Sitting of 15 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Erskine Bridge Tolls Act, 1968.

2. Administration of Justice Act, 1968.

3. Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1968.

4. London Cab Act, 1968.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 12th March.
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, next.
  AIRDRIE COURT HOUSE COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  Mr. R. W. Elliott discharged from the Committee of Selection; Mr. Francis Pym added.—[Mr. McCann.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Motor Vehicles (Removal by Police)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances the Metropolitan Police now remove vehicles from the street without the permission of the owners.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Those set out in the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations, 1968, which authorises a constable to remove a vehicle which is causing obstruction or is likely to cause danger or is contravening a statutory prohibition or appears to have been abandoned without lawful authority.
    Mr. Cronin: As it is now, and has been for some time, possible for police officers to impose summary fines at the time of the parking infringement, could my hon. and learned Friend assure us that in future the removal of cars will be confined to cases of actual physical obstruction or impedence of travel?
    Mr. Taverne: Certainly the main reason why cars are removed is to ease the flow of traffic. If my hon. Friend has some cases in mind of unjustified removals of cars, I hope that he will let me know.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that my car was towed away from a certain spot in the West End some months ago, on which every night since other cars have been parked with complete impunity?
    Mr. Taverne: No, Sir, I was not aware of that, but whether or not a particular car is towed away may well depend on the traffic conditions at the time.

    Approved Schools (Corporal Punishment)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department with what rules a master in an approved school must comply when thrashing a boy on the buttocks.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Rule 35 of the Approved School Rules; and the Common Law, which is that corporal punishment is lawful only if it is moderate in manner, quantity and severity.
    Mr. Cronin: Would my right hon. Friend reaffirm the assurance of his predecessor last November that corporal punishment will be phased out of approved schools as soon as possible? Will he also reassure us that the date when these sadistic practices cease will be as early as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: Although there are difficulties in handling unruly boys of advanced years, that is to say, of 14 or 15—[An HON. MEMBER: "Advanced years? "]—I mean before they become young men. I do not underrate the difficulties of the staff who must deal with them, whether in ordinary schools or approved schools, but I agree that the sooner we can achieve better methods of treatment than corporal punishment the better.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Wrongly Charged Persons)
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to assess and award compensation for financial and other loss to such persons as shall be certified by a court to have been wrongly charged with a criminal offence of which another person is subsequently convicted.
    Mr. Taverne: I have every sympathy with the innocent person wrongly accused, but I am not satisfied that it would be right or practicable to confer a statutory right to compensation.
    Mr. Lyons: Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that in 1967 there were at least three cases of men charged with criminal offences of which other men were subsequently convicted? Does he not think that it is about time that these men should have what he suggests is not practicable—an absolute right to claim compensation for the humiliation which they suffered?
    Mr. Taverne: The difficulty about my hon. Friend's rather ingenious suggestion is that it involves discriminating between certain kinds of acquittal and other kinds of acquittal and making the right to compensation depend on a subsequent event, the conviction of someone else, which is an invidious distinction and would make it unjust to refuse it in other cases.

    Civil Defence
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors he took into
    1552
    account when deciding to reduce civil defence to a care and maintenance basis.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The current level of civil defence expenditure, our financial circumstances and the risk of a nuclear attack.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is it now Government policy to keep the civil defence organisation in a state from which it can readily be reactivated if needed?
    Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir. It can indeed be reactivated. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt aware, we are preserving the operational physical assets and the core of knowledge and expertise which would enable us to raise the level of civil defence rapidly if necessary, and the warning and monitoring system is being continued in existence.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, since we may be wanting to debate this subject, that the Government will have to lay an Order to make their policy legal and effective?
    Mr. Ennals: It is not my impression that that is so, but I would require notice of that question.
    Sir D. Renton: Did the Home Secretary bear in mind the fact that, in an emergency, the Civil Defence Corps, once disbanded, would not be there to form a cadre of volunteers to man the civil defence services? What will be done about the problem of manning the civil defence organisation if an emergency comes?
    Mr. Ennals: It is true that the volunteers will not be there, though a great deal of work is being done by those in Government and local authority service thereby maintaining and manning the essential elements, to which can be added the volunteers.
    Mr. Deedes: What change in our nuclear strategy led to this decision?
    Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the danger of nuclear war has clearly been receding over the years. However, this was not the only consideration. The financial considerations were, of course, involved in this.
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what personnel will operate the civil defence system in the event of attack on the United Kingdom by a foreign power: when and how they will be trained; and what will be the cost of such training.
    Mr. Ennals: In the event of an attack the civil defence control system would be manned by the staff of Government Departments, public utilities and local authorities and members of the regular police and fire services and armed forces. Training on a modest scale is to be maintained, but resumption of full-scale activity would be a matter for the Government of the day. The initial training required to support a continuously ready system of central and local government in war might cost about £2 million.
    Sir D. Renton: How many permanent staff of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will there be? Is he aware that it would not be possible to have the civil defence system properly manned without thousands of volunteers and that they need to be trained in advance?
    Mr. Ennals: It is recognised that if there were to be an emergency, it would take some time to bring forward the volunteers. As I have already said, there will be a centrally trained core of personnel to provide a nucleus. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to know that the central civil defence training establishment at Easingwold will continue with training and specialised courses, not only for the national warning and monitoring organisation, but also for all those having continuing responsibilities for civil defence planning in both local and central government.
    Mr. William Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are grateful for the fact that the Government have finally shed the dangerous illusion that there is some sort of defence against a nuclear attack?
    Mr. Ennals: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's view. It is important that we should have both skill and training available and a system which can he activated if the danger were to re-occur.
    Mr. John Hall: As an emergency implies an immediate requirement, how will it help to bring forward volunteers who require long training?
    Mr. Ennals: It is true that, if there were to be an immediate emergency, we would not have the volunteers available. It is also absolutely clear that the centrally trained personnel to whom I have referred in both local government and central government will be available, trained and ready. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to assume that we are likely to have a sudden emergency without any warning whatsoever. The Government are prepared.
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the savings on salaries and wages in 1968–69 and 1969–70 in respect of cuts in civil defence services, with special reference to the Auxiliary Fire Service; how many permanent staff of each grade will be dismissed; and what provision will be made for their re-employment.
    Mr. Ennals: The level of continuing activity in civil defence, and arrangements for dealing with displaced local authority staff, are under discussion with the local authority associations. As regards the A.F.S., I hope that fire authorities will find it possible to absorb all the staff concerned into the normal establishment of fire brigades. The savings in salaries are estimated at about £1·6 million in 1968–69, including £·14 million for the A.F.S., and about £2·3 million in 1969–70, including £ ·3 million for the A.F.S.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Auxiliary Fire Service would he very glad to serve without their small remuneration? Would it not be possible to keep this organisation in being so that it could help in emergencies, as it has done in so many cases?
    Mr. Ennals: The willingness and generosity of the members of the A.F.S. and also of the Civil Defence Corps to give their services voluntarily is greatly appreciated. It is in line with their spirit of public service. However, such a saving would account for only about 8 per cent. of total expenditure and it would be impossible to maintain anything effective on a voluntary basis in that way.
    Dr. Winstanley: Would the Under-Secretary give further consideration to those aspects of the present civil defence services—the Auxiliary Fire Service and

    1555
    others—for which there is clearly a civilian rôle? Would he consider the establishment of a volunteer defence force for use in national civil emergencies in order to provide an outlet for the public spiritedness and the expertise of the many people who will now be displaced?
    Mr. Ennals: It must be recognised that this is not the purpose of the A.F.S., though it has certainly given notable service on a number of occasions of civil distress. Its purpose is to be ready in war circumstances. I will certainly give consideration to the question whether there is any other way in which volunteers can be used.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the need to recruit and train against the increase in crime, he will refrain from making any proposals for placing any numerical restrictions on the recruiting of police in the United Kingdom or the Metropolitan Police District in 1968–69.
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect the Government's proposed cuts in public expenditure will have on police recruitment in 1968–69 and 1969–70; and what the net effects of the cuts will be on police manpower.
    Mr. Grieveasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what figures police strength in England and Wales is now short of authorised establishment; and what proposals he has for bringing it up to strength.
    Mr. Callaghan: Arrangements have been made to increase the strength of the service in England and Wales by some 1,200 officers between 1st January this year and 31st March, 1969. The Metropolitan Police will increase its strength by over 500 officers. Plans have not yet been made beyond 31st March, 1969.
    On 31st December, 1967 the strength of the police service in England and Wales was 89,597, namely 17,839 short of the authorised establishment.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the increase in crime and the shortage of police, under establishment, as against the very
    1556
    satisfactory upsurge in recruitment in the last 12 months, is it not the craziest of all false economies to put any restriction in the way of recruiting and training more police? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny the rumour that it is proposed to close down Peel House?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not know about Peel House. To answer the earlier part of that supplementary, I am bound to say that those comments come oddly from an hon. Gentleman opposite. The increase in police strength has been unparalleled in the last three years, and we have been making up past deficiencies. We have now reached the stage when I think that the question of establishment needs to be looked at on a much more scientific basis than it was in the past, especially in view of the change in policing systems. I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to spend more public money than I need, even on this.
    Mr. Carlisle: Since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that the police are still over 17,000 men short, on what possible basis does he deliberately limit recruitment to below the rate at which recruits have, in recent months, been coming in?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not accept that the police force is 17,839 short of the numbers it requires. The fact that the various establishments have been built up on an unscientific basis in the past in the reason why we are now working them out properly and are not recruiting men if they are not necessary. I repeat that the strength of the police force has increased very substantially in the last three years; it has increased in an unparalleled way.
    Mr. Grieve: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, though 17,000 short of establishment, the police have adequate men to deal with the appalling rate of crime prevailing in England today?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that because of the success of the Government in strengthening the police force, the increase in the rate of crime is now very much lower that it was before. This is a matter for congratulations by everybody and, on the question of establishment, I have pointed out that it has not been measured scientifically. It must be

    1557
    measured in that way and I intend to ensure that it is. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may bury their heads in the past, but if, at the end of the day, the examination shows that, as a result of the introduction of the new police systems—which, by the end of this year, will cover 80 per cent. of the people of Britain—more men are needed, we will take them on However, I will clearly not authorise an excessive increase in strength until I am certain that it is required.
    Mr. Hogg: While rejoicing, as I suppose the whole House will, at the recent increases in recruitment, does the right hon. Gentleman really ask the House to believe that all that we need this year is 1,200 extra policemen? If he does not ask us to believe that, then in what possible way does it help devaluation to work to keep the police force below its requirements?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The police force is not being kept below its requirements. Its authorised establishment is quite different from what it requires, and it is the authorised establishment on which I intend to concentrate. As to whether I know what I am about, I had 10 years' experience of this before the right hon. and learned Gentleman opened his mouth on the subject. I intend to ensure that the level of establishment is measured scientifically and accurately, to carry out the policy of the party opposite, but to see that we do not waste public money unnecessarily.
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that the manning of police forces will be adequate to enable them to combat the crime wave with increased success.
    Mr. Callaghan: It is intended to press on with plans to introduce mobile systems of policing, and to provide the necessary equipment. There will be no interruption of these programmes, whose main purpose is to enable the same work to be done more efficiently with less manpower.
    Sir D. Renton: Is the Home Secretary aware that in spite of equipping the police better and in spite of there having been more police in the last three years, the crime wave has increased very consider-
    1558
    ably and the detection rate still remains well below 50 per cent.? Will not he reconsider the matter and bear in mind that without more policemen we shall not effectively tackle the crime wave?
    Mr. Callaghan: Indictable crime rose throughout England and Wales by no more than 1·5 per cent. in the first nine months of last year, which was a very considerable improvement. I think that this is due to the increased manpower in the force, but I cannot go back over all the ground which we discussed in previous Questions. It is the Government's job to hold the balance between better equipment and fewer men. On the whole, I think that what we need in the police at present is equipment more than men.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the recruitment of Commonwealth citizens as special constables as well as as ordinary policemen?
    Mr. Callaghan: I believe that this is being done in the ranks of special constables, but I could not give my hon. Friend an answer offhand as to how many have been recruited. It is certainly policy.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with the Police Advisory Board before reductions in police recruitment were announced.
    Mr. Callaghan: None, Sir. This was a decision for the Government to take.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But does not the Home Secretary, who has just boasted that he has been in this game for 10 years, realise the importance of consulting the police over a matter which vitally affects their capacity, on behalf of the nation, to cope with the crime wave?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. If I may repeat the boast, I was one of the authors of the idea of joint consultation between the police and the Government. I am glad to say that I saw officers of the Police Federation yesterday, and I think that they are quite satisfied that there will be full and adequate consultation on all matters which are within our purview.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to

    1559
    what extent the rate of police recruiting has been affected by the cuts in Government expenditure; and when, at the new permitted rate of recruitment, the police force in England and Wales and, in particular, the Thames Valley Division will be up to strength.
    Mr. Callaghan: The level of recruiting allowed will be related to the rate of wastage, which cannot be precisely predicted. The strength of the police in England and Wales increased last year by 4,124 officers, and the forces comprising the Thames Valley Force by 143, compared with permitted increases of 1,200 and 59 respectively between 1st January, 1968 and 31st March, 1969. The rates of recruitment after 31st March, 1969 have not yet been settled.
    Mr. Hall: Unless I misheard, the Home Secretary did not answer my Question. I asked when the establishments would be up to strength, but all he told me, as I understood it, was the increase there had been over the past year or so. Will the right hon. Gentleman now say when the establishments in England and Wales, and in the Thames Valley Division in particular, will be up to strength?
    Mr. Callaghan: I could tell the hon. Gentleman that only if I could anticipate the rate of wastage and if I knew what the rate of recruitment was likely to be after 31st March 1969. Neither is as yet vouchsafed to me.

