereafter, in an area of admittedly great difficulty and delicate calculation, everything possible was done to mitigate the disaster. In my view, it is clearly right that a Select Committee of Parliament—I should hope of the two Houses of Parliament—should be set up, if this would serve, as I think it would, to shed a fuller light on all that happened. But I entirely agree with the two noble Lords who have preceded me. We can he more useful now not in raking over the reasons why this vessel went on the rocks, but in suggesting how in future this sort of accident can best be prevented or, if it occurs, mitigated.
My other reason for not dwelling on this incident is that I think it would be wrong to allow ourselves to be mesmerised by it. As both noble Lords have explained, much progress was made in the 50s and 60s in tackling this worldwide problem of oil pollution. Yet the sad fact remains, as the most recent Report of the Advisory Committee records, that:
"It is most disturbing that oil pollution around the coasts of the British isles during 1966 has been the worst for many years."
1124
In 1966, my Lords, not 1967. There were at least three major incidents last year. There was the incident in May, when a Japanese tanker, the "Tokyo Maru", left a slick about eight miles long and half-a-mile wide behind her off the Scillies. There was the incident in the Medway in September, when a German tanker inadvertently discharged about 1,700 tons of oil and, as a result, some 5,000 sea birds were killed. There was also the serious incident at Milford Haven in February of this year when a Greek tanker, the "C.P. Goulandris" discharged a large quantity of oil. The causes for this are not far to seek. On the one hand, we have this increasing and necessary import of oil into these Islands, rising in compound by 10 per cent. per annum, and, on the other, we have the accident factor. With the increasing size of tankers, the mathematical chances of a collision decrease but the damage which results from an incident, if one occurs, is vastly increased.
I am glad for these reasons that the Government have asked for an early meeting of I.M.C.O. With that meeting in mind, I should like to proffer some suggestions—and they are tentative suggestions—about the results which Her Majesty's Government should be seeking in this field, either inside or outside I.M.C.O. I am certain that I shall carry the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with me in my first proposal: that the Government should redouble their efforts—and I would pay tribute to the efforts which they have made—to get all shipowning countries to join the club of non-polluters, to become parties to the 1954 Convention. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord said about the likely Japanese adherence to the Convention, and I have been delighted to see that Greece, another important maritime country, is on the way to adhering—a fact which the noble Lord did not mention. I am confident that he can confirm that Her Majesty's Government will now make a really determined effort to get all other ship-owning countries, not least the Russians, because they are good and helpful members of I.M.C.O., to ratify this useful, albeit imperfect, Convention.
I have just said that the Convention is imperfect. So it is. It lays down certain ocean zones where, save in gravest emergency, oil cannot be discharged. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord has pointed

1125
out, oil is a good sailor. It is no respector of zones. The other grave defect, which has already been mentioned, is that it is exceedingly difficult to enforce. It is difficult to catch out a ship, black-bilged, as it were, making a mess on the high seas. And it is not always easy to pin a particular mess on a particular ship.
I should like to suggest some ways in which the Government might go about tackling, in co-operation with other maritime countries, this really intractable problem. The total prohibition—absolutely total—of all discharges of oil at sea, save perhaps in certain very limited and sharply and clearly defined circumstances, must remain our aim. We should vigorously pursue research on the technical means that have been mentioned—really efficient separators, self-monitoring devices and so on—which should enable this aim to be achieved quickly.
Meanwhile the perfect may be the enemy of the good. Great advances have been made. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Teynham in paying tribute to the way in which some of our oil companies—Shell International in the lead—have pioneered the technique c4I1ed the "load-on-top" system. I understand that some three-quarters of the world's tankers now use this system and as a result each year 1 million tons or more of oil which would otherwise have been dumped in the oceans of the world are retained on board. Clearly this is an advance. Clearly there is a great deal to he said for getting the other 25 per cent. of the world's tankers to use a system which has such obvious advantages. I hope that this can be done.
Then there is the question of enforcement; and here I have one rather tentative suggestion to make. I would remind the noble Lord that the International Convention of 1960 for the Safety of Life at Sea (Regulation 19, Chapter 1) provides for a system of Certificate or laissez passer to be conferred on ships passing through the ports of member States. It might be possible, it seems to me, to get international agreement to a procedure whereby if a suspiciously clean tanker puts into someone else's port, and there is a prima facie case that she has been guilty of the offence of wilful pollution, then she could be detained and action
1126
taken against her. This would almost certainly entail a considerable re-writing of the 1954 Convention. I recognise that difficulty, but I hope that the Government will be able at least to look at the idea.
Of course your Lordships will say: "This is all very well. Perhaps with persistence and ingenuity we can stop the deliberate fouling of the seas by oil. But what can we do to ward off the sort of nightmare, which could only too easily become reality one day, of a collision in narrow waters, say in the English Channel, of two giant 200,000 ton tankers?" I understand that the Government are pressing for a tighter Code of Navigation at sea. They are right to do so. Three hundred thousand ships a year pass through the Dover Strait, and most of them within five miles of the white cliffs. At any one time there are likely to be some 40 ships in the Strait, 20 in each direction, and for each of those 20 ships there are 20 possibilities of collision. Clearly, therefore, we as a country stand to lose more, in terms of fouled seas and fouled beaches, fouled birds and fouled bikinis, than any other country in the world.
Clearly, therefore, it is right for us to take the lead—if we are taking the lead; and I hope that we are—in pressing for a better Code of Navigation. The present situation, as I see it, is farcical. We control and monitor aircraft movements. The world spends millions of pounds on monitoring every bit of ironmongery which is put into outer space. But we do virtually nothing to control and monitor the world's sea lanes—those sea lanes which are increasingly crowded by increasingly big and potentially dangerous ships. We do virtually nothing to stop the "Sky-lark" on a sightseeing excursion from Southsea putting at risk a giant tanker. What should be done? I should like to suggest, again rather tenatively, five specifics to the Government.
First, we should sponsor the introduction forthwith of the special sea traffic regulations for the Dover Strait recommended by the International Working Party and approved by IMCO. I gather that everything is ready here, subject to Britain and France introducing the necessary navigational aids. Can the noble Lord tell us when these aids will be ready, and when this new regime for the Strait will come into effect? It is probably the most dangerous shipping lane in the