    Police Forces (Electronic and Mechanical Equipment)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that facilities are adequate to maintain all new electronic and mechanical equipment being used in police forces; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware of any general difficulty on this score, but if the hon. Gentleman has in mind difficulties in any particular area and will write to me, I shall be glad to examine the matter.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful for that Answer. In general terms, in relation to the increased use of this equipment, can the right hon. Gentleman say if he considers that the Ministry of Defence
    1560
    might make use of some of those coming out of the Forces, whose experience might be of value in maintaining this equipment, much of which is of a comparable nature to that used in the Services?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that, for example, the number of pocket radio sets in use will have increased from 600 in January, 1966, to 20,000 by the end of this year. This is having a substantial impact on the nature of policing and I will, therefore, be delighted to consider any suggestions about bringing in technicians who can help us to service this equipment and thereby save extra manpower.
    Mr. Whitaker: How many of our police forces now have computers? How near are we to the identification of fingerprints by this method, which the United States has been using for many years?
    Mr. Callaghan: I cannot answer the first part of that question without notice. Certainly there is a substantial development at Scotland Yard, which I had the opportunity of seeing for myself the other day, when they rapidly—within a matter of minutes—identified somebody who was wanted; and I hope that that will bring terror to the hearts of some would-be evil doers.

    Commonwealth Immigrants
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the welcome and assistance given citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who emigrate from Great Britain to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, he will seek to relax restrictions on entry and terms of residence imposed upon Her Majesty's subjects from those realms under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Mr. Ennals: I would refer to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on 14th December, and to my speech in the debate on Commonwealth immigration on 21st December.—[Vol. 756, c. 193, c. 1513–36.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not it be appropriate to distinguish between fellow subjects of the Queen and citizens of

    1561
    republics which may not give us reciprocity?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman's Question refers to the old Commonwealth countries. There is no basis of comparison between those countries, which are seeking to attract immigrants, and this country, which obviously is not doing so.

    Dangerous Substances (Carriage by Road)
    Mr. E. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to control the transportation of dangerous materials by road; and whether such legislation will cover the over 800 dangerous substances carried by road.
    Mr. Ennals: The carriage of explosives, acetylene, petroleum spirit and certain other dangerous substances is already subject to statutory control. On the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, my right hon. Friend will shortly be making regulations dealing with the conveyance by road of over 200 inflammable liquids, and work has begun on similar regulations about corrosives. Regulations about poisons, organic peroxides and other classes of dangerous substances commonly carried by road will follow.
    Mr. Rowlands: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that it is time that a sense of urgency was injected into this matter? Is he aware that for about seven years we have been discussing legislation and regulations regarding the carriage of dangerous loads? Will he urge my right hon. Friend to complete the whole job by including all 800 or more substances which are carried by road?
    Mr. Ennals: A sense of urgency does exist and I can promise my hon. Friend that the statutes to which I referred will be brought forward within a very few weeks. As for the others, they entail a great deal of consultation with the industries concerned, but I assure my hon. Friend that they are already proceeding and that we are treating the matter with extreme urgency.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Having regard to the nasty cases we have had recently of inflammable materials being carried by
    1562
    road, would it not be right to put the control of inflammable materials carried by road under the Ministry of Transport instead of under the Explosives Department of the Home Office, as the Ministry of Transport would be able to deal with it better?
    Mr. Ennals: That aspect of the question is under consideration.
    Mr. Horner: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department, for nearly 10 years, has been unsuccessfully trying to devise a simple method of labelling these substances so that in an emergency firemen may know what they are dealing with? Will he take it from me that his statement this afternoon that we can expect some legislation for control of the transport of these substances will be met with great scepticism in the Fire Service?
    Mr. Ennals: It is true that there has been delay over many years—I believe over 10 years—but I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied when he sees the progress which is now being made. I hope that he will welcome the regulations when they are brought forward.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional measures he is taking to prevent illegal entry of Pakistanis and others into Great Britain.
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the First Schedule, Part 1, Section 1(2) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, so as to enable illegal immigrants to be deported even if they have not been examined within 24 hours of landing.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes Sir, there is a case for some amendment of the law, to deal with clandestine immigration, when further immigration legislation is introduced. The primary safeguard is effective and vigilant co-operation between the police and other authorities on both sides of the Channel.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I thank the Home Secretary for that excellent Answer. Will he assure the House that he will deal in the amending legislation with the fault in the originating Act which prohibited the deportation of any person clandestinely

    1563
    entering the United Kingdom after 24 hours' sojourn here?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, that will be the purpose of the legislation when it is introduced.
    Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend give any details of the racketeers who are misleading people about entering the United Kingdom? Does he agree that we should not lose sight of the misery caused to the victims of those racketeers?
    Mr. Callaghan: I agree with my hon. Friend. The police are making a detailed examination of this traffic with the French and Belgian authorities and are receiving great help from them.
    Sir R. Russell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before the legislation comes into force?
    Mr. Callaghan: I could not give an answer to that question this afternoon.
    Mr. Sandys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the legislation will also deal with the problem of the influx of Asians from East Africa?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun on Question No. 31.

    Parliamentary Candidates (Costs)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the large increase in the costs of Parliamentary candidates since the present maximum permissible statutory limits were established, notably transport and printing costs; and whether he will conduct a Departmental inquiry and publish the findings, as to the increased costs, with a view to substantial increases in the statutory limits for both borough and county constituencies.
    Mr. Callaghan:The Government are now considering the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law that there should be an increase in the basic figure to £750.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the very difficult position of candidates in large county constituencies, who are tied to maximum costs imposed 20 years ago, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring in this year an upward limit of at least 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think this will be a matter for discussion. I find on looking through the records that quite a number of candidates seem to manage quite well within the existing limits.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot manage.
    Mr. Callaghan: We know that the hon. Member could not manage anything. This matter must be looked at in conjunction with the other recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I could not undertake to introduce separate legislation on this matter.
    Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that this recommendation was made by Mr. Speaker's Conference nearly two years ago and it is an urgent matter, will the right lion. Gentleman take urgent steps to deal with this particular problem as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: As we are not going to have an election for two or three years, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is worrying about. We have been waiting for the recommendation from Mr. Speaker's Conference about the age of voting. That has now been received and it will enable a wide discussion to take place on the recommendations that have come forward.
    Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the fact that these limits affect borough elections, which certainly will take place, as well as Parliamentary Elections which the whole country hopes will take place, will the right hon. Gentleman look at this a little more seriously? Will he be warned by the terrible example of the United States where the formal limits are much lower and where every candidate, from the President downwards, has to commit perjury before he gets in?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with his usual moderation, as on all other questions. I note that you, Mr. Speaker, have recommended this increase. It is a matter for discussion whether something should be done in advance of the general recommendations or not. I would not take a hard and fast view on that if the House as a whole decided that there was a case for an increase and wanted it considered earlier, but I had better not go further or the Lord President of the Council will he after me.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not reflect, even accidentally, on heads of friendly foreign Powers.
    Mr. Hogg: I apologise. I except the President.

    Obscene Publications
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce amending legislation to prevent the circulation of perverse and indecent publications, examples of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have no proposals for amending the Obscene Publications Acts. The particular publication forwarded to me by my hon. Friend has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
    Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that explanation. As the information in the publication is bound to affect the young, the adolescent and the weak-willed, will my right hon. Friend convey my best wishes for success to the Director of Public Prosetions?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think it would be improper for me to do so. I think the best way of dealing with this kind of literature is not to read it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Do not display it.

    Paper Dresses
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received the assurances which in his official capacity he required from the editors of "Petticoat" that paper dresses advertised in this magazine would in future be flame-resistant; and what further assurances he has obtained from the editors regarding their warning their readers of the inflammability of the dresses previously advertised by that magazine.
    Mr. Ennals: The editors of this magazine have assured me that they will not be offering paper dresses to their readers again and that a suitable warning about the hazards presented by untreated paper dresses will be included in the issue for 9th March.
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents could have been very badly burned as a result of the irresponsibility of this magazine? What steps is his Department taking to draw attention to these dangers, not only in this magazine but in others which may be using advertisements of this kind?
    Mr. Ennals: The trade is very well aware of the attitude of the Home Office on this question and I think it is co-operating. I am grateful to the editors of this magazine for the co-operation they have given us.

    Grendon Prison (Nursing Staff)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the recruitment of additional nursing staff for Grendon Prison.
    Mr. Taverne: Efforts have been made to recruit more nurses for Grendon in order to open the women's wing, but it has now been decided to make provision elsewhere for psychiatric treatment of women, and I am advised that the size of the existing nursing staff is adequate for Grendon's present needs.
    Mrs. Short: Does this mean that the women's wing at Grendon is not to be used for the purpose for which is was built? Is it intended to remove highly disturbed women from Holloway to make the running of Holloway Prison much more easy and acceptable?
    Mr. Taverne: It has been decided after a review that Grendon should not be used for this purpose. It is intended that a special hospital should be provided at another establishment.

    Second Psychiatric Prison
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the construction of a second psychiatric prison.
    Mr. Taverne: The need for such a prison is being studied by the Prison Medical Service Steering Committee. My right hon. Friend expects to receive shortly the recommendations of the Committee and will then consider

    1567
    whether to include such a project in the long-term prison development plan.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is generally accepted that such a second psychiatric prison is needed? Will he give an assurance that this will not be axed under current economy measures?
    Mr. Taverne: I think that when the Report of this Committee is received and consideration is given to it, it will be something for the medium and long-term Future and will not be affected by measures in the next two years.

    Dangerous Toys (Imports)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the regulations governing the safety of toys are adequate to prevent the import of dangerous toys from abroad, in view of recent sales of plastic firing guns from Hong Kong and models of a jack-in-the-box from China, details of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Ennals: In my view, there is no real risk of injury from the toy gun. Arrangements have been made for the jack-in-the-box to be suitably modified. My right hon. Friend proposes to review the scope of the present Regulations when the revised British Standard Code of Practice for Children's Toys is published in a few weeks' time.
    Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet about these toys and that the jack-in-the-box, about which some hon. Members laughed, had a very dangerous spike in its head? These toys were freely on sale in the shops until the Sun newspaper drew attention to their dangers. Since this kind of thing is frequently happening with imported toys, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the new regulations will give stricter control over imported toys?
    Mr. Ennals: I must wait to see the report on the revised Standard Code of Practice. The number of imported toys found to be dangerous is extremely small. We certainly appreciate it when members of the general public inform us about things which look dangerous. I tried the toy gun myself and I think it has no dangers at all.

    Children's Nightwear
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to ensure that all forms of children's nightwear are fire resistant.
    Mr. Ennals: The sale of children's nightdresses made of non-flame resistant material is already an offence. The Working Party on Flammable Clothing is at present reviewing the problem of children's dressing gowns.
    Mrs. Butler: Would my hon. Friend ask the Working Party or some other body to look into the possibility of producing a soft, attractive and permanently flame-resistant material at a reasonable price, because this would cover made-up dresses and pyjamas and ones which are made at home and would greatly increase the use of flame-resistant materials for all types of garments?
    Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend has touched on a real problem. Trade experience in the case of night dresses has been that garments which are made from these chemically treated fabrics are not popular, and many inquiries are being made to find a suitable material. It is a matter which I will ask the Working Party to look at.

    Imperial College (Vietnam " Teach-in ")
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the admission of North Vietnamese students to the United Kingdom; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend has received a request from the Imperial College Political Societies Council to agree to the admission of a Vietnamese spokesman to take part in a "teach-in" at Imperial College. This was discussed with the sponsors yesterday, and I will let them have a reply soon.
    Mr. Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that recent lamentable developments in Vietnam have illustrated the need for growing exchanges of this sort? Can he give us an assurance that bona fide applications of this sort will be treated favourably in the future?
    Mr. Ennals: I assured the House on 6th December that applications for visas by Vietnamese would be considered on their merits in the light of the relevant circumstances, and this will apply to this case and any other applications.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary twice said "Vietnamese". Does he mean "North Vietnamese ", because there is a big difference?
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the Under-Secretary remember that North Vietnam itself allows hardly any British citizens to visit that country and has refused all applications by Members on this side of the House?
    Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order. I was, of course, referring to applications from North Vietnamese.

    White Paper, The Child, the Family and the Young Offender
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the proposals in the White Paper on The Child, The Family And The Young Offender; and whether he will now make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am anxious to introduce legislation on this subject as soon as Parliamentary time is available, and I intend to make a statement on my proposals beforehand.
    Mr. Judd: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend accept that many of those most intimately concerned in the professions involved are anxiously awaiting an announcement, but does he agree that, on grounds of both economy and effectiveness, action along these lines is needed?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; it is important that I should consult with a number of the interests who will be responsible for operating the proposals which I bring forward, and I intend to start that process in the near future.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman's proposals include a review of the procedure by which he can recommend dismissal of staff from approved schools so as to allow a right of appeal to anyone whose dismissal has been recommended?
    Mr. Callaghan: The House knows that I have made some modest changes in procedure already. I do not know that it would necessarily hinge on a White Paper of this sort, which would deal with a wider problem, but I intend to review the question of appeals as a separate issue.