1127
world to-day. Second, we should sponsor the introduction forthwith of separation areas for shipping in densely crowded sea lanes. I will name a few. They are almost a chronicle of our sea history, a sort of Hornblower list: the Sound, the Lizard, Bishop, Ushant, Finisterre, Cape Roca, Cape St. Vincent, the Strait of Gibraltar and so on. Third, we should consider whether special regulations are required for the special ship. For example, should not the tankers making for Milford Haven always be required to pass westward of the Scillies? Fourth, we should at least consider—I put it no higher than that—whether the navigation regimes for especially crowded areas should remain voluntary or not. Fifth, we should, in my view, wherever possible, proceed here by international agreement and after consultation with the interests concerned, which have a lot at stake here.
One other serious gap in maritime law at present is that if there is an accident outside territorial waters there is no established code, as I understand it, which permits a State to take emergency measures to deal with a foreign ship which may be endangering the State concerned unless and until the shipowner waives his rights to the wreck. It seems to me that this is a matter which must be put right. The shipowner's rights will obviously have to be safeguarded in one way or another. But I hope that we can secure an understanding in international law (and IMCO would seem to be the right forum for this) that in an emergency a national or international body (again, IMCO might be the right body) would be empowered to take emergency measures to avert the oil threat arising from a tanker accident on the high seas outside territorial waters.
This, of course, raises the whole question of third-party liability. In another place, two days ago, the Prime Minister very rightly said:
"One of the difficulties under present international insurance law is the very low ceiling put on third-party insurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 4/4/67; col. 50.]
He added that:
"this is one of the things we want to consider urgently for the future."
As I understand it, under the provisions of the 1957 Brussels Convention on the
1128
Limitation of Liability the third-party liability of the "Torrey Canyon" for oil pollution would be some £1½ million. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said that the Government would estimate that the total damage resulting from this accident is £2 million. The ceiling—and I think there must be a ceiling—seems much too low. I hope that it can be raised by international agreement, and that this is one of the courses of action which the Government will be actively pressing.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not give the total cost of the damage: I referred to the cost to public funds. I make no estimate of the cost of damage, some of which is not quantifiable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction. This, of course, reinforces the point which I was making, that the third-party liability should be raised in a case of this sort.
There is one further point, in the international field, that I should like to make. So far, what most speakers have said in this debate has related to that marvellously useful and messy commodity, oil. But there are other equally useful but much more lethal cargoes that are being carried across the oceans of the world to-day, and sometimes deposited in those oceans: nuclear wastes, chemicals in bulk, liquid gas. Many of your Lordships will recall a young lady called "Betsy", an American hussy, a hurricane, which did a vast amount of damage in September, 1965. Among other things, it sank a tanker barge in the Mississippi carrying a cargo of liquid chlorine. That cargo was not safely salvaged until two months later. If the tanks had been punctured, if the chlorine had been released, the 300,000 inhabitants of Baton Rouge would have been at deadly toxic risk. I personally believe that the time has come to extend and tighten the International Convention on Oil Pollution. I also believe that the time has come to see whether we need a convention covering the carriage and discharge of other and perhaps more dangerous cargoes. So much, my Lords, for the international plane.

1129
I will deal very briefly with the national action. I believe, and my Committee believe, that our national emergency arrangements certainly require review in the light of this disaster. There is also a clear need—and I need not labour the point here, because I think it is recognised by the Government—for much more research in this field, not least on the effects of detergents on sea life, and whether other agents would do the job equally well with less damage to the marine environment. As my noble friend Lord Teynham said, we should be looking to our booms and also to the possibility of decontamination vessels, and a whole host of other expedients should be examined.
Again, there are the interests of those affected. What compensation arrangements are proposed, or what reimbursements are proposed, in the future if there is an emergency like this? We know (and I am not questioning them at this stage) the provisions made—and they seem reasonably generous—by the Government for this immediate emergency. But what is our thinking about the future? We need to look also at the national legislation. I wonder whether it is in all respects stringent enough. As the noble Lord said, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955 provides for a maximum fine of only £1,000, and I think that the average level of fines last year amounted to only a little over £100. This, of course, in itself is not a very terrible deterrent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is no limit on the fine on indictment. But I note the point.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I recognise that. Above all, I believe that what we really need to do is to digest, and to digest very carefully indeed, our experience of this disaster, or near disaster. As a country, I suppose we now have more experience in this field than any other country in the world. The Prime Minister said in another place that we intend to ensure that that experience is made available to all other countries where the hazard may occur. Fine! But can the noble Lord confirm that the fruits of this hard and bitter experience are also being made available to us in Parliament? I am thinking of the detailed technical reports which we understand, for example, the Chief Scientific
1130
Adviser to the Government has now called for and which are now being prepared. I hope very much that these technical assessments will be made available to Parliament, and made available at an early date.
I should like to say just this in conclusion. I was re-reading over the weekend the Report of the First International Conference organised by the Committee which Mr. Callaghan founded and which I have inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is the Report of the First London Conference in October, 1953. I was struck very forcibly by the words which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has clone so much in this field, used at the conclusion of his remarks at that Conference. This is what the noble Lord said:
"If man makes himself a nuisance to the rest of nature, of which after all he is a part, and continues to befoul his natural surroundings, the consequences will come back upon man, upon his health and his pleasures, and will increasingly impair the best and sanest means whereby he is able to sustain and re-create his physical and spiritual energies and wellbeing."
With that as their text, I hope that the Government will, not only now, under the immediate spur of this particular incident, but also in the long and duller run, bring their full energies to bear, both nationally and internationally, towards a solution of this very difficult but very important problem of the pollution of our oceans. If so, they will have my full support.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will realise that it was with feelings of some rashness and even presumption that I was committed to taking part in this debate so soon after taking a seat here, being the "newest boy" at any rate on this Bench. But I have a special concern for Cornwall and the people of Cornwall, and I could not but feel that a voice from Cornwall should be heard at least briefly. I have also concern for those of your Lordships whom we hope we shall welcome yet again down in Cornwall this year for their holidays. We have had inquiries, both private and semi-official, from Members of this House and of another place: "Is Polgooth all right?" "What about Porthgwarra and Port Naves?" We have even had the plaintive inquiry from Wiltshire: "How long are you going to keep my gardener?

1131
He is a part-time fireman". Answers to most of these questions can be given, and I hope I have done some homework so that I come, so far as information is concerned, well primed—but not in any sense of the word "well-oiled".
I am also encouraged by reports that I have heard of your Lordships' treatment in former days of a gallant predecessor of mine, Bishop Hunkin, who used to discourse learnedly on Cornish broccoli, and was listened to with respect and even affection. I do not propose to discourse on Cornish broccoli, or even on oil. I came here to learn about oil, and I have already, thanks to the noble Lord, learnt about microbiology. Cornish broccoli is the concern of the market gardeners. Though not so severely affected, it is significant that the growers of Marazion are no longer able, at least temporarily, to use the seaweed provided by Nature and Providence for the improvement of their broccoli. The fishermen may be worse affected. At present they are busy "deterging". But at what cost to their future prosperity? It is not necessarily a comfort to earn more for a day's dirty, and sometimes dangerous, work spraying detergent than you would normally hope to get for a day's catch, if it is only for a limited period, when in the long run there may be no more fishing or people just will not buy your fish.
More concerned are those engaged in what is called, somewhat paradoxically, the holiday industry. Reports, inevitably exaggerated, sometimes remarkably inaccurate, reach the general public and the world. Yesterday, your Lordships may have read a report in The Times from their naval correspondent at Plymouth which, after quite correctly reporting the situation at Sennen, went on to refer to Camborne and Redruth, "where new oil has come ashore to-day". It is said that there was a report recently in one of the Midland newspapers that in the early days 10,000 people were on their knees in the streets of Penzance. It has been commented on that report, "Would to God 10,000 people in Penzance were brave enough to go on their knees to pray! "Yet there was a full church when the Mayor called the citizens of Penzance to prayer:
1132
"That all may be strengthened in their resolve to minimise the effect of the oil pollution."
We heard reports that we might reserve that wisdom of the Church of England to keep the mean between the two extremes of too much stiffness in refusing and too much easiness in admitting. At first it was as if there was a new Plague; but Pharaoh knew nothing of a plague of oil. It was ironic that one of the lessons on Easter Sunday had to do with the deliverance from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea: "And the Good Lord sent a strong East wind". That was ironic in Cornish churches, for we were then under a North-Westerly. No doubt it was noted by a distinguished visitor to the Isles of Scilly when he was reading the Lessons, for they would not have wanted a strong East wind. Pharaoh's chariots and his horsemen were not drowned in the depths of the sea; they appeared in a more helpful guise across the Red Sea of the Tamar.
I have been in touch with the chairman and surveyor of the County Council, the heads of the Civil Defence, the Fire Services, and many other voluntary bodies. There has been 100 per cent. co-operation between the Services and the local authorities. "Operation Oil Slick" is a real blitz on the whole coastline, wherever there is oil, and thanks to the heavy equipment and power sprayers they have been able to deal with any beach, North or South, according to the wind. We are told that many beaches will be far cleaner than they have been for a long time.
Therefore, my Lords, I would express on behalf of the people of Cornwall our gratitude for the ready and generous help. This was recognised at once as a national emergency, and not some kind of stunt by Cornish Nationalists. It has now been established that the beaches and people of Cornwall are the concern not only of the Cornish but of all, and especially, of course, of those who take their holidays there. Much has already been said about the gratitude which is owed to those who have given so much and are striving so hard and so successfully in this new "battle of the beaches".
I have also had reports from and talks with the clergy of the parishes around the coastline which is affected. They meet all sorts of people, and people were

1133
at first apprehensive. Now they are more confident. Some even say that it is the people outside Cornwall who now need reassuring. People got together in a wonderful way, and the earlier folks with buckets and watering cans soon gave way to the equipment and the really successful power spraying of the Services, the Fire Services, and all the others. The Services are now in evidence everywhere; halls have been taken over, and "Mums" are dispensing cups of tea.
Cancellations of holidays are not so many as were feared. Coaches are expected to be even more numerous than in other years, though perhaps there may be some element of curiosity about this. Some bright hotelier or local authority may find it necessary to preserve a patch of beach well oiled just for show, because it has been cleared everywhere else with such success. But with all the fascinating arguments and researches about legal responsibility, compensation and insurance, and the scientific treatment concerned in this new and unprecedented calamity, I would plead that the people involved, and those likely to suffer, are constantly kept in mind, and all those who are helping them continually encouraged.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to offer my humble congratulations on the extremely able and sincere speech we have just heard, and I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we hope we shall hear many more from the same speaker in your Lordships' House.
I suppose I should declare an interest, being the President of the Solent Protection Society which has been mentioned to-day. We have of course a great responsibility and concern for what is happening in the waters of the Solent and the shores around the Solent, from the Needles to Spithead, and we are extremely anxious about what may happen should this oil creep into this area. So far the West of England have, unfortunately for them, taken the brunt of this disaster, but we are faced with great possible damage.
There is the risk not only of our beaches being fouled, but also the shipping—and, as your Lordships probably know, it is a great centre for boat sailing
1134
of all kinds. Immense damage could be done. We have well-known bird sanctuaries, and it would be disastrous if they were completely destroyed. Also we have the fish, oyster and clam beds. Whether it will affect the river fish, such as the sea trout going up the rivers, I do not know. That alone is enough to frighten us, but on top of that a considerable part of the coast is composed of marsh; that is to say, it is really only soil held together by reed and grasses. If those were killed by the oil the soil would crumble, and the scale of the resulting erosion would be really disastrous. So from these points of view we are extremely anxious and worked up about the possibility of damage should this oil spread up this fairway.
I understand that attempts are being made to put a boom across the Needles, and although I know little about this from a technical point of view I am told that it will be an extremely difficult thing to do, first because of the depth in certain parts of the Channel and, secondly, because of the very strong tide which runs through there and which may make it a hazardous operation. We are not altogether as optimistic as perhaps we should like to be, but we hope that the boom may hold up the oil long enough for it to be coped with while it is still on the sea.
Like other noble Lords, I wish to pay a tribute to the Armed Forces, the Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army, who I think have done a wonderful job, also to the local authorities who have coped with this, and the—
LORD BOWLES: And the Government.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am coming to the Government later—and also the large oil companies, for when they were finally brought in I think they were the people who really understood and had the technical knowledge and the equipment to deal with oil pollution better than anybody else. Finally, I think that the Government, faced with a real emergency, have coped as well as they could under difficult circumstances.
There is just one point I would draw to the attention of the noble Lord who is to answer this debate; that is, whether