    Prison Building and Improvement Projects
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prison building and improvement projects will be affected by the proposed cuts in Government expenditure.
    Mr. Callaghan: The start of the building of the maximum security prison on the Isle of Wight and two other prisons will be deferred; proposals for adapting two redundant Ministry of Defence camps for prison use will be abandoned; there will be some reduction in the rate of increase in the provision of houses for staff; and some small prison improvement schemes will be deferred.
    Mr. Carlisle: As prisons today are more over-crowded than ever, what possible effect can this cut have except to make the situation worse still?
    Mr. Callaghan: I notice that it is a constitutional disease of hon. Members opposite to be in favour of economies in general and of none in particular. If I may repeat a theme song which I have uttered so often, the effect of these cuts is to reduce the rate of increase. Translating that, for example, into terms of prison houses for staff, in the first year when we came into office there were 125 houses bought for staff. In 1968–69, that is, the coming year, as a result of the cuts the figure will be not 125 but 700 new houses.
    Mr. Whitaker: As Dartmoor Prison was considered obsolete in the last century, will my right hon. Friend now announce a firm date for its abolition?
    Mr. Callaghan: I cannot do that at this moment. It is too soon after 17th January.

    Auxiliary Fire Service (Disbandment)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what savings will result in 1968–69 and 1969–70 from the decision to disband the Auxiliary Fire Service.
    Mr. Ennals: In England and Wales, about £0·6 million in 1968–69 and £1·1 million in 1969–70.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of decisions such as that which the Government have announced in regard to the A.F.S., and the way they announced it, is to help to destroy the spirit of voluntary service in this country? Will he explain what he meant when he referred in an earlier Answer to the absorption of personnel of the A.F.S. into local authority fire services? Does he intend by that to refer to volunteer members of the service?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions are becoming too long.
    Mr. Ennals: It is hoped that those who are now fully employed by local authorities on dealing with the A.F.S. will be absorbed into the general regular fire service. As regards the criticism which the hon. Gentleman makes, it is, I submit, sheer hypocrisy for hon. Members who have been constantly baying for cuts in public expenditure to come forward with that sort of criticism every time a cut is proposed.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to convene a conference of the Heads of Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia to discuss security arrangements in South-East Asia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to the conference originally proposed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, I would refer him to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) on 31st January.—[Vol. 757, c. 343–5.]
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 22nd January the Secretary of State for Defence referred to the need for an alternative basis for stability in
    1572
    South-East Asia? Will he tell the House something of the Government's ideas on how that alternative basis will be achieved?
    The Prime Minister: This was discussed with the Prime Minister of Singapore when he was here, and, after the announcement about defence arrangements, we made clear—indeed, I did so in my statement on 16th January—what we intend to do in order to help Singapore develop her own defences. The same applies to Malaysia.
    Sir Dingle Foot: Is it not the declared view of Her Majesty's Government that, even after the end of 1971, we shall still be under a continuing obligation to go to the aid of these countries if they are attacked? Ought there not, therefore, to be early and full consultation on the way in which that responsibility is to be carried out?
    The Prime Minister: That question also was dealt with in my statement. I referred to the general capability and the circumstances in which forces from that general capability could in certain circumstances be deployed in that or in other areas. This matter also has been discussed with the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that, only yesterday, the Prime Minister of Australia said that the question of swift availability of any British forces after 1971 was, to use his words, "clouded with doubt"? Is it not essential that this doubt be removed at the earliest possible moment? Until it is removed, will not Australia and New Zealand, as well as Malaysia and Singapore, believe that the sentence in the Prime Minister's statement means no more than his previous pledges?
    The Prime Minister: What it means is, as the Prime Minister of Australia well knows, that we would in any situation consider whether it was right for us to intervene. There is no blank cheque on intervention. As the right hon. Gentleman will well understand, the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand have expressed their own doubts about being able to do more in that area themselves.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chichester-Clark—Question No. Q2.
    Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that you half-called my name on Question No. QI, and is it not the convention—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    GOVERNMENT BILLS
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given as to the criteria which determine the placing of Ministerial names on the back of Government Bills.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the name of the Minister of Public Building and Works appears on the back of the Industrial Expansion Bill, may we have an assurance that, after the serious effects of licensing and the S.E.T., there is no plan for him to intervene further in this industry?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know how that arises from a Question about instructions regarding the criteria determining the putting of Ministers' names on the back of Government Bills, in which we are following exactly the same practice as our predecessors. The position regarding the construction industries following the statement on 16th January was explained in the debate in the House.

    MICHAEL COLLIERY, FIFE
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the need to re-examine the decision not to reopen the Michael Colliery in Fife, consequent on the proposal to establish a coal-fired power station at Invergordon as part of the aluminium smelter complex; and whether he will meet a delegation to discuss the matter.
    The Prime Minister: Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and I have received a number of representations about this colliery, including some from hon. Members. The future of the colliery is, of course, essentially a matter
    1574
    for the National Coal Board but my right hon. Friend, as the responsible Departmental Minister, is always ready to discuss this and similar matters with hon. Members. Indeed, I understand he discussed the particular colliery mentioned in the Question with my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends earlier this week.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some of us on this side of the House have seen both the Chairman of the National Coal Board and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, and that there seems to be some conflict of view between them on this matter? As Lord Robens has said in a letter to some of us that he wants to see at least a proportion of the coal for the project coming from Scottish coal mines, not excluding the Michael Colliery, will my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that the decision of the Cabinet on this matter will be delayed until Lord Robens has had a look at the forward projection of costs in the Scottish coal fields?
    The Prime Minister: All of us, none more than my hon. Friend, regret the tragedy which led to the situation in the Michael Colliery, which was, up to that time, a viable and extremely efficiently worked colliery. I am not aware of any misunderstanding or disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and Lord Robens on this matter. The future of the colliery is a matter for the National Coal Board. On the question of the colliery's relation to possible smelter projects, the whole smelter question is being considered by the Government, and a statement will be made in due course. I do not think that I can answer it now in relation to this colliery.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Could the Prime Minister at least assure us that Scottish coal will be used, and will he charge one Minister with the responsibility for this project, to cut through the administrative confusion stemming from there being no fewer than six Ministeries involved in this one project?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would naturally recognise that a number of Departments are very much involved in the matter, and must be, if the

    1575
    problem is to be tackled as a very important problem of this kind must be. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in general charge of the aluminium smelter project. There is the very complicated complication about a possible coal-fired smelter, which is being examined.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners of Michael Colliery were told that it was a commercial decision not to reopen the pit? Does he agree that hon. Members on this side of the House, including himself, have said that Governments can influence market trends? Does he agree that miners are entitled to be dissatisfied because of their past support for this Government?
    The Prime Minister: The question of the Michael Colliery was raised with me in very strong terms by representatives of the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers as long ago as last September at a very full meeting on the whole question of the coalmining industry. Because of the loss of production caused by the accident, the situation there has changed and the decision must be one for the National Coal Board, which is in close touch with the Government about it.
    Mr. Heath: When are the Government likely to be in a position to announce their decisions about the various proposals for aluminium smelters? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that when they make the announcement the Government will publish details of the economics of the various forms of power involved, so that we can come to our own conclusion on how the problems have been resolved?
    The Prime Minister: It will be two or three weeks yet before a decision can be announced to the House. I shall certainly consider how much detail should be given. From his own experience, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that this kind of question is of interest to our E.F.T.A. colleagues, and there have been and must be discussions with them. As between nuclear energy and coal, we shall of course want to make as full a statement as possible to the House when the decision is taken.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on television on 22nd January represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 13th February to Questions by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).—[Vol. 758, c. 319.]
    Mr. Onslow: What apologies have been conveyed to the Rulers in the Gulf for the typically foolish remarks of the Secretary of State for Defence about white slavery?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend authorised a statement to be issued to those concerned in the Persian Gulf expressing regret for any offence he may unintentionally have given by those remarks.
    Mr. Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister recall the letter I sent him on 11th January, five days before his statement of Government cuts, conveying an offer from certain Gulf States to meet the full cost of our continuing defence presence in the Gulf? Why was this so summarily dismissed at the time, and subsequently so discourteously referred to by the Secretary of State for Defence on television?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I remember the letter, which arose from the hon. Gentleman's very well-meaning efforts as a mediator between the chargé d'affaires of one of the States concerned, whom he met at a cocktail party or something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Some hon. Members had expressed disbelief that I remembered the letter. I hope that I have now proved that I have remembered it. What the hon. Gentleman had to say, though not conveyed to us officially by any of the Governments concerned at that time, was considered seriously. The matter was raised again later, and our answer was given to the States concerned.
    Mr. Maudling: As the Secretary of State's remarks which caused very grave

    1577
    offence to our friends in the Gulf were made in public, why were his very proper regrets made only in private?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the House usually accepted a Minister's statement when he made it clear that regret had been expressed, and I have made it clear publicly now. I should have thought that since the States concerned were willing to accept that statement by my right hon. Friend the House would also be willing to do so.
    Mr. Roebuck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a bipartisan policy on this? Does he recall the speech on 7th December of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to the Monday Club —theirs, not ours—published in The Times of 8th December, in which the right hon. Gentleman advocated pulling back all our forces from east of Suez? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Leader of the Opposition to see if this is the Opposition's official policy?
    The Prime Minister: That lies outside my duties. In a recent debate I quoted other statements by the right hon. Gentleman concerned, but I have long tried to reconcile any of his statements with what appears, if one can be sure about this, to be the Opposition's defence policy.

    PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL VISITS (AIR TRAVEL)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister whether he will in future, when travelling overseas by air on official business, make use of the services of British civil airline operators.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, all of my official journeys overseas have been made in aircraft either of the Royal Air Force or of British civil airline operators. I have no reason to suppose that any different arrangement will be necessary in future.
    Mr. Onslow: Would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to do something to back Britain for a change by making it a firm rule to fly by British European Airways whenever they travel in Europe, and by British civil airlines whenever they travel elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that my predecessors used to charter an American aircraft for their visits to the United States— [Interruption.]—a B.O.A.C.— owned Boeing aircraft. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much aircraft noise.
    The Prime Minister: The Boeing happens to be—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will put—
    [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are losing Question Time.
    The Prime Minister: If hon. Members will put down Questions of this kind week after week they will be answered, and they will listen to the answers. As I was saying, my predecessors chartered Boeing aircraft from B.O.A.C. From October, 1964, I made it clear that I intended to fly only in British aircraft. My early flights were in B.O.A.C. Comets—obviously slower, but at any rate British —which was what the hon. Gentleman wanted. More recently in the main I have been using R.A.F. aircraft, both Comets and V.C.10s, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would approve of that. I hope that that meets his requirements. With regard to my right hon. Friend's flight, as has been made clear several times, going by the airline concerned was the only way he could get there in anything like the time required and return for some very important discussions in America and Britain.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that hon. Members on the back benches opposite are doing almost everything but throw bottles?
    The Prime Minister: I have noticed that, for a long time, hon. Members opposite have thought that the best way to cover up their lack of policy is to follow such tactics.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are very willing to see him share with other carriers?
    The Prime Minister: Like all the hon. Gentleman's recent supplementary questions—and he used to be a serious junior Minister—that is once again typical of Peyton Place.
    Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even if the Opposition had bottles, they would miss?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. They share that in common with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But, of course, we have seen earlier this week supporters who, when they thought their side was losing, started to throw bottles.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the time is ripe for the Business Question.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that, in answer to Question No. 9, the Home Secretary rebuked my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) for "jumping the gun "—the gun in question being my Question No. 31 regarding an emergency situation. Did not the Home Secretary's rebuke imply a clear intention to answer Question No. 31 and connected Questions? May I ask whether you have received a request from him to answer it?
    Mr. Speaker: Neither the Home Secretary nor the Chair could have anticipated that Question No. 31 would not be reached. It is not in order to anticipate a Question of some other hon. Member on the Order Paper. I have had no request from the Home Secretary.