1135
more use could not be made of volunteers. We have had the difficulty that constantly people have been ringing up our Society asking, "What can we do? We have a small boat; is it any use? Can one get a bucket and spade?". And we have not known what to answer. There has not been enough instruction or publicity so that we could inform the public. There has been a fund of goodwill and tremendous enthusiasm, but no one knows really quite what to do. I feel the volunteer could play a very big part in this kind of emergency.
I do not want to deal with the main problems, which other people know more about than I do—navigation and so forth. But I should like to support very much the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, of having more navigational control of the Channel, which is the most dangerous shipping fairway. As he said, aircraft are controlled all the time, but no one thinks of controlling shipping. Surely there ought to be some rule of the road and control of ships through that very hazardous and comparatively narrow channel. Someone told me the other day that the ordinary 30,000-ton tanker, which is beginning to be relatively small these days compared to the "Torrey Canyon" and others, has tanks whose walls if spread out would cover nine acres. It is fantastic.
I suppose that the discharge from tankers is one of the main problems. I do not want to deal with these technical points, but I think we must recognise that accidents are bound to happen. Men are fallible; even the most technical machines go wrong. We must be prepared not just for one disaster; there are bound to be others, including collisions; and I presume there will come a day when many of the wrecks on the ocean bed will have rusted through and oil will be surging up from them. So we must be in a constant state of preparedness to meet what must come inevitably over the next few months or years as the case may be.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they could not set up a permanent organisation which would have the equipment and the knowledge to deal with this wherever this menace threatens us; and, secondly, whether they could not set up a permanent fund to
1136
reimburse local authorities. It seems to me very hard on the local authority, who may have to pay as much as £1,000 a mile to clean the beaches. Surely this should be a national responsibility, and until this disaster it has not been so. I would urge the Government to do something, however it is done, about having finance available to help local authorities permanently.
The third thing I would suggest is this. Would it not be possible to bring Civil Defence into this? We have an organisation of Civil Defence which has not, thank goodness! much to do at the moment. Would they not find this an extremely useful exercise, to be on the alert to contact the different authorities, the oil companies and the Armed Forces, so that wherever bad oil pollution occurred they could mobilise the public if necessary, or direct operations on a small scale, and help to be the liaison between the different forces if the disaster should become big and dangerous?
I do not wish to add anything further. I think that most that can be said has been said. I should again like to congratulate the Forces and the people who have acted so well. I hope the Government will bear in mind that when this disaster is over we still will be menaced, and that there is a lot still to be done.
6.14 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I count it as a privilege to be the first from these Benches to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro on a maiden speech of great distinction. It was a fine mixture of good humour and sound common sense and humanity. At a recent meeting, of a non-political nature, which I had to address on the work of the House of Lords, I was asked whether the Bishops' Benches contributed usefully to our debates in this House. The answer I gave was, of course, solidly in the affirmative. I only wish that those who asked this question had been listening a few moments ago to the right reverend Prelate, and I know that we all wish that he will contribute frequently to our discussions.
I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the Armed Forces and to the local authorities in the work which they have carried out, particularly

1137
in the West Country, in the recent "Torrey Canyon" incident. The only reason why I rise to speak is because I own a small property at Pevensey Bay, on the East Sussex coast, where we, too, suffer, on a much lesser scale, from occasional pollution by oil. Those who know these beaches know the discomfort and the inconvenience caused, particularly to children and animals who may tread in this oil and get it on their skins or on their clothes, and also to the fishermen. I myself have frequently found, when fishing off the East Sussex coast, that the line of the rod has been coated in oil. Beachy Head to some extent provides protection from oil seeping too far along the coast, and so far, at least in recent years, there has been no disaster of the "Torrey Canyon" magnitude. But some concern is felt by the authorities that this might happen.
I think that the Government are to be commended in sending to the scene the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing, and I have had a letter from the Town Clerk of Eastbourne, whom I know personally, who recognises this effort and thanks the Government for it. Nevertheless, quite clearly, a junior Minister, capable as he might he, and undoubtedly is, cannot control the whole matter. It is something with which the Services are probably the most competent to deal. The greatest concern shown on the South Coast is, of course, for the holiday traffic. Together with this is the announcement by the Government that a 75 per cent. grant will be given to local authorities to combat this oil pollution. There have been questions in another place and elsewhere as to whether this grant can he stepped up to 100 per cent. I can see difficulties here. At the same time, many of those who live on the South Coast are not particularly wealthy people. Some are; but a number are retired people on fixed pensions. New industries have brought workers to live there. Industries have moved into places on the South Coast, and a good many of those employed in them are not people who can afford large increases in rates. So I hope the Government will take note of what has been said about increases in the grant.
I think, too, that tribute should be paid to the R.S.P.C.A., and to all the voluntary help which has been given. There are many coastal resorts which people visit to study nature life, bird life, and
1138
so on. I think the work which the R.S.P.C.A., and others who have helped, have done at Mousehole and elsewhere, is worthy of the highest commendation. I hope that those who have hitherto tended to sneer at the R.S.P.C.A. as being a rather quaint set-up will now realise the good work which they are doing. If a disaster or near-disaster of this nature occurs, the hoteliers, too, may face a serious situation, particularly if it comes to oil and other substances polluting their carpets and furniture. Having spent 17 years in the insurance world, I know some of the wrangles that have occurred as a result of claims of this kind, and the difficulties facing the insurance companies. Therefore, in the interests of tourism, and also because of the wish of this Government, and I think probably of other Governments, that we should spend more of our money at home, I hope that the Government will do all they can to help all those who may be affected by oil pollution.
6.22 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro for his contribution to-day? As Lord Auckland said, we hope to hear more from him. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has pointed out that the problem to which the Motion draws attention has been with us for a long time. We had attempts to control it away back in the 1920s. In more recent years we have had a lot of public indignation, and we indeed had the International Convention which is referred to in the Motion, but it has taken a disaster which could have been a major catastrophe to bring home the magnitude of the risks.
I want to follow the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in expanding the significance of this near-disaster or catastrophe to wider implications than oil pollution. It is a deplorable fact that we have invariably to wait for disasters before what should be safeguarded against becomes apparent. We could not get a sanitary service in this country until the epidemic which started from a pump in the parish of St. James's in London reminded the well-to-do that cholera was not a disease reserved for slum-dwellers. The fate of the Japanese fishermen on the "Lucky Dragon", well

1139
outside the United States bomb-testing area, gave the lie to official assurances that radioactive fall-out could be localised. And even then, when H-bomb testing started punching holes in the stratosphere, we were solemnly told that radioactive materials would stay up there, in the "attics".
But the radioactive chickens came home to roost. We had the alarming manifestations of the increasing presence of radio-strontium in the bones of growing children all over the world. There is not a teenager anywhere in the world who does not have this man-made brand mark of the atomic age—this symbol of man's recklessness—in his or her bones. The radiation had come back into the Troposphere and into our climatic currents. I would remind your Lordships that those of us who warned, with some scientific knowledge and insight into such things, were regarded as dangerous subversives. But eventually, with public instruction or enlightenment, we got the test ban in the end—an acknowledgement that the testing had been polluting the whole of our atmosphere with dangerous radiation.
On January 17, 1966, a B52 from the American air base at North Carolina, which had been on patrol on the frontiers of the U.S.S.R. in the Middle East, collided with a United States aircraft, an oil tanker which was intercepting to refuel. Both aircraft disintegrated near the Spanish village of Palomares. The Strategic Air Force bomber carried four uranium-plutonium-uranium 235 hydrogen bombs, each of them with the tremendous destructive power of 1½ million tons of T.N.T. In other words, each represented 75 times the power of the bomb which had destroyed Hiroshima. The bombs were unarmed; they could not trigger off as an H-bomb explosion. But they contained radioactive material which could be released if the weapons were damaged. One was found undamaged. Three were missing. Two were recovered later, damaged, and the third was later traced out to sea.
Your Lordships will recall what took place in that search and ultimate recovery. You will recall that the soil had to be removed from large areas of Palomares because it was radioactive. It had to be put into casks and shipped back to
1140
America, for disposal in the atomic burial grounds in the United States. Incidentally, it has cost more to bury live atoms in the United States over the past 20 years than it cost to bury all the Pyramid kings of ancient Egypt. And your Lordships have been reminded within the last few days that 15 months later fresh checks are being made for the possible radiation consequences to the people, to the soil and to the sea of Palomares.
Again, I would remind your Lordships that these hazards and their international implications are not unknown or unforeseen by those who have a scientific awareness and conscience about such things. I myself, at the invitation of the University of Chicago, made two successive inquiries into the peaceful hazards of atomic energy. We did spell out the risks, among other things, of disposal of nuclear wastes at sea. We did spell out the risks implicit in nuclear ships and submarines and of nuclear-fuelled rockets, liable to return to the atmosphere or to splash down in the seas. And we emphatically pointed out the inadequacies of the international legislation to deal with such contingencies or to provide adequate safeguards.
I share the concern, as we all do, about the oil pollution from the "Torrey Canyon". But I would ask your Lordships to consider seriously the possibilities of such giant tankers, including the million-tonner which the Japanese are proposing to build, being nuclear powered. If that ship which broke up on the Seven Stones had been nuclear powered, the reactors would, like the untriggered bombs at Palomares, have created great radiation, and the oil now coming ashore would have been radioactive. I should like your Lordships to consider what would have happened if instead of merely trying to clear our beaches of oil we had been shipping all the soil to Britain's nuclear atomic burial grounds. I am sorry to be a Cassandra, but our sleep o'nights apathy, our fear of being afraid, is making us evade—and still making us evade, in spite of the reminders we get—and "leave it to the other chaps" the portentous risks involved in our modern technological civilisation. The "Torrey Canyon" is one portent of that portentous future.

1141
I should like to reply to criticism, and particularly to the Press who have suddenly become editorially knowledgeable about possibilities which they might have ventilated any time in the past twenty years. I know because I, as science editor of a national daily, tried to get such things, including the oil risks, printed. I tried unsuccessfully, because oil is a dull subject—until a ship containing it runs aground on the Seven Stones and can be photographed dramatically. In spite of its being my own profession, I should like to say that I am rather ashamed of those who, by hindsight, can always find all the explanations the morning after, of what they had not even thought about the day before.
I consider that the White Paper is a highly creditable account of policy decisions taken in an emergency. It had never happened this way before and we had to improvise. We had even to carry out experiments ad hoc. We had to try out detergents, and I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Shackleton who will be replying for the Government will be able to say —at least I hope he will not be so rash as to say—that detergents arc utterly harmless.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should think that any noble Lords would believe that these detergents are harmless, but if they do they will certainly not think so after the noble Lord's speech.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am glad to have that reassurance. White fish which are "whiter than white" will be extremely interesting. We have had an alarming and expensive experience, a situation in which we have had to improvise but from which, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and others have pointed out, a great deal has been learned and great areas of present ignorance exposed. Let us regard ourselves as conscripted pioneers, but let us also see that our experience is shared and that in future the world shares the responsibilities as well.
I want to commend to the Government the idea of an international calamity force under the ægis of the United Nations. When the present Government, as proof of its commitment to the United Nations, offered the logistic facilities for
1142
six battalions for the Peacekeeping Force, I thought then that it should be extended to non-military situations. The idea commended itself to me first because a standby force of this kind would be most efficient. It must be efficient, otherwise we are wasting our money on our Fighting Services. I think the experience of the last few weeks has shown that in an emergency of this kind we have not been wasting our money on inefficiency, and that we have an efficient service. Secondly, I suggest that a calamity force would emphasise the pacific as well as the pacifying purposes of United Nations actions and would show a proper concern for humanity in desperate situations. I had in mind natural catastrophies—earthquakes, hurricanes, famines, floods, and so on—as well as man-made calamities of which the "Torrey Canyon" is not only an example but a forewarning of much more critical and dangerous things which might indeed happen.
I am glad that the Government have decided to call in the I.M.C.O. and presumably help to reinforce its authority—the I.M.C.O., the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, about which, I may say, the British Press knew so little that they used small letters for it. I hope that we are going to reinforce that organisation. I sincerely hope that we shall take urgent steps to reconvene the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. I would remind your Lordships of the first Conference, which sat from February to April, 1958. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, will agree, but anyone who cares to go over the records will find that it was a very disappointing Conference. Conflicting demands of sovereignty, many of them inherently contradictory, prevented any comprehensive jurisdiction even over the high seas and deeps.
One of the great controversial issues—I use the phraseology of the Conference itself—which was not properly resolved was that of flags of convenience; and here I would disagree with the noble Lord who introduced the Motion. I do not want to swing any "dead cats", hut I would point out that at that Conference in 1958 shipowners, seafarers' organisations and the International Labour Organisation had the profoundest misgivings about the nature of the flags of