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, 19TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Revenue (No. 2) Bill and of the National Loans Bill.
TUESDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Bill.
Prayer on the Dangerous Drugs (Notification of Addicts) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
THURSDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill (Lords).
FRIDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Supply (11th Allotted Day): A debate on a topic to be announced later.
Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Defence White Paper will be published? Secondly, as the Home Secretary did not have an opportunity to answer Question No. 31 today, can the Leader of the House give a firm assurance that the Home Secretary will make a statement as early as possible next week about the very serious and, as we recognise, at the same time complicated problem which arises from the increase in immigration from Kenya?
Mr. Crossman: I expect the Defence White Paper and Estimates to be published on 22nd February. On the second point, I think that we had better see what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says in his Written Answer to Question No. 31 but certainly I will communicate to him the right hon. Gentleman's desire for a statement next week.
Mr. Edelman: In view of the deep and justifiable resentment felt by thousands of sacked workers following rationalisation without consultation, will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on mergers and the social consequences that flow from them?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the widespread interest in the House for such a debate and I will try to find time. But I am afraid that it will not be next week.
Sir R. Renton: If the right hon. Gentleman heard the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to Question No. 4, he may realise that there was a doubt in the Under-Secretary of State's mind as to whether it would be necessary for the Government to lay an Order to enable their intention to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service to be carried out. Can the right hon. Gentleman now assure us that such an

1581
Order will be laid and that we shall have an opportunity to debate it adequately?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. I gather from consultation at this moment that an Order will be laid. Of course, if an Order is laid there is opportunity for debate according to the wishes of the Opposition.
Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the Opposition have given any indication that they want a debate on Vietnam? If the Opposition are not prepared to use one of their Supply Days, will the Government allow an early debate on this very intense and serious matter?
Mr. Crossman: Whatever the Opposition may think, I always listen with care to the demands and suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I know the desire of the House in this matter but there cannot be a debate next week. We are now coming into the period of Supply and Defence Estimates. We shall have opportunities to discuss Vietnam during the Defence Estimates and afterwards but I cannot guarantee a special day in the near future.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion standing in my name about Mrs. Mopps and Valentines?
[That in the opinion of this House it is destroying the spirit of its traditional existence if, in accordance with the practice of the House, the words "representations" and "lady cleaners" have to be substituted for "Valentines" and "Mrs. Mopps" in a parliamentary question in order to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the delightful way the Mrs. Mopps, who have the affection of us all, have used to emphasise their grievance and sense of injustice over their treatment and that the practice of the House should be altered to allow the use of these words.]
Is he aware that I would very much like to have asked questions of the Prime Minister in the terms of Mrs. Mopps and Valentines? What is wrong in the English language with Valentines anyway?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is now discussing the merits of the Motion. She must ask for a day to discuss Mrs. Mopps.
Dame Irene Ward: If the Leader of the House is not going to follow up what I have asked for in my Motion—which he may well be doing—may I have an opportunity of discussing whether I can ask about Mrs. Mopps and Valentines?
Mr. Crossman: I can never exclude the hon. Lady from asking anything. I think that the hon. Lady's style was charming and I hope that she will repeat it.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In planning our future engagements, has my right hon. Friend any news to give us about the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I can now safely say that the Recess will be from Friday, 12th April, to Monday, 22nd April, inclusive.
Sir G. Nabarro: As it seems likely that the Tories will have issued by-election writs for their formerly-held seats next week, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Patronage Secretary proposes next week to apply for by-election writs for Dudley, Meriden and Acton, where the electors have been disenfranchised for more than four months?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman refers to disenfranchisement, but seats for which the Opposition have applied for writs have been vacant longer than those not yet applied for. The actual date of application is strictly a matter for the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grave anxiety is being created in the mining industry in view of the absence of, or delay in laying, the Regulations for compensation within the 1967 Act? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power the possibilities of making an early announcement?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention. I had not been aware of it, and I will certainly discuss this with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Biffen: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is the time of the year when we are normally told that the economic situation is so perilous that the prices and incomes policy needs further

1583
legislative backing? Can he therefore indicate to the House whether next week, or certainly before the Budget, the Government will give some indication of their intentions in this respect?
Mr. Crossman: I will cautiously say that no statement will be made during the course of next week—in business time.
Mr. Milne: As so many matters of economic and industrial importance are being discussed next week, will my hon. Friend make early arrangements to have a debate on the effect of mounting pit closures on the regional development policy of the Government?
Mr. Crossman: I will certain bear that in mind. I think that my hon. Friend must seek opportunities for himself, because there will not be a great deal of Government time for debates of that kind in the next fortnight or so.
Mr. Farr: As it is certain that the statement which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is to make to the House shortly will be (a) critical and (b) highly debatable, would the right hon. Gentleman see if time can be found to discuss this matter further at an early date?
Mr. Crossman: I am well aware of the predictability of all the statements by my right hon. Friend. We will wait and just make sure.
Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend to let us have a statement on certain experiments that have been taking place in the past few days in another place? I recognise that their Lordships have a certain local autonomy so far as their own administration is concerned, but is he aware that there is very strong opposition to television in this House—
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the merits of what he seeks to discuss.
Mr. Price: With great respect I am not seeking to discuss the merits. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me if he recognises that this House is sovereign in the voting of Supply paying for this experiment. Will he give some informa-
1584
tion about who is to meet the bill for £18,000 reported by—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask for time to discuss who will meet the bill. This is Business Question time.
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for eliciting that statement of view from hon. Members about the future of the House's attitude to television. I give him an assurance that the question will not be raised again during this Session. This is quite clear. It is a firm decision which has been taken. We are to make our own experiment with sound radio during this Session. Meanwhile, I recommend hon. Members to go on the last day and visit the other place to see the interesting experiment now going on. I have learned a good deal from it.
Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. With great respect, I suggest that the constitutional question involved is who pays for the experiment already made, and I think that the House is entitled to know—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is entitled to know in some other way than through a business question. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he can ask for time to discuss this constitutional issue of who pays for their Lordships' television.
Sir F. Bennett: Doubtless the Leader of the House is aware of the inter-union dispute which has been causing very widespread damage to the tourist industry in South-West Devon and which is now likely to spread elsewhere. Would he mind having a word with the Minister of Labour, who I think he will find appreciates our difficulties in this matter, and ask him whether he would consider coming to the House early next week and making a statement?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend the desire of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the dispute in Torbay.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House will be aware that it was Bagehot who opined that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and see it. Does he realise that this truth is even more apparent on television?
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is

1585
considerable dissatisfaction in the House concerning the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture about the extension of the imports of meat into this country. Will he say when the House will have an opportunity to discuss this matter?
Mr. Crossman: I repeat what I have said. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend will make a statement after business questions. We had better wait to hear what he says.
Mr. Orme: Returning to the issue of Vietnam, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now over 300 names to the Motion on the Notice Paper on this issue? While the Opposition, in an unprecedented way, have not taken steps to debate this issue, does he realise that the statement of Dean Rusk yesterday seems to contradict what the Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday, and the matter ought to be debated urgently next week in this House?
Mr. Crossman: Matters of urgency are matters for which hon. Members can make their own opportunities. I said that we would await the report of the Prime Minister before deciding whether a debate was urgently necessary. It was my impression that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, and the discussion that we had, there was not an immediate urgency for a debate on Vietnam. But I am willing to take advice on how much the House needs it. Just at the moment I cannot see it coming next week, or the week after.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: As the Prime Minister indicated in reply to a Question this afternoon that he does not really basically understand the urgency or the need to mend his fences with Australia, could the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a debate on the specific question of the Government's relations with Australia and New Zealand?
Mr. Crossman: I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when we come to the Defence White Paper, in the debates which follow, there might be opportunities for raising that subject.
Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend did not announce for next week
1586
a date for the Estimates Committee. Can he tell us when we are likely to get this?
Mr. Crossman: I simply ask the hon. Lady to wait in patience. It is not really a matter of immediate urgency whether the Report she has in mind is debated one week or another. She has the assurance that the Report will be debated in due course.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Lord President aware that one of the reasons why so many people are anxious to debate Vietnam is because the Prime Minister's statement on his extremely important talks was very thin and very inadequate? Will he therefore accept—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into the merits.
Mr. Griffiths: In the light of that, will the Leader of the House not reconsider this and provide Government time, because it is Government policy that is to be discussed?
Mr. Crossman: Certainly. I am always prepared to consider all suggestions from all sides of the House and I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and discuss this through the usual channels.
Mr. Archer: As the House was told as long ago as 15th November, 1965, that the United Kingdom would accede to the Genocide Convention when Parliamentary time could be found for the necessary legislation, can the Leader of the House say when the Parliamentary time will be found?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I can say that it will not be next week. Perhaps we can discuss the matter behind Mr. Speaker's Chair.
Sir J. Eden: Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), in any consultation that the right hon. Gentleman has with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would he press upon him the extreme urgency of the situation, and the need for an early statement in order to prevent this dispute spreading to other areas?
Mr. Crossman: I will inform my right hon. Friend that Bournemouth stands shoulder to shoulder with Torbay.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that Ayrshire Members on both sides of the House wish to pray against the Ayrshire Police Order, and that we have had no opportunity of doing so. As it comes into force on Sunday and, since we cannot pray here on Sundays, when can we pray against it?
Mr. Crossman: I must admit that I was not fully apprised of the gravity of the situation in Ayrshire. Perhaps my hon. Friend can have a word with me about it. I am sure that we can help him in this situation.
Mr. Peyton: I wonder whether the Leader of the House can satisfy the mounting curiosity on both sides and say when he is to put down the Motion to approve the Government's Fuel Policy White Paper?
Mr. Crossman: I would rather leave that curiosity to grow just for a week or two.
Mr. Molloy: In view of the considerable concern being felt by many trade unions in the Greater London area, because of the transfer of industry from that area to the provinces, would my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on what is now considered a very vital matter?
Mr Crossman: In replying to the first question that I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), I said that this was a major issue on which we need to have a debate in the House. I will try to arrange an early opportunity to do so.
Sir B. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was said in answer to a Question by me that the Government had categorically come to the conclusion that they should accede to the Genocide Convention and that, in Human Rights Year, it has not been acceded to? Will he take immediate steps to ensure that the undertaking then given is put into effect?
Mr. Crossman: I will communicate my hon. Friend's urgent demand to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir C. Osborne: Whatever the reply may be to Question No. 31, which the Leader of the House advised hon. Members to wait to see, will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time next week or
1588
the week after as a matter of urgency to discuss the problem of immigration since it is causing so much anxiety among people throughout the country?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the widespread interest in this subject. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if there is a feeling that it should be urgently debated, the Opposition also have their opportunities for arranging it.
Mr. Whitaker: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at some stage the House will have an opportunity to debate the new evidence on the Philby affair? Whatever the reluctance or embarrassment of the officials concerned, it must be the duty of the House to debate such a serious matter.
Mr. Crossman: There is a number of historical subjects in which I take a keen interest, too, but I cannot give a guarantee that the Government will give time to debate that matter. I suggest again that opportunities can be found to debate it on the Defence Estimates.
Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the recent three terrible disasters to British trawlers, with loss of life, will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss my Motion on this subject with a view to extending the scope of the Commission of Inquiry which he has appointed?
[That this House, impressed by the remarkable rescue from the wrecked trawler "Ross Cleveland" of only one member, Harry Eddom, of its entire crew by his wearing a special rubber suit and using a special rubber dinghy, while the rest of the crew were lost, urges the Government to include in its forthcoming inquiry into the tragic incident highly qualified scientists to advise on future measures for saving life in such disasters.]
Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. We should await the results of the inquiry.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. In answer to at least four questions, the Leader of the House has said that certain topics can be discussed on the Defence Estimates. Has there been any consultation with the Chair about how wide the discussion can range?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that there has been

1589
no discussion with the Chair. Anyone can give an opinion on what is in order during a forthcoming debate; but only the Chair decides what is in order.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Leader of the House may recall that I asked him whether the Stansted Order would be laid before Christmas. May I ask him for an assurance that it will not be laid before Easter?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I should like to give an assurance as precise as that.
Mr. Concannon: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 156?
[That this House deplores the threatened closure of Kirkby Colliery, in Nottinghamshire; fully supports the efforts being made by the Notts Area National Union of Mineworkers and the local branch of the union to resist closure of this pit; notes that since 1963 £4 million has been spent on a reconstruction scheme at Kirkby Colliery and that 600 men were transferred there as recently as 22nd January; and, in view of these facts, believes that no further steps should he taken towards closing this colliery before a full public inquiry has been made into all the relevant circumstances.]
Would it be possible to have a short debate on the closure policy of the National Coal Board?
Mr. Crossman: We all appreciate that the need for action of that kind is regrettable, but I do not see how we can have a debate on it next week. The best thing to do is to put Questions to my right hon. Friend about it.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the present position of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.
The number of outbreaks has continued at a low level since I last reported to the House in a debate on 30th January. In the week ending at midnight last night there were seven outbreaks, almost the same number as in the preceding week. In view of this, I have been able to make substantial reductions in the
1590
size of the controlled area, releasing those parts of the country which are now distant from the remaining centres of infection.
This is encouraging. But clearly the epidemic has not yet been stamped out. When I made my statement about meat imports on 4th December, I said that, in any event, the arrangements would be reviewed in three months' time—that is, by 4th March. This review is being undertaken and we are also studying the first results of the investigations carried out by my veterinary advisers into the origin of the present epidemic. I propose to announce before 4th March the results of the review. In the meantime, the arrangements announced on 4th December will continue.
I have already told the House that I propose to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into our policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. I am glad to say that the Duke of Northumberland has accepted my invitation to act as Chairman of this Committee of Inquiry. The terms of reference will be:
"To review the policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and to make recommendations."
I hope that the Committee will make a full investigation of the circumstances of the recent epidemic and advise on the policy that should be adopted to control foot-and-mouth disease in this country in the light of the latest scientific knowledge. I am inviting a number of other possible members to serve.
Mr. Godber: Is the Minister aware that there will be general acceptance on this side of the House of the appointment of the Duke of Northumberland to chair the Committee? We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that choice. However, is he aware that there is a great deal of growing impatience about setting up the Committee? Will he get it set up at once and get it working, as it should have been a month ago? Is he satisfied that the terms of reference will enable the Committee to look fully into the question of the origins of this outbreak, which has so alarmed people?
On the more controversial first part of the Minister's statement, will he understand that there is growing uncertainty and dismay about the fact that there