1143
convenience. The critical phrase in the discussion was contained in Article 4, which states:
"Every State, whether coastal or not, has a right to sail ships under its flag on high seas."
Article 5 states:
"There must be a genuine link between the State and the ship. In particular the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag."
As the Report of the Conference points out, this was a highly contentious Article, and Liberia conspicuously claimed that "genuine link" was an undesirable innovation in international law. Liberia demanded that this should be withdrawn, but the Conference of the Convention in fact upheld the phrase "genuine link". If we are going to have an International Convention, let it at least be meaningful, and let us at least regard the commitments of countries which nominally take responsibility for shipping as including the fact that that link should be a genuine link.
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, a leading member of the Opposition Front Bench, seeing that I was to speak in this debate, asked me what I knew about oil. I said "Nothing"; nor do I. So, not unnaturally, I do not propose to speak about it. Instead, I am going to use the fact that the "Torrey Canyon" happened to be carrying the Liberian flag as an opportunity to ask the Government for their general views on flags of convenience. I am particularly glad, therefore, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who strongly stressed the importance of this matter. I must declare here that I am a "name" at Lloyd's, but perhaps your Lordships will not disbelieve me when I say that it is not the insurance angle which interests me, nor the use of these flags for purposes of tax evasion, but simply whether the conditions of work and safety on these ships are as high as on ships carrying traditional maritime flags.
We have, I think, a right to know this, because, of course, British seamen from time to time sign on under flags of convenience. Though it now seems generally agreed that many of the ships concerned—including, I am told, the "Torrey Canyon"—are now very well found
1144
indeed, none the less from time to time we read scarifying stories about them. "Ships of easy virtue", they are still called—indeed, the Belgium Secretary of the International Transport Federation has described them as "coffins". Moreover, the trouble is not merely the manning of the ships and the living conditions or the rates of pay; it is also the certificates of proficiency sold to individuals. An English master mariner described in the Daily Telegraph last year how, for fun, he obtained a Panamanian marine engineer's certificate for £3 12s., having never watched a pressure gauge in his life. He was subsequently offered a job as chief engineer on a Panamanian vessel but declined, explaining that he had never yet gone in for manslaughter.
My Lords, these are unpleasant thoughts. To some extent, of course, the position is safeguarded by the existence of the International Transport Federation. They, through their representatives all over the world, do their best to ensure that the basic rights and decencies of the seamen are respected, and they are not ineffectual. Four ships have already been stopped this year through their efforts, no satisfactory arrangements having been made with the owners before they sailed. The ships were declared "black" and boycotted in the ports where they found themselves.
But to-day we are talking not internationally but nationally. Where do we ourselves stand in all this? We are, as it were, sailing in uncharted waters. Nobody in this country seems to know; and nobody, so far as I have yet seen in the Press, seems to care very much. But it seems clear, from the conversations I have had with the International Transport Federation, that the position throughout the world is still far from satisfactory. Ships are still sailing under flags of convenience, in which the crews have no satisfactory union protection and they are being rudely and roughly exploited. We are still seemingly no nearer to the "genuine link"—an important phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calde.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl realises, I hope, that what he has just been saying cannot possibly apply to British ships.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Surely, your Lordships would not think that any of the things I have been saying applied to British ships. Those who sail under our flag are honourably looked after and in the very best British traditions. It would not occur to me to make such a suggestion.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I wanted to make the point that we cannot sail ships under flags of convenience. We are prohibited from doing so by the 1894 Shipping Act.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble Lord is saying. But I think we are clear on one thing, at least: there is no question that anyone who sails under the Red Duster is not absolutely safe and sound. If British seamen choose to enlist, as it were, under flags of convenience that is their affair; but still we do not very much like the idea of it.
I have tried briefly and broadly, and with my usual over-simplification, to outline a position which is so complicated that it would take a whole year of study by international lawyers to discover where the rights and the wrongs lie. But I am just going to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use every effort to ensure that this, I am afraid, sometimes immoral system of flags of convenience, which has operated for the past fifty years, may be speedily brought to an end.
I come now to something quite different, and I hope that I may have the support of your Lordships. May I ask Her Majesty's Government this one final question? Will they ensure that whatever inquiry is set up about the "Torrey Canyon", be it in Monrovia, where I am told they have no administrative facilities for this task, or in Genoa, which has also been mentioned, it will be attended by representatives of Her Majesty's Government, who are, after all, the major interested parties? Equally important, will they attempt to ensure that the inquiry will be held in public and that nothing will be hushed up or concealed? Many people, without prejudging the issue at all, do not feel at all happy about what happened to the "Torrey Canyon ". However, the important thing is that we should be repre
1146
sented either by private individuals or by Her Majesty's Government itself.
As we all know, public interest dies quickly and what concerns us so intimately at this moment will perhaps in a year or two be a "dead duck". Your Lordships may well remember the case of the Greek liner "Lakonia", which sank some four years ago, the majority of the passengers being British, and an inquiry into whose loss was terminated two years subsequently at a time when no one but those personally affected cared any more. I deeply hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and Her Majesty's Government will be able to give an assurance on this point, at least, and perhaps clarify briefly the position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter of flags of convenience.
6.47 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than three or four minutes, and I hope that this important problem is not going to be complicated or prejudiced by too much argument about flags of convenience. As one who through two world wars, and in many other parts of my life, has been intimately concerned with the British mercantile marine, I cannot myself generate any enthusiasm for the practice of resorting to flags of convenience. However, that is really beside the point at this particular moment.
In this whole matter the country owes a very great deal to the enlightened approach of all British shipowners, to their readiness to observe the best possible practice in preventing oil pollution of the seas. I join with what has been said in the tributes paid to the large oil companies, who made a brilliant achievement in discovering the way out of a great technical difficulty in what is called "loading on top". I shall confine my remarks to one or two very brief points.
I think that everybody must realise that the White Paper has covered a very great deal of ground and has overlooked very little. In the particular matter of protection of birds, there has of course been an enormous loss of bird life. The humanitarian efforts to clean these birds and restore them to the sea must obviously be persevered in. But it is useless to try to disguise the fact that there is no evidence that they do survive after they

1147
have been put to sea, for the detergents used destroy their natural oils, and when they go back to the water they either drown or are quickly affected by all sorts of pneumonic diseases. Nevertheless, as I say, we must persevere in that effort, and we may get some results.
In paragraph 33 of the White Paper it is suggested that it may be necessary to move small populations of specially rare species. I have not had an opportunity of discussing that question with my ornithological friends, but personally I should be very hesitant in trying to interfere with any of the sea birds which have returned safely to their nesting cliffs. The fear is that they will be bound to go back to the sea to feed, and may then get oiled; but I should myself be disposed to leave well alone.
There is one thing, however, which I think could be done, and which I hope any spokesman of the Government who may have an opportunity to do so will mention. I have already mentioned this to various broadcasters and others. There is a practice on certain parts of our coast of boatmen rowing visitors around and deliberately disturbing the nesting birds, because it is quite a spectacle to see hundreds of birds take flight. We want the greatest possible breeding success this season, and every time that kind of disturbance takes place there is a risk of a certain number of the eggs being kicked off the ledges by the nesting birds. I am sure that the boatmen and those who control the holiday resorts where this practice may still exist would be very well advised to abandon it, at any rate for this season.
I agree with nearly all the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as to what might be done, and I have no doubt that by international agreement a great deal can be done to reduce the risk of collision by requiring ships to follow particular lanes. Indeed, I should have thought that it was imperative that that should he done without delay for ships of 100,000 tons or over. But the great difficulty, I think, is to deal with accidents at sea, whether in territorial waters or outside them—accidents which are bound to happen, and which may become more frequent. That problem has already disturbed a good many other countries. In recent years there has been more than one serious collision in the Baltic, with
1148
great emissions of oil and very great damage.
When I was at an international conference at Lucerne in the summer, this point was raised by the representative of West Germany, who said that he thought it was imperative that some power should be taken by international agreement to require a ship in difficulty to accept help from the appropriate naval or other authorities, whether the master wanted to do so or not. Anyone connected with shipping must know that it might be dangerous and very difficult to deprive the master of a ship of the discretion to do what he thought necessary for the safety of his ship, its cargo and its crew. But if a master is in difficulty, he naturally wants to consult his owners, the owners naturally want to consult their underwriters, and a good deal of time may elapse before drastic action, which may he obviously necessary, is taken.
It is therefore, I suggest, very urgent that Governments should consider whether some power should not be vested in the country whose shores are nearest to the accident to require the master to accept certain forms of help. For example, if the accident took place in Baltic waters, where there is very little tide and very little sea, but where ships can still break up, it might be quite easy to pump the oil into another ship. If a master declined to do that when the appropriate authorities thought it was the right way to prevent danger to their own shores, then perhaps there ought to be the power to compel him. I think that is one of the most urgent and important questions.
Though of course I accept what is said in the White Paper, that on this occasion legal difficulties did not hamper action, it is very easy to conceive of circumstances in which legal action would either hamper or delay preventive action which could well be taken. I agree that the right way to deal with that is to have an urgent meeting of I.M.C.O., and here again I believe that the Government, with the help of Denmark and other countries, have already taken action to convene an early meeting. The wheels of I.M.C.O. grind, but they grind slowly, and I think some special action ought to be taken to bring this issue to a head at a very early date.