1591
has been no clear decision to maintain the ban until the Committee has reported? Will he do his utmost to give a firm assurance on this matter at the earliest opportunity, because the continuing uncertainty is doing great harm?
Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his approval of the choice of the Duke of Northumberland to chair the Committee. His appointment will be welcomed by all sections.
I could not have acted quicker. The announcement today shows that we are anxious that the Committee should act. By its terms of reference it will deal with the matter which has been raised and will cover many of the problems which Gowers covered many years ago. The terms of reference are wide.
I accept that the question of meat imports is concerning many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I made a statement on imports on 4th December. I said then that I would ensure that the arrangements were reviewed in three months' time—that is, by 4th March. As I have said, I propose to announce before 4th March the results of the review and will come to the House to be questioned by hon. Members.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that nothing has happened in the last two months to prove the contention that this deadly disease did not originate in the Argentine or some other country where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic? Would he give the strictest assurance to the House that there will be neither a relaxation nor a lifting of the ban unless and until such proof is forthcoming?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it was said in the Press the other day that I would today announce that I was lifting the ban. I have not done so. I have said that I am still reviewing the matter in the light of a veterinary report which I have received. Naturally, I must do that. I will report to the House within three months of my earlier announcement. I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Thorpe: Since the Minister has confirmed that the Committee will have. within its terms of reference, the right to consider the possibility of imported meat
1592
carrying this disease, surely there should be no question of the ban being lifted until the Committee has reported and the House has had an opportunity to debate its report? In fairness to the Committee, is it not essential that the Minister should give that undertaking? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a widespread feeling about lifting the ban among, not only the farming community, but women's institutes and many other consumer organisations in the country?
Mr. Peart: The Leader of the Liberal Party must be aware that I am well aware of the point of view that has been put and that representations have been made to me. I said on a previous occasion in December that I would review this situation. I must carefully look at the veterinary report that has come to me—he will appreciate that this is only right —-and I will then make my statement to the House. However, I note what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Maclennan: While fully acknowledging that my right hon. Friend is discharging his duty in this matter to great satisfaction, can he say whether this Committee will have within its terms of reference consideration of the effect of the indefinite prolongation of this ban on our international trade? Can he further say whether it is true, as has been reported, that an extremely important order for the sale of a nuclear reactor, worth £30 million to this country, has been lost as a result of the ban—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Peart: After the review I will have to consider this from the point of view of the veterinary situation and also the position of British agriculture. This I will do. Hon. Members know of this. Added to that, I have announced the Chairman of this Committee and the terms of reference, which are very wide:
"To review the policy and arrangements for dealing with foot and mouth disease in Great Britain and to make recommendations."
They are rather similar to the terms of reference of the Gowers Committee. This will enable the Committee to consider animal health hazards in relation to imports.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Duke of Northumberland and members of the Committee have facilities to take evidence from individuals in countries which export meat to Britain?
Mr. Peart: I think that it will consider the points which have been raised, as indeed the previous inquiry did. This will be an independent Committee. I must let the Committee properly decide what it will do. I have every confidence that the Chairman and his colleagues will do this sensibly.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a far greater economic effect would result from another foot-and-mouth epidemic like the one we have seen than could possibly result from a continuation of the ban on imported meat? Will he seriously consider the possibility of inviting interested Governments to an international conference to discuss the world-wide implications of this disease?
Mr. Peart: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I know that he has taken a great interest in this matter and has suggested this course in a recent debate. I am looking into it. This is a very important matter. We must remember that the F.A.O. has considered it on a previous occasion, but it may be necessary to initiate something like that. I will bear that point in mind. On the question of the inquiry and also the economic aspects which have been mentioned, I am aware of what this epidemic has cost this country. We must bear this in mind, too.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the independent Committee of Inquiry is to sit and whether it will include members from areas, including north-east Wales, which were particularly affected?
Mr. Peart: I hope that we will not think of this Committee in terms of sectional representation. I have initiated discussions in relation to invitations. I want this Committee to be completely independent. I hope and trust that the members I will suggest and announce to the House will have the confidence of all hon. and right hon. Members. I am sure that they will. However, it would be wrong if we sectionalised this. After
1594
all, this is a matter which affects the whole economy.
Mr. Ford: Could I impress upon my right hon. Friend the grave concern felt by the Latin-American Export Council at the prospect of an indefinite prolongation of the ban on meat imports? Is he aware that there is about £180 million-worth of trade concerned with the Argentine alone? [Interruption.] This figure was given in The Times by the Chairman of the Export Council. Will the Minister give due consideration to the possibility of some compromise, such as has been suggested, for importing meat off the bone?
Mr. Peart: Many of these points have been put to me by hon. Members opposite. I recognise that we have mutual trade, but, at the same time, as many hon. Members have said, I must bear in mind the economic consequences to our home agriculture. I would not like to be dogmatic. I have said that I am studying my reports and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in a fortnight's time.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be widespread satisfaction that at long last he has named the chairman and set up the Committee of Inquiry? Is he further aware that there is very strong farming opinion from the top downwards that at the top of the Committee's agenda should be the consideration of the importation of meat from the so-called endemic countries? Will he go further than my hon. Friend said and put it right at the top of the Committee's agenda, even though he feels he must leave other things to the Committee?
Mr. Peart: On the first point, I am glad that the hon. Member, who has been involved in this tragic epidemic, appreciates the setting up of this Committee and the appointment of the Chairman. I am aware of the strong feeling in the farming community. As Minister of Agriculture I have received communications from responsible people. They have conveyed views to me which confirm the views of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he has the sympathy of the House and the public in the difficult situation with which he

1595
has to deal? Will he take account of the fact that the ban on imported meat is having a serious effect on the meat trade and is also having a serious effect on the cost of living for the British housewife because of increased costs? Will he, when he comes to consider his veterinary report, bear in mind that unless there is a definite link with imported meat it would be wrong in the national interest to continue the ban?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will have to await my report after I have studied the veterinary reports. I am aware that inevitably there has been a shortage of supplies because of the epidemic and the ban. I mentioned this in the House and I believe that the British public understands this.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the low level of infection, does it not really mean that there are fewer beasts left to catch this disease because others are six feet under ground? How can the wretched farmers expect to restock their farms when any compensation they get is subject to iniquitous taxation?
Mr. Peart: I note the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am looking into the question of compensation, and I am sure that he will appreciate why.
Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is mixed relief in the country that he did not succumb to the overtures made by those seeking a vaccination policy? Can he say what plans the Ministry is making to obtain supplies of cheap beef if the Committee of Inquiry recommends maintaining the ban on imports from endemic countries?
Mr. Peart: The question of vaccination was a difficult issue. I ordered vaccine as a precaution. I am glad that we have seen virtually the end of the epidemic without its use. The slaughter policy, despite all the difficulties, has worked. I still believe that the Committee of Inquiry should look into it very carefully. It may well be that with new scientific developments new vaccines will be forthcoming. I do not think that we should be dogmatic. I defend the slaughter policy. I have always stood
1596
firm on it. We have succeeded, but nevertheless the Committee should carefully consider this.
The question of cheaper beef is a much wider issue and I do not think that I should comment on it at this stage.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the Committee be encouraged to take evidence from the Ministries of Agriculture of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who have not had this disease for 56 years and do not import Argentine meat, but none the less have to bear a proportion of the expense of the precautions necessary if the disease hits this country?
Mr. Peart: Yes. The hon. Member will he glad to know that I am meeting the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland today.
Mr. Roebuck: How wide will the terms of reference of this Committee be? Will it, for instance, be able to look at the question of the widespread outbreaks of this disease in certain Common Market countries, and what the effect will be on British agriculture if we join the Common Market?
Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend, and indeed I, will not allow prejudices to affect the issue. I believe that we should inquire into all sources of infection, whether they be in the Common Market or not. Under its wide terms of reference the Committee will he able to do this.
Mr. Temple: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very much more far-reaching statement was expected by the House and the country? Can he say what he is going to do to help the earlier sufferers with regard to compensation payments, which were at a low level? Can he further say what his Parliamentary Secretary meant when he indicated that there would be additional help to those who were not able to gain any advantage from the ploughing grant subsidy?
Mr. Peart: I am surprised that that has been said. It is true that the Yorkshire Post and other papers in the North said that I was going to lift the ban, but I have not done so, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about that. With regard to the other matters, I reply to him immediately. The compensation

1597
issue has not been settled. We are having discussions about giving additional help, and I hope to make a statement about this, too.
Mr. Cronin: When my right hon. Friend is making his final decision, will he bear in mind that the total amount of meat imported from these endemic Latin-American countries is a very small part of the British home market, and it could be largely overcome by increased British production? Will he also bear in mind that our balance of payments position with these countries is far from satisfactory?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I need not elaborate on that.
Earl of Dalkeith: Will the Minister seek to inspire the farming industry with the maximum degree of confidence in the Committee of Inquiry by saying how admirably qualified is the Chairman, the Duke of Northumberland, and will he announce the names of the other members of the Committee as soon as possible, together with their technical qualifications?
Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the Chairman. I think that this is a wise choice, and I hope that his colleagues will receive the approval of the House.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman, without committing himself this afternoon, say whether he has studied seriously the question of importing meat off the bone? We have pressed him about this before, but he has been reticent about making a statement.
Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this before, and that during the war this was the traditional trade to save shipping space. I am considering the matter. I cannot say any more until I make my statement in a fortnight's time.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: As it seems unlikely that the Committee will be able to form any conclusions before 4th March about the cause of the recent outbreak, and as much evidence has been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the importation of meat was the cause, may we have an assurance that he will
1598
not make the greatest of all mistakes, which would be to withdraw the ban, only to have to reimpose it a few weeks later, when the damage could possibly have been done again?
Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am carefully studying my Chief Veterinary Officer's report, and I shall make an announcement about this.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about his negotiations with the Cuban trade delegation regarding the importation of beef?
Mr. Peart: That is another matter, and it is outside my statement on foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable relief that his statement does not confirm the speculation in certain newspapers that the ban was to be lifted, but that that relief will be tempered by some anxiety that he is still not able to inform the House about the conclusion of his talks on the treatment of compensation for tax purposes, and the treatment of valuations of early victims of the epidemic? Will he take this occasion to say when he hopes to make a statement on these important points?
Mr. Peart: I would like to clear this up even before I make my major statement. I shall do my best to speed it up, but this involves other Departments.
Mr. Heath: This matter raises great problems, not only for British agriculture, but also for the housewife and for our foreign trade, and until the Minister makes his statement there is bound to be immense anxiety and great doubt about future plans. Is he therefore wise to say that he cannot come back to the House for another fortnight? Ought not he to come back at the earliest possible moment?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our view is that the Government will not be justified in lifting the ban unless he can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that there is no risk in so doing, which we do not believe to be the case.
Perhaps I might out another point to the right hon. Gentleman about this Committee. Is not this a case in which it is not justifiable to adopt what I might term

1599
the normal committee procedure in the British way of life, which means that it takes a year, or 15 months, or 18 months to report? Is not this a case in which the Minister should say that the Committee must consist of people who are prepared to sit full-time and produce a quick report? Almost all the information is available, or is quickly obtainable. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to get away from the normal routine of committees, and to tell the members of this one to sit full-time.
Mr. Peart: I accept the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the Committee. I have always taken the view that this is a matter for the committee concerned, but if, as Minister, I feel that it is necessary, and I am so advised, I shall take note of it and examine it. It may be wise to have a quick interim report. There are many matters covered by the terms of reference which will affect our long-term policy, and it will be some time before conclusions can be reached. I cannot elaborate on that now, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. On the other hand, there are other specific matters to be considered, such as the cause and origin of this disease, about which the information will be known and the Committee can act quickly. I take careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I shall try to make my statement as early as possible. In December I told the House that the arrangements would be reviewed in three months' time—that will be by 4th March. I am considering this urgently, and trying to speed it up as much as I can. I propose to announce before 4th March the results of the review, and in the circumstances I think that this is reasonable.
If one did something which meant putting people's livelihood at risk, any proposition of this kind would have to be carefully considered by the Government. Indeed, this is perhaps the first time that any Government have had to take a decision of this kind, although I appreciate that this is due to the size of the epidemic. I will study carefully everything that has been said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MEDICINES BILL
  4.18 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Measure is one of great importance for the safety and well-being of the public. I have long regarded legislation on this subject as being an important part of consumer protection legislation, and of course it is a matter that fundamentally affects the health of the individuals to whom medicines are administered. Legislation has become equally necessary in the field of veterinary medicine, but in introducing the Bill I propose to concentrate almost entirely on the human medicine aspect.
  The purpose of the Bill is to make new provision with respect to the safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use, the circumstances in which they are sold or supplied, their labelling and description and their sales promotion. We described its general content in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3395), published in September, 1967. Shortly after the White Paper had been completed I received the report of the Sainsbury Committee on the Relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry with the National Health Service, which not only made some important recommendations with regard to the financial and economic aspects of that relationship, but also others which have relevance to the Bill. The Government entirely share the broad objective of these recommendations, which I will return to later, and consider that the proposals in the Bill are in general harmony with them.
  Legislation on this subject has, in a sense, been gestating for a good 10 years. For the past 30 years, and more particularly since the end of the Second World War, there have been revolutionary changes in the development of new medicines, based on the synthesis of new organic chemical substances, some of which have been found to have extremely valuable therapeutic properties. The pharmaceutical industry is, of course, in business primarily to earn profits, but it deserves recognition from the public for having introduced many valuable new

  1601
  drugs which have served the community well, and in some cases have completely altered the pattern of medical treatment.
  However, the appearance of these new and potent medicines has brought disadvantages as well. If it is to be effective a drug must exert an effect on the physiological functioning of the body. Unfortunately not all the effects are beneficial and it is hard to eliminate the others. Thus the new medicines, valuable as many of them are, have carried with them a number of risks. It is to minimise these risks that the voluntary scrutiny by the Safety of Drugs Committee was introduced at the beginning of 1964 and that the proposals for a licensing system in the present Bill are directed. Existing medicines legislation in the main dates from the period between the two world wars, and was never designed to cope with the problems arising from these new developments in pharmaceutical research.
  In 1962, as the House will remember, the devastating effects of thalidomide became known and there was great anxiety about the absence of safeguards to ensure that new drugs were not marketed before every possible step had been taken to bring harmful side effects to the notice of doctors, who could then weigh the risks against the expected therapeutic benefit.
  An immediate result of the thalidomide affair was the setting up of a Joint Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead which recommended by a majority the establishment of a voluntary system of screening of drug toxicity data and the collection of reports of adverse reactions to drugs in clinical use. This led to the appointment of the Committee on Safety of Drugs under the chairmanship of Sir Derrick Dunlop, which has been working since the beginning of 1964.
  The voluntary system has had the full support of the pharmaceutical industry and the medical and pharmaceutical professions, but the Government is convinced that the provision of statutory backing for the safeguards should not be further delayed. Indeed the Committee on Safety of Drugs itself in its annual report for 1965 said that whilst the Committee had not been hampered by lack of statutory powers, thanks to the co-operation of manufacturers, it believed that the
  1602
  arrangements should be given permanence within the framework of legislation. It welcomed an assurance that I gave in Parliament that my aim would be to maintain under future legislation the scope for flexibility and the exercise of professional responsibility which the Committee's experience had shown to be necessary.
  I am happy to repeat this assurance. The four years experience of the Dunlop Committee's work has indeed been invaluable in demonstrating the need for a flexible system, and I have no hesitation in saying that if the Medicines Bill had been introduced four years ago without the benefit of this experience, it would have been a less good Bill. I should like once again to pay the warmest tribute to the Dunlop Committee's distinguished service to the community.
  I now come to the Bill itself, which is, I am afraid, necessarily long and complex. I am afraid, too, that my speech will be long, but I hope less complex than the Bill itself.
  In the first place, the House will see that the legislation applies not only to Great Britain but also to Northern Ireland. It is clearly desirable that standards for safety, efficacy and quality of medicines should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The responsible Ministers are the Health and Agriculture Ministers.
  Part I of the Bill relates to the establishment of a Medicines Commission whose general functions are set out in Clause 3 and include advice on matters relating to the administration of the Bill and more generally in relation to medicinal products. The Commission will also advise on the pattern and membership of the expert committees set up under Clause 4 to deal with various aspects of the administration of the Bill. I will say more about the Medicines Commission later.
  Part II of the Bill provides for a licensing system in respect of the manufacture, marketing and wholesaling of medical products in the United Kingdom. Under Clause 6 the Ministers are the licensing authority but any one or more of the Ministers can act on behalf of all.
  The main provisions of the licensing scheme are as follows: Clause 7 requires a "product licence" to be held before

  1603
  a medicinal product is marketed or imported. Clause 8 requires the manufacturer and the wholesaler to have a licence: such licences will relate only to the manufacturing or the wholesaling function, and not to particular products and Clause 23 provides the necessary link between the two types of licence. Clauses 9 to 15 provide for a number of necessary exemptions from the licensing obligation.
  Clause 16 provides for the introduction of the licensing scheme by means of a statutory order fixing the "first appointed day ". After this day no new products may be marketed without a licence or put to clinical or field trial without the appropriate certificate.
  Clause 17 provides for existing products and activities to be brought gradually within the scope of licensing by means of licences of right, described in Clause 25, on various subsequent appointed days.
  Clause 19 sets out the factors that must be taken into account in the grant or refusal of licences in relation to home-produced and imported products alike.
  Clause 20 provides that licences shall not be refused on grounds of price—a safeguard which I think it is wise to express formally, and to which I think that the industry and the medical profession will attach great importance—and that there shall be no refusal on grounds of safety, efficacy or quality except after consultation with the appropriate expert committee, or, in the absence of such a committee, the Medicines Commission. The following provisions deal with the procedure for representations where refusal of a licence is proposed. Thorough safeguards are provided, and I regard these provisions as of major importance. We should, of course, operate these provisions with full regard to our obligations under G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A.
  Part III relates to the sale and supply of medicines principally at the retail stage. It will eventually replace a number of provisions under existing Acts. Clause 43 establishes retail pharmacies as the normal places for the retail sale or supply of medicinal products, subject to exemptions in favour of practitioners, and, in certain circumstances, suppliers of herbal remedies, and Clause 42 provides for
  1604
  "general sale lists" of medicines which can with reasonable safety be sold or supplied otherwise than by a pharmacist, and which in consequence may be sold at any shop.
  Other Clauses in Part III deal with such matters as the adulteration of medicinal products, the sale of sub-standard products, standards laid down in recognised works of reference like the British Pharmacopoeia, and with standards of hygiene at places where medicines are dealt with or sold.
  Part IV of the Bill deals with the conditions to be satisfied by those conducting a retail pharmacy business, and for the registration of their pharmacies.
  Part V gives powers for regulating labelling, leaflets and containers, and for requiring the marking of medicinal products themselves for the purpose of identification, and replaces existing provisions relating to false labelling and description.
  Part VI deals with advertisements and sales promotion. Its provisions apply, broadly speaking, to any form of advertisement except labels and leaflets controlled under Part V and to oral representations made to practitioners and others. Clause 84 makes it an offence to issue advertisements, or make representations about medicines that are false or misleading. Two special defences are provided—an "ignorance" defence, and a defence for advertising agents acting in innocence.
  The provisions in the same Clause that advertisements and oral representations are to be consistent with the provisions of the licence is one of the most important features of this part of the Bill. It is the vital link that enables the licensing authority to ensure that any stipulations considered necessary by the expert committee, or the Medicines Commission, in relation to the uses for which a medicine is to be promoted, or any notice that has to he given of any important side effects, are not disregarded when the drug is actually promoted, either to a practitioner or to the public.
  These provisions fulfil one of the important objectives in the Report of the Sainsbury Committee. The main difference is that the Committee saw the regulation of advertisements as an independent function of the Commission

  1605
  based on particulars requested by it from the manufacturers. There are, however, two objections to this. First, in the Government's view, the body responsible for statutory regulations should be answerable to Parliament, and, secondly, the Committee did not fully recognise the close link between the required content of advertisements and the particulars that the applicant will already have furnished to the licensing authority, which must, therefore, form the basis of the enforceable provisions in the licence.
  This part of the Bill also gives wide regulation-making powers for prohibiting advertisements for particular classes of products (for instance advertisement to the public of products limited to sale on prescription), advertisements and representations in relation to remedies for specified diseases or conditions cancer, for example—and those containing expressions likely to mislead.
  Part VII transfers to the Medicines Commission the responsibility for preparing future editions of the British Pharmacopoeia, and I want to say a word about this.
  For over 100 years, the General Medical Council has had the statutory duty of preparing and publishing the British Pharmacopoeia, during which time it has acquired a very high standing throughout the world. Originally, it fell to the General Medical Council to prepare the Pharmacopoeia because doctors—who in those days were accustomed to manufacture their own medicines—needed an authoritative book of standards. Latterly, doctors have come to rely more and more on pre-packed products made by pharmaceutical firms able to produce products of far higher quality than any individual could hope to attain.
  The General Medical Council considers, therefore, that the time has come when the duty of preparing the Pharmacopoeia should be handed over to a more appropriate body. The Sainsbury Committee made a similar recommendation in its report, but, as the Bill stands it does not enable the Medicines Commission to perform the broader function contemplated by the Sainsbury Committee of providing practitioners with information about medicines. In fact, Clause 90 enables it to go outside the narrow area of publications containing standards for medicinal substances and to publish
  1606
  regular compendia of information about actions and uses—for instance, it could produce the British National Formulary. But the power does not extend to monthly or bi-monthly journals about medicines, such as "Prescribers' Journal ".
  The Government, however, see no reason why this function should not be broadened and intend to move an Amendment to this effect in Committee. The House will notice that, in these matters, the Minister's function is limited to publishing on the recommendation of the Medicines Commission, which consequently will have complete professional independence with regard to the contents of all these publications.
  Part VIII deals with a number of miscellaneous supplementary provisions of which I will only mention the most important. Clause 93 enables appropriate provisions of the Bill to he applied with suitable modifications to medical and veterinary devices, when desired this could include such things as implants, blood transfusion equipment, catheters and so on—or to other products, for instance, medicated toilet articles, antiseptics, dietary supplements, and crude chemicals, which are not marketed primarily as medicinal products but which may at some time have to be brought within the Bill because they are sold for medicinal use. The intention to include such a provision has given rise to some fears in the health food industry that we might use it to bring the whole range of health foods under medicines control and restrict their sale to pharmacies. There is no such intention. The provision would in all cases be operated only after consultations with the interests affected; it would be subject to affirmative Resolution, and it would only be used in relation to products sold for medicinal use.
  Clause 94 enables similar provision to be made with regard to ingredients used in the manufacture of medicinal products and substances—such as certain antibiotics used in horticulture or as food preservatives—where unregulated sale would give rise to risks to the health of the community, either human or animal, even though the substances concerned are not in medicinal form.
  I should like to refer now to one or two matters of particular interest in rather more detail.

  1607
  I should first of all say something about the thing that the Bill is all about, in other words, the "medicinal product" as defined in Clause 114. In general, unless a product satisfies the definition of "medicinal product ", the Bill does not apply to it at all. I fear that the definition is rather long and complicated, and it has to be read with the definitions of disease "and" treatment "in Clause 115. Broadly speaking, it means a finished product intended wholly or mainly for medicinal use and ready for administering or for use as an ingredient in dispensing. It does not, therefore, cover crude chemicals, bulk ingredients or toilet preparations, foods, disinfectants and so on, whose primary use is not medicinal. If any of these products reed to be brought within the control provisions of the Bill, it will be necessary to make an order under Clause 93 or 94 far the particular purpose.
  The definition has not been easy to draft in such a way as to avoid too wide a definition—by bringing in any substance capable of medicinal use—or too uncertain a definition—for example by making it dependent on evidence of actual use of the substance in question or too limited— for example by linking it with a specific written recommendation for the treatment of a particular disease or condition. The words "manufactured, sold, supplied, imported or exported" for medicinal use in subsection (1) are critical. For instance, the main use of carbon tetrachloride is industrial, and the substance itself, therefore, is not a medicinal product. However, if some of the substance is set aside, further processed and put up for veterinary use for liver fluke, that purpose makes this part a medicinal product.
  Let me give one further example. Vitamins are normal constituents of a balanced diet, and, although they can be used to prevent disease or to deal with a condition resulting from a dietary deficiency, this is not the purpose for which, generally speaking, they are wholly or mainly sold. But if a vitamin preparation is Specially made up and sold wholly or mainly for one of the medicinal purposes mentioned in subsection 2 of Clause 114 then that preparation is a medicinal product. No doubt we shall have further
  1608
  discussions about this definition in Committee.
  The normal sequence of events in the marketing of a new medicinal product is that a manufacturer, in his laboratory, synthesises a number of substances which he hopes will prove of medicinal value. These are tested in laboratory animals, and if a particular substance seems promising the next stage may be to see what the human body does to it when it is administered to man. Such trials are often carried out on healthy volunteers, on the responsibility of the manufacturer. With the knowledge so far gained, the firm can make an assessment of whether there is likely to be a beneficial pharmacological effect in man. At this point, it is necessary to establish whether the effect predicted from the tests so far carried out are realised when the drug is administered to a person suffering from the condition that it is hoped to improve. The trial then becomes a clinical trial under the responsibility of a doctor, which will require in advance a clinical trial certificate issued by the licensing authority. This ensures that all the necessary preliminary stages have been gone through and that a clinical trial in patients is justified.
  When the results of the clinical trial are known and evaluated the firm may wish to proceed to market the drug. At this stage, Clause 7 requires the issue of a product licence before marketing, and this is the essential safeguard as to the safety, efficacy and quality of the particular product. The manufacturer's licence provided for in Clause 8(2) will normally relate to the facilities, equipment and expertise for the processes that he is engaged in. A manufacturing licence is not, however, required by a doctor, dentist or veterinarian for making up a preparation, nor will a pharmacist require one for dispensing a prescription.
  The factors which must be taken into account in determining whether a licence is to be issued are set out in Clause 19. The decision will depend on whether the particulars supporting the application indicate adverse considerations relating to the safety or efficacy of the medicine in relation to the proposed uses that would justify its withholding from sale or supply, and whether the standards