1149
My Lords, I will not say anything more. What I said in 1953, which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was good enough to quote, I felt very deeply and very genuinely at the time, and I only regret that I was being more prophetic than I thought, at that moment.
6.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I will reply as briefly as I can to the many interesting points that have been raised. I think a good deal of the debate has ranged in more detail over matters which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I myself or the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised only in passing. But I am sure your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on what I can only describe as (to use his own phrase) a very well oiled maiden speech. I am sure that he will enliven us very much in the future, and I hope he will take the wish expressed, that he will frequently speak to us, as a genuine one, even if it is only to give us the latest news on oil pollution in Cornwall. I should like to ask him whether that delectable beach at Porthcothan is seriously affected. I fear it may indeed be so.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: If I may be allowed to answer, my Lords, the cove at Bairn Beach is slightly contaminated, but they were cleaning it yesterday.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am delighted to hear it. It is the safest surfing beach in that particular area. At the same time, in return for that information, I should like to tell the right reverend Prelate that the latest information on the damage to fishing is really very encouraging. There is, indeed, very little evidence of damage, either to deep-sea fishing or to shell fish, lobsters and crabs. Of course, the commercial season of the latter is only just beginning, but divers have been down and they have discovered nothing untoward. In fact, I was told yesterday that only one dead lobster had been found, but I would not suggest for one moment that more damage will not be done. It would appear, however, that fishing is being resumed and is almost normal, and we hope the favourable situation will continue. There is really no positive reason to suppose that it may not continue to be favourable.
1150
I would make only one further remark. I am even more astonished by what the right reverend Prelate said—I could scarcely credit it, but I am really obliged, I think, to credit it—that the naval correspondent of a newspaper could seriously believe that Camborne and Redruth had been lapped by oil. One might as well say Bodmin Moor. That seems to be part and parcel of the really astonishing degree of speculation and inaccuracy that has gone on. It is always very dangerous to lecture the Press—they greatly dislike our criticising them, however much they may criticise us—but I really think some of them might do a little heart-searching on their performance over the "Torrey Canyon".
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked a great many questions. Let me deal first with those points where he rather carefully said he was speaking from his Front Bench, by which I felt he was holding up a blue flag to say: "Don't worry boys; I have got to make a Party political noise."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it was not a flag of convenience.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think it really was a flag of truce. I shall leave it to the other place to deal with Mr. Heath's performance and the minatory noises that were uttered. Even now, I think it would have been gracious to have made some congratulatory noises at the national effort—which really does include the Government—and I welcome those noble Lords who paid a tribute. I can only say that the criticisms were pretty thin when all he could do was to refer to Mr. Foley. Of course, it is possible to take a particular statement out of context. This was said at a very early stage. It was perfectly accurate; and I do not find it inconsistent with what the Government did. The Government, in fact, said and made it clear in the White Paper that neither legal nor financial considerations inhibited Government action at any stage. The fact that at that early stage Mr. Foley (at a time when they hoped to salvage the ship) made his statement clearly did not bind Government policy; and the Government took the best action possible.
I think I shall not go very deeply into the subject of flags of convenience,

1151
beyond saying that I was deeply interested in what was said by both my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who is such a thorough and, at times, unexpected researcher into the esoteric. But now that it is settled that there is going to be this Inquiry, I think it best that we wait for the results. But I would say, in relation to this and in view of the anxieties that have been expressed, that an observer of Her Majesty's Government in the person of Captain E. W. Lewis, a Professional Officer and Chief Nautical Surveyor of the Board of Trade, did attend. The Board have completed the first stage of the investigation and will be reporting to the Liberian Government in the near future. It is expected that there will be a further stage. I will only say—and I ask noble Lords not to press me—that the matters which the noble Earl raised in regard to the inquiry are very much in the Government's mind.
My Lords, I shall not discuss the noble Earl's Select Committee. This was another part of the strategic withdrawal—I will not say "the flag of truce"—but I agree with him that there are lessons to be learned, and lessons of importance. I should certainly hope that these will be made available, and I will certainly convey the obvious wishes of your Lordships' House that the lessons which have been learned so far are published as fully as possible.
Some interesting points were raised with regard to future action to be taken in regard to accidents outside territorial waters. There is no doubt of the determination of the Government to deal with this particular menace. But it is a very hypothetical question and I think it would be unwise for me at the moment (where one would be embarking on or entangling oneself in very difficult legal questions) to make any general statement as to the criteria that will be applied. But it is quite obvious that the menaces that are involved—and my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder gave examples—are of a kind that behove Governments and publics to face the fact that with the advance and for the survival of civilisation we are compelled to impose more and more restrictions on our activities. It is a sad thing in terms of freedom; but even greater freedom is menaced. These are
1152
clearly matters which will have to be considered by the appropriate United Nations organisations. I am quite sure I.M.C.O. is the place to begin. The initiative that has been taken by the Government will, I think, get the thing on to the international table as quickly as possible. But there will be matters to be discussed which are not within the scope of responsibility of I.M.C.O., and there are certain subjects relating to the law of the sea and other questions that have been raised in this House on which it may not be possible even for I.M.C.O. to make recommendations. But at least we can get it out and see where we are going from there.
My Lords, a number of specific questions were asked and I will deal with them as quickly as possible. First, I mentioned Greece because Greece has already—although only recently—accepted the 1954 Convention and the Amendments. In fact the instruments of acceptance were deposited only about a week or ten days ago. Portugal has also accepted the Convention. What the noble Lord had to say about Russia is true. We should like to see Russia accept the Convention. They are a helpful member of I.M.C.O. and provide very good facilities in their ports for reception of residue from oil tankers. But Greece and Portugal are already numbered among the 34 countries, as is the Ivory Coast that I had already mentioned. It is expected that the Council will meet on May 4 and 5, and the Assembly of I.M.C.O. is due to meet in the Autumn and will be asked to approve a resolution inviting all countries to accept the Convention. I think I dealt with the difficulties of enforcement in my opening speech.
There was a particular point with regard to the Straits of Dover. The system for routing of traffic in the Dover Strait comes into force next month. The navigational aids will be moved into position this month, and it is expected that this one-way routing system will be in force in May or June, at the latest. I must stress that it is not mandatory; it is a recommended system to all ships' masters. But failure to observe the procedure will doubtless be taken into account in any inquiry into a collision. There will not be formal control nevertheless it is an advance.