  1609
  for the product, or the manufacturer's specification, are adequate.
  It is not intended that efficacy by comparison with other products intended for the same purpose should be a factor affecting the issue of a licence, but efficacy must be taken into account in relation to the product's toxicity and to the question of whether the evidence supports the purposes for which the product is intended. Thus, a product which might carry with it the risk of serious side effects might nevertheless be licensed if it were a very valuable drug for treating a disease which carried a higher risk to the patient. But a product which might be very effective in treating a relatively trivial condition could be refused a licence, if the side effects were disproportionately serious.
  I want to say a word now about what happens where the question of refusing an application for a licence or a certificate arises, or where, when one is in force, it appears desirable to suspend it, revoke it or vary it in a way unacceptable to the holder. Here the Bill contains a number of safeguards. The grounds on which action to revoke, suspend or vary can he initiated by the licensing authority are clearly set out in Clauses 28 and 35. The grounds for refusal of a licence will be that the relevant factors, as set out in Clause 19, are not satisfied.
  It might be helpful to describe this from the point of view of the applicant for a licence. The procedure, and the rights of the applicant, are broadly the same in all cases and for the sake of simplicity, I will describe it in terms of a proposed refusal. The first thing to bear in mind is that the procedure takes place before the licensing authority has made a formal determination, that is, at a stage when the refusal is no more than a proposal.
  In the first place, Clause 20(3) provides that the licensing authority shall not refuse on any grounds relating to safety, quality or efficacy, except after prior consultation with the appropriate committee, or the Commission. In other words, if the examination in the office of the data submitted by the applicant suggests that there is not a clear case for the granting of a licence, the staff will refer the matter to the appropriate committee. Clause 21(1) ensures that, if
  1610
  the committee has reason to think that it may be unable to advise the granting of a licence or could do so only on conditions not contained in the application, the committee must, before advising the licensing authority, notify the applicant accordingly and afford him an opportunity of being heard, or of making representations in writing.
  The committee then reports its findings and conclusions to the licensing authority, and where the committee advises refusal or granting subject to conditions, the licensing authority is required to notify the applicant, setting out the advice which it has received. The applicant then has 28 days in which to give notice to the licensing authority that he wishes to make representations with regard to the advice in question. If he does so, the licensing authority must arrange for the representations to be considered by the Medicines Commission, and the Commission in turn has to report its findings and conclusions to the licensing authority.
  The formal decision on the application is then taken in the light of the advice received. If the formal decision follows the advice of the Commission or —if he did not make representations to them—the committee, the applicant has no further opportunity of making representations. On the other hand, if the licensing authority proposes to depart from the conclusions of the Commission or committee, it has to notify the applicant accordingly and give him an opportunity of appearing before a person appointed for the purpose by a licensing authority or making representations in writing.
  In any case where the licensing authority issues a formal refusal, it must send the applicant a notice stating the grounds for the decision, or, if the licence is granted otherwise than in accordance with the application, reasons must be given on request. This decision is then final, in the sense that it cannot be questioned in any other legal proceedings except on the grounds that it is ultra vires, or that any statutory requirements have not been complied with.
  In such a case, then, under Clause 96(2), there is a right of appeal within six weeks to the High Court, and the High Court may quash the decision. Such a decision voids the formal decision of

  1611
  the licensing authority, but the High Court does not itself make a substitute decision; the licensing authority takes the application up again at the point immediately before the formal decision was reached, and, in the light of any observations made by the High Court, makes a fresh decision.
  The House will see that we are providing very great safeguards, elaborate safeguards, against arbitrary action on the part of the licensing authority, and giving the utmost reassurance that medicines will not be withheld from the market except on proper grounds. This procedure also carries with it important safeguards for the independence of the advisory committees and the Medicines Commission, to which I will return later. Finally, I must add that another important safeguard comes from the fact that the licensing authority is to be the Ministers, which means that they can he questioned in Parliament.
  A further point calls for brief mention here. One relates to confidentiality of information furnished to the licensing authority and the advisory bodies. The importance which we attach to this is stressed by the provisions of Clause 103 and the maximum penalties fixed there-under, supplementing the standard provisions of the Official Secrets Act which apply to any civil servant engaged in this work.
  The provisions in Parts V and VI of the Bill covering labelling and advertising requirements are necessarily wide in extent, but they include the provision that before any regulations are made there must be consultation with organisations representative of the interests likely to be affected. I have little doubt that the Medicines Commission will think it appropriate to recommend that a special committee should be established for the purpose of advising the Ministers on the exercise of these powers. All these safeguards, taken together, should go far towards removing any fears that the powers might be arbitrarily or improperly used.
  The present law relating to the retail sale and supply of drugs starts from the assumption, which is clearly no longer valid in the context of modern medicines, that drugs and medicines are merely commodities, whose sale can take place any-
  1612
  where and be left to the ordinary commercial pressures of the market, except where there is risk of accident, abuse, or criminal mis-use, or danger to the community as a whole. Consequently, the basis of the existing law on this subject is legal freedom to sell medicines anywhere, safeguards being applied only to a limited list of specified substances.
  This approach, however, pays too little heed to the risk for the individual inherent in uncontrolled medication with modern drugs. It is notable that pharmaceutical manufacturers, of their own volition, now often decide to market drugs, particularly the new potent drugs, only through pharmacies, because they are primarily intended for use on a practitioner's advice, and not for self medication by the public.
  The Bill makes two important changes here. First, the provisions relating to the conduct of pharmacies and the circumstances in which medicines are sold to the public are set out afresh in terms which reflect the modern situation. The second important change establishes the registered pharmacy as the normal retail outlet for the sale and supply of medicines. There will, however, be a general sale list of prepacked medicines which can be sold by any shop. The drugs on the general sale list will be listed in orders made by the Ministers, following advice from the appropriate committee and consultation with organisations representative of the interests concerned. They will be products where the hazards to health, the risk of misuse, or the need to take special precaution in handling is small, and where wider sale will be a convenience to the public.
  There are somewhat complicated provisions about enforcement which, despite their importance, I do not propose to go into on Second Reading, since there will be full opportunity to discuss them in detail in Committee.
  The provisions in Part II look complicated and I will comment on the way in which we intend to administer them. The introduction of a statutory licensing system, with penalties, necessarily involves making detailed requirements, either in the Bill or in subordinate legislation, with regard to the particulars to be supplied, the conditions to be satisfied, the provisions to be attached to licences and, more particularly, with regard to

  1613
  the circumstances in which representations can be made where there is a proposal to refuse or revoke. Such provisions could quite easily be operated in a rigid and litigious manner, but the intention is to retain the flexible administration that has been so effective under the voluntary schemes, with the formal provisions as statutory backing.
  The secretariat of the expert committees will be integrated with the licensing staff so as to enable applications, though technically made to the licensing authority, to be handled by staff serving the expert committees and knowing their views. Under the voluntary scheme there has been easy communication between the staff handling the submission and the staff of applicant firms. This has produced a situation in which applications can be handled without the delay that so easily arises where precise stages of procedure are laid down, and I am sure that mutual respect has been built up in this way. There is no reason why this situation need change or why applications should be handled any less expeditiously than are submissions at present.
  The legislation provides unavoidably for offences, legal proceedings and penalties, but with the co-operation and mutual confidence which we expect to continue into the new arrangements provided for in the Bill, legal proceedings should be exceptional. Indeed, I hope that differences of view can be ironed out at a very early stage, and I shall be most disappointed if there needs to be more than very rare recourse to the elaborate provision for representations.
  In general, there is a high standard of responsibility in the pharmaceutical industry over these matters and we shall have failed if we move into a situation in which firms try to take every possible advantage of every legal loophole they can find and thus compel the officials concerned with the administration of the Bill to handle applications in an atmosphere of suspicion.
  I come to matters which are vital to the success of the legislation as a whole —that is, the provision of adequate expert advice, which will be recognised as both authoritative and up to date. Clearly, with legislation covering so wide a field as the present Bill—human medicine, veterinary medicine, devices, label-
  1614
  ling, description, advertising, the preparation of works of reference and other publications about drugs—the best possible expert advice is essential, and plainly one could not find it all within the membership of a single body, however eminent.
  For this reason Clause 4 provides for a series of expert committees to be set up. But it does not rigidly define the composition and terms of reference of the committees that have to be set up for particular purposes. Here again, the Bill sets out to be flexible, as regards both the initial and the future pattern of committees. The Sainsbury Committee recommended that such functions relating to prescription drugs should be the responsibility of an independent Medicines Commission, which should be advisory in relation to licensing and advice generally about medicines, but executive in some other respects. Differing views have been expressed about this recommendation but the Government's view is that, in matters so closely touching the public interest as these, the fundamental responsibility must rest with Ministers who are answerable to Parliament.
  In particular, we consider that the responsibility for making subordinate legislation should not be assigned to a separate organisation, however distinguished, but must reside with Ministers responsible in their turn to Parliament. Consequently, the basic status of the Medicines Commission under Clause 3 is advisory, and the functions which are given to it in later provisions in the Bill are, in the main, also advisory.
  But it has important functions which go beyond this. When it is considering representations from applicants and licence-holders against advice from the expert committees, or is arranging for the preparation of the British Pharmacopoeia and other publications, it will be performing much more than an advisory function. The composition of the Commission is bound to reflect a variety of important interests who are concerned with medicines, and, as I have said, it cannot possibly cover within its numbers all the expert knowledge which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill.
  The function assigned to it in Clause 3, therefore, of advising on the pattern of special expert committees which will in turn advise the licensing authorities and

  1615
  the Ministers direct is most important, as are its further powers to suggest suitable membership for such committees. It is also being charged to give advice, on request or on its own initiative, on any question relating to medicinal products and, as suggested by the Sainsbury Committee, will also have the duty to make an annual report which will be laid before Parliament. These are highly important functions and it will be our endeavour, through consultation, to assemble a Commission, and special committees, in whom all concerned will have the fullest confidence.
  Mr. John Cronin: There are innumerable admirable safeguards in the Bill, but it seems very much a matter of how these safeguards are interpreted by the people who administer them. There is a danger that advances in medicine might be bogged down by bureaucratic procedures unless the people who interpret the Bill will ensure that they use the maximum celerity and minimum impedance in advances of this type. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is the way in which the Bill will be administered?
  Mr. Robinson: I can give that assurance in unqualified terms. Indeed, I had hoped that some of my earlier remarks would have conveyed the assurance in the explicit form for which my hon. Friend asks. The provision could be interpreted with great rigidity. We want it to be a very flexible instrument and the elaborate statutory provisions to be merely a necessary background to the normal flexible administration of the Bill.
  I should like now to discuss the method of appointing the members of the Medicines Commission. The appointments are to be made by the Ministers under Clause 3 after appropriate consultations. The Commission will have complete professional independence, and will be expected to offer the Ministers advice which has regard solely to the professional and technical considerations concerned. What I might call departmental considerations are not to colour its advice at all. The method of appointing members must be such as to secure this basic objective; and it must also be seen to do so in order that it may command
  1616
  the confidence of the interests most closely affected by the Commission's activities. The same considerations apply to the appointment of the special committees provided for in Clause 4.
  What I propose to do is this. Let me take the Commission as an illustration. First, my Ministerial colleagues and I will consider in detail what balance of knowledge and experience we need on the Commission—how many members with medical or scientific knowledge of certain types or with particular experience of the pharmaceutical industry, and so on for the other relevant spheres of activity which will have a part to play in the counsels of the Commission.
  We should then consult the interests concerned about our proposals, which could well be modified as a result. Names would then enter into the discussions. My colleagues and I would make suggestions, the bodies we were consulting would make suggestions, and all these suggestions would be discussed between us. By this means we should expect to arrive at a proposed list of members which would be acceptable to all concerned. The aim would be—and I can give a positive assurance of this—to ensure by this very thorough process of consultation that the balance of membership of the Commission and the individuals appointed to serve on it were acceptable to, and enjoyed the confidence of, all interests most closely concerned with the Commission's work. This is a matter which I regard as of major importance, because it is essential that there should be no doubts about the Commission's independence and expertise.
  Similarly with the committees provided for in Clause 4. The starting point here will be the pattern suggested by the Medicines Commission under Clause 3(2,a). Consultations would begin as I have just described in relation to the Commission. The names discussed would include those recommended by the Commission under Clause 3(2,b), and so we should appoint a number of committees each acceptable to, and enjoying the confidence of, the interests most closely concerned with the particular committee's sphere of work. These will be the committees on which the Ministers will rely for advice in the day-to-day administration of the Bill, and this fact, coupled

  1617
  with their standing and acceptability, and the many safeguards in the Bill to which I have referred, is a guarantee that their views as independent professional and scientific authorities will be reflected in its implementation.
  Finally, I should like to make some more general remarks about the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee which they made under the heading of, "The rôle of the Medicines Commission ". Their broad objectives coincide with those in the White Paper, and now provided for in the Bill.
  I have already explained why in one or two respects we have departed from the precise methods recommended by the Committee for achieving those objectives. These departures have arisen because of the different approach made by the Committee on the subject of the scope and status of the Medicines Commission. This apart, the Bill substantially embraces most of the recommendations, either specifically or through general provisions that can be applied to the recommended purpose if desired.
  There are, however, in this section of the Sainsbury Report, two recommendations which will not be found in the text of the Bill. The first relates to measures for bringing the price of drugs to the notice of the medical profession. We do not consider that this is appropriate to a Bill which is not directly related to the National Health Service. Indeed, as explained earlier, questions of price are wholly removed from the considerations governing the grant or refusal of licences. We consider that this recommendation should be applied by the Ministers as a part of their National Health Service function and should not be a part of the functions of the Medicines Commission or of the committee which is concerned with safety, quality and efficacy.
  The other provision which does not appear in the text of the Bill is the Committee's recommendation for the establishment of a "British classification of medicines ". On this the Government have not yet reached a decision. Basically, this is an aspect of the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of medicines, on which information could be prepared for the medical profession, and consequently in principle it is within the ambit of the provisions relating to these matters in the
  1618
  Bill. On this subject, therefore, the Bill may be regarded as neutral, neither for nor against the Committee's recommendation; but the Bill would not preclude effect being given to the recommendation if that is found to be the right course.
  I should like to take this opportunity of expressing once again the Government's appreciation of the work of the Sainsbury Committee, and of the extent to which its Report has supported the Government's own objectives expressed in the White Paper, after many years' study of the subject.
  In conclusion, this is a lengthy Bill, because it has to meet such an infinite variety of situations in which many interests are affected. We are convinced that the enabling power must be wide if the complexities of manufacture, sale and supply are to be properly covered. In our view, the Bill contains fully adequate safeguards against the arbitrary use of the powers sought. Our intention is not to impede the industry not to hamper doctors, dentists, veterinarians or pharmacists in the practice of their professions. We are confident that this legislation will enhance the standing of British pharmaceutical products, and that it will operate for the benefit of the consumer, both within and without the National Health Service.
  In matters of this sort, it is, I am afraid, impossible fully to satisfy all the interests concerned; but I have been heartened by the reception that the proposals in the White Paper have received, and I commend the Bill with confidence to the House.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the Minister said, the Bill is basically about medicinal products. It might have been easier if the explanation which he gave and which I found confusing, but less so than either the Explanatory Memorandum or the relevant Clauses, had been available to us at an earlier stage. It also cleared up a number of points and referred to others which we shall want to raise at a later stage.
  I was very disturbed by the reference the Minister continually made to his intentions under the Bill. Although these themselves were reassuring in the extreme, the fact that the Bill has been so drafted that it requires this type of

  1619
  reassurance seems to me to make the Minister's intentions for the more distant future virtually irrelevant to the powers which he is taking under the Bill. In all this, it is not what this Minister may intend to do that we are putting on to the Statute Book, but the wording of the Bill itself. In practice, the intepretation depends, not on the Minister or the Ministry, but, as the Minister himself said, on the courts.
  It is often said nowadays that we live in a very permissive society. If that is true, judged by the Bill and by the Health Services and Public Health Bill, which is now in Standing Committee, the Minister is "with it" and is really a very permissive member of society, if I may use that word in an active rather than a passive sense, for in this Bill, as in the other Bill, the Minister is seeking very wide discretionary powers. He is demanding permission through the Bill to do many things without specifying how he proposes that they should be enforced —to regulate, to control, without much detail as to the circumstances.
  In some cases safeguards or exemptions set out in one Clause are apparently nullified by another. To give one example, in Clause 7(3) the Bill says
  "No person shall import any medicinal product except in accordance with a product licence."
  Clause 13(1) lays down in detail specific exemptions to Clause 7(3) but in subsection (2) it says
  "Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, the restriction imposed by section 7(3) of this Act shall not apply to the importation of a medicinal product in such circumstances as may be specified in an order made by the Ministers for the purposes of this section."
  We are reassured in one Clause of the Bill that the exemptions are laid down and approved as in Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading by Parliament, and in another part the Minister gives himself powers to vary them with the utmost freedom.
  He has set up a somewhat bureaucratic machine to operate these powers and he is reversing procedures in some cases which have worked well in practice. He is seeking new powers for himself and his servants, some of which seem to go a very long way indeed. The Minister rather coyly decided to leave the ques-
  1620
  tion of enforcement to Committee stage. Reading the Clauses devoted to enforcement, I am not altogether surprised.
  Clause 100 has almost astonishing powers of entry, including entry to a private house without warrant. Admittedly the Minister's appointees cannot enter a private house as of right without warrant except by giving 24 hours' notice, but that does not seem a very great safeguard. Clause 97 extends to the Minister's staff the powers of the food and drug authority and of the Pharmaceutical Society according to which Section of the Act they are enforcing. There is power to exclude hospitals and doctors' surgeries.
  The Minister has taken it upon himself to give power of entry which in my estimation seems to exceed that which the police have in the ordinary detection and prevention of crime. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can clear this up when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member says that the Bill gives greater power than the police have. The police have power to go to a court and get a warrant to enter premises without first giving the occupant notice. The whole object there is to search without notice being given, but in this case 24 hours' notice is given that an inspector is coming. How on earth can the hon. Member say that the Bill gives a greater power?
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member has not read the Bill. The police have power on a warrant to enter without notice. So it is with this Clause. In this Clause there is the additional right to enter private premises, with the exception of a private house, without notice. I have read this with extreme care.
  The only time that it says notice has to be given is when the premises are used as a private dwelling house. That does not include a shop or a factory and private premises of other kinds. They can be entered without notice on a warrant, without even the suspicion that the Act is being contravened, but simply to discover whether there is or has been a contravention. There is nothing to justify a prima facie case. If I have exaggerated, I shall be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up the point in reply,

  1621
  because this is a considerable power even in its most limited interpretation.
  For these reasons I have a rather ambivalent attitude towards the Bill. I do not think I can do better than quote the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in reference to the Gaming Bill. He said:
  "It is a very highly complex and, to my mind, an extremely controversial Bill. Unhappily, I should vote for it if it came to a Division, which will, I fear, inhibit my criticism of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1181–2.]
  That is the unhappy position in which I find myself over this Bill. What is intended is admirable. It deals with three aspects of drugs and medicines: safety, quality and efficacy; secondly, description and labelling; and, thirdly, sale and promotion. For all these the Minister has set out a vast number of new provisions. I hope that in practice they will turn out to be better and more effective provisions than those which now obtain. Perhaps all of us would agree on the aim which these arrangements should have. It is that everything practicable and reasonable shall be done to protect the general public, but that the right, indeed the duty, of the doctor to prescribe as he thinks best for his patients should in no way be inhibited, that the general public should not be unduly restricted in its protection, and the industry should be able to manufacture and promote its products at home and overseas with a reasonable freedom. Equally, it is that farming and the agricultural industry as a whole should continue improving food production methods and increasing yields without inhibition by the provisions of the Bill.
  Those criteria are accepted by this side of the House, but it is difficult, although the Minister appeared to accept those criteria, to see how they will be carried out under the Bill because as an enabling Measure, despite the Minister's explanations, it is still very obscure. It has been left to regulations to decide what medicines are to be freely sold. We are not even told how the laws will be drawn up, or by whom. The Bill gives the extent of the control to some degree, but it gives no limit and no hint of the principle by which that control will be operated. The same can be said to apply to labelling regulations and the extremely full control
  1622
  of advertising which the Minister is taking power to impose.
  I think it was fairly clear before the Minister spoke, and it became clearer during his speech, what the Bill does not do. I was glad to have his assurance that it does not attempt in any way to control National Health Service doctors either in their choice of medicines or on matters of efficacy or price. I was left a little uncertain as to the precise relationship between the MacGregor Committee and the Commission or the expert committees, and whether this Bill enables any statutory or mandatory force to be given to the recommendations of the MacGregor Committee. It is not clear whether some of the Sainsbury Committee's recommendations which at the moment are not applied by the Bill—notably, the recommendations on price—could be applied by regulations subsequently either directly or through the MacGregor Committee. I should like to have clarification on that from the Parliamentary Secretary. Bearing in mind what the Minister said, which implied that he hopes to do more about the Sainsbury Committee's recommendations—I think he said he does not intend to use the mechanism of the Bill to do it—I should like an assurance that it is not possible to distort the intentions of the MacGregor Committee in this way.
  I hope also that the Minister will resist the temptation to extend the Commission's powers to implement anything beyond the scope of the Bill. We shall discuss this matter in detail later, but the wording of the Bill as it stands allows the Commission to extend its operation beyond the ambit of the Medicines Bill itself. We on this side would prefer these extra powers not to be there unless there is good reason for them. No such reason has yet been given to us, and we regard it as a matter which must be discussed later.
  I have no doubt that, when we discuss the details, we shall talk about whether the Commission should be wholly independent, as Sainsbury and the B.M.A. recommended, or whether it should be as the Minister would have it. There are close arguments on both sides, but the strong argument which I see is that, whatever happens, there ought to be some method for Parliamentary interference, so to speak, and representation.

  1623
  Before leaving the whole question of profits and prices, I suggest that the Minister takes great care in how he handles the retail side of the trade. I have tried to find comparable figures. Those which I have been able to obtain indicate that, in those countries where the trade margin is fixed either by law or by a professional body and where the sale of medicine is almost wholly restricted to pharmacies—curiously enough, the two categories are the same in Europe—in almost every case the profit margins are higher than in those countries where there is greater freedom. In France, Finland, Sweden, West Germany and Belgium, where, broadly speaking, the sale of medicines is restricted to pharmacies and where the trade margins are fixed by law—except in Sweden where they are fixed by a professional body—the profit margins are higher than in Holland, Britain, the United States or Canada, where there are no such restrictions and where medicines are sold more widely.
  Therefore, both on the manufacturing side and on the retail side, the Minister should be very careful in considering the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee and any other ideas he might have about prices and profits. As he himself implied in part of his remarks when paying tribute to the pharmaceutical industry, there is a clear link between the capacity of a company to make profits and its ability to invest those profits in research which, as the Minister said, can be and has been of great benefit to the public as a whole, producing many new substances on which we all so much depend.
  I turn now to Part I of the Bill, which is headed "Administration." It is a curious reflection that administration should come first. When I was in the Army, a long time ago now, I was taught that, in framing an operation order, in order to achieve clarity and efficiency it was essential to put intention first after information available, then to proceed logically from there to method, and to cover administration last. Perhaps it is significant that the intention of the Bill may still remain hidden, the method obscure, and the administration, I hope, not too rigid.
  1624
  In referring to the Medicines Commission, which is to take over the functions of the Dunlop Committee, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work of the Committee and to the co-operation which the industry gives it. I shall not discuss the Commission's membership or method of operating in detail. My only comment at this stage is that the B.M.A., like the Dunlop Committee, would prefer it to be completely independent—this appeared in an article in its Journal. On the whole, the balance of my judgment on his point favours operating it the other way round, as in the Bill.
  It is not clear to me how the relationships of the Commission, the committees and the Minister will work out in practice. Perhaps this will become clearer when we discuss the Bill in the coming months, and I have no doubt that, when things begin to work, it will be a good deal clearer. However, I am a little worried about the effect on the responsibility of doctors and on the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the need to get a clinical trial certificate, the new procedure under the Bill. There is a danger here both in reducing flexibility and in lessening the scope within which professional responsibility is exercised, a matter to which the Minister himself appeared to attach considerable importance. Some of the Minister's words led one to fear that the degree of bureaucracy which would supplant the Dunlop Committee's operations would make a mockery of his assurance that he would as far as possible retain the flexibility which the Dunlop Committee's operations showed.
  In this connection, I cite the opinion of an American medical man, Dr. Joseph Cooper, writing in a professional magazine. He regarded the Dunlop Committee as extraordinarily effective and the sanctions available to it, largely through the dependence of doctors on the Health Service, as effective; and he regarded it as an admirable method which had succeeded in avoiding the worst bureaucratic excesses of the American system under the Food and Drug Administration.
  Here again, I have tried to obtain comparable figures. I am not certain of the complete accuracy of these estimates, but I am assured that they are not far out. The British system, that is, Dunlop, employed a staff of nine professional

  1625
  people and 16 non-professional. Under the American system, the Bureau of Medicine alone, that is, apart from the rest of the Federal agency operating the legislation, employed 180 medical men out of a total of 608 staff, and I understand that those numbers are now being considerably increased.
  It seems to me that the difference there is disproportionate to population, and it is even more disproportionate to the actual work load carried by the two organisations. I am informed that in 1964 the Dunlop Committee dealt with 602 submissions, and in the United States the Bureau dealt with 500. In 1965, 875 submissions were dealt with in the United Kingdom, including a backlog of 68 and 99 referred back. By February, 1966, there were about 1,400 applications pending in the United States. I understand, further, that the average processing time in the United Kingdom for a major submission is about three months, and in the United States it is two to three years, going up not infrequently to four years.
  Those figures are a clear indication of the danger in trying to be too rigid and allowing too bureaucratic a technique of control to develop. I have no doubt of the Minister's intention to avoid this. But I question whether the mechanism he has devised can do so.
  I was tempted to refer to the Commission's publishing activities, but I thought that in the absence of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) it would be more politic for me not to do so. I do not think that I should be interested in the British Pharmacopoeia in any other than a political capacity.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) cannot be present now, but if the hon. Member inquires in a little while he will find that my hon. Friend had good and personal reasons for his absence.
  Mr. Macmillan: I was not implying that the hon. Gentleman should be here, but merely that I might have said a little more about publishing if there had been another publisher in the Chamber.
  I cannot deal with all the enormous number of points in the Bill, nor do I propose to try to do so. I hope that the House will not regard this as any
  1626
  indication that we regard them as unimportant. I know that if they catch the eye of the Chair, some of my hon. Friends will try to develop those points, including the Bill's veterinary aspects. I must confess that there are one or two points about which I know so little that I would hesitate even to read out a brief on them. One of my minor disappointments is the number of words in the Bill which I find it remarkably difficult to pronounce accurately. I would not venture to deal with Scotland or Northern Ireland either, and again I hope that my hon. Friends will catch the eye of the Chair on points concerning them.
  The licensing provisions seem to me to be both the most precise and to have all the best safeguards. As the Minister said, they take account only of safety, efficacy and quality, but prices are excluded and I understand that the question of efficacy is in relation to the nature, danger and function of a product, and not by comparison with a similar product.
  I hope that when the procedure is developed it will be possible to follow the Dunlop procedure for new formulations of the same substances, and that the only evidence required will be the substance used rather than specific clinical assessment of each formulation, which would continue a considerable saving in time and effort