1153
Her Majesty's Government will be taking up with I.M.C.O. the question of changing International Law to enable a State to take action if its shores are threatened by a shipping accident. We shall also be raising the question of third-party risks. It is not quite clear where it is appropriate to do so: it may be necessary, in the first instance to raise it in I.M.C.O. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, made clear, that another conference to amend the international law of the sea may well be overdue. We shall be taking up this matter with the appropriate international bodies.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appears to have left the navigation aspect of this matter, I would ask him to revert to one of my previous questions: whether the Government will be supporting the idea, which has now been mooted by the Working Group and supported by I.M.C.O., of the separation of traffic in other congested sea lanes, especially round the European seaboard?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not got the answer to that question, but I will see that it is taken into account, and I shall be glad to answer the noble Lord, either by letter or by way of question and answer. I shall not be able to answer all the interesting points which have been raised; nor I am afraid, despite the helpful notice which noble Lords have given me, have I the answers to all the particular points which have been raised.
I noted what the noble Lord had to say about fines. As I say, there is no limit on indictment, but the fines do not seem very high. I think that it would perhaps be unwise for me to comment on this matter in the presence of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I do not doubt that this is a matter to which some consideration can be given.
Perhaps I might say a word here on legal action with regard to the owners. On March 31 the Treasury Solicitor wrote to the solicitors acting for the owners of the vessel informing them that he had been instructed by Her Majesty's Government to give notification of a claim for damages and compensation for the expenditure occasioned or incurred in consequence of the discharge or escape
1154
from the "Torrey Canyon" of large quantities of oil which subsequently drifted on to the nearby shores of the Southern Counties of England, and the Scilly Isles. The Treasury Solicitor has also been in touch with the owners' solicitors for further details of the registered address and the directors and shareholders of the Barracuda Tanker Corporation. It is possible that they may, in fact, be within Burmudan jurisdiction.
The action will be against those liable for the negligence of the master and crew and I will not comment, beyond expressing the astonishment which noble Lords have already evinced about the nature of this particular accident. Under English law, those responsible can be held liable to compensate for damage those in respect of whom they had a duty to take care, and this could include, if the case was made good, the owners of the foreshore and other property adjoining the seas, as well as Her Majesty's Government who have incurred very large expenses as a result of negligence. But it might be very difficult to prove that those responsible had a duty of care to private individuals such as boarding-house keepers, holidaymakers or fishermen who suffered financial loss. I will not go far into the question of compensation which is fraught with difficulties and sharp rocks.
The action could be brought in the English courts, provided that a writ could be served within the jurisdiction upon a ship owned by the persons liable or upon the person, the company itself. This may well prove difficult in this case, but the action might be brought in Bermuda or Liberia, or perhaps in America, if an action can be brought against the charterers. If the action were brought in this country the plaintiff would be the Attorney General. If the action were brought in an English court, there would be, under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, a limitation of liability to about £1¼ million; and it appears that there is a similar limitation in other countries. I should not like to say what the effect of this would be on particular parcels of compensation, but I thought that your Lordships might be interested at least to have that amount of information; making clear, of course, that in this matter an action would be brought under the municipal law of the country, and

1155
there would not, so far as I can see, be any redress against the State, because —well, I think perhaps I will not go more into the international legal subject.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred to the toxicity of detergents. I think it is clear from the published reports that the Government had given very careful consideration to the best way in which to disperse the oil. The noble Lord knows far better than I do the effect of an emulsifying agent in the circumstances. Certainly regard has been had to the toxicity. There were some rather exaggerated claims made on television for a particular proprietary brand. It was suggested that the Government had been very "stingy" in not buying this particular detergent, on the grounds that it would destroy 200 times its weight of oil; that it was non-toxic to marine life and non-toxic to humans. Tests carried out at Warren Springs Laboratory suggested that it was only four times more effective than the principal agents that Her Majesty's Government and the local authorities were using; but it was extremely toxic, because it contained between 30 and 40 per cent. of carbon tetrachloride whose vapour is toxic to humans at a concentration above ten parts in a million, quite apart from its damage to wild life. So I can assure noble Lords —and I think that it has been apparent all along—that the authorities have at all times had the greatest consideration for the effect on wild life.
This, of course, is very much a tribute to the work of those like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb (it is interesting that three members of this Advisory Committee should have taken part in this debate) and the really remarkable achievements of the officers of that body. Although we have either had or have an interest in this subject, some tribute ought to be paid to the work of people like Miss Barclay Smith and others who have been responsible for creating an understanding of these matters.
My Lords, I am still a little mystified about the subject of the Solent Protection Society. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon that we were exceedingly interested in what they had to say, and in the vital importance of pre
1156
serving that most wonderful of areas which is indeed worthy to be a National Park on its own. I can only suggest that the Solent Protection Society should get in touch with the Portsmouth operations centre. I should have thought the centre would already have contacted the Solent Protection Society, but if they have not, this will be made known. Of course, as the noble Lord realises, the operations centre has been in touch with the Nature Conservancy and other bodies.
I was particularly interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, about an international task force for emergency action. It may well be that there are voices crying in the wilderness for some co-operative and civilised approach to the survival of mankind, and of all life, within an environment which in certain respects becomes ever more dangerous. I can do no more than say that the Government will take note of what the noble Lord has said. I do not think that he should despair too much. We do progress in these matters. We heeded some of the words of the noble Lord and others, and consideration has already been given to something along the lines of this proposal, which is one of a number of useful and interesting ideas.
The United Nations have a fund on which the Secretary General can draw, but only to alleviate natural disasters for which no human agency can be held responsible. But these institutions are growing. It may be that the "Torrey Canyon" may make people more aware of these dangers. Certainly it has given rise in this country to a great flood of volunteers and a greater appreciation of the public of bodies like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I hope that the actual damage which the "Torrey Canyon has done will be speedily removed, and that there may be some residual benefit in a greater understanding of this problem and in a greater willingness to take action.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before the debate concludes, I should like to correct the noble Lord on one point. I was rather mystified to hear him reproach me for not having paid tribute to the national effort. I think that when he reads Hansard to-morrow morning, he

1157
will see that I paid, and was very glad to pay, tribute to all concerned—Services, volunteers, scientists and local authorities, and that I was careful to give credit where credit was due to the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON:
My Lords, of course I apologise. I must say that it was one of the most careful and guarded tributes to the Government that he could possibly have given, but none the less we are grateful even for that.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have had a very constructive debate, and that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has given us a great deal of information. I much appreciate the very extended way in which he has replied to the debate. He said that much remains to be done. With Her Majesty's Government's assurance that every effort will be made to extend the provisions of the Maritime Convention, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTH DEVON (MELDON RESERVOIR) WATER ORDER 1966
Special Procedure Order laid before the House on January 17 last, withdrawn.

SAINT MARY-LE-PARK, BATTERSEA BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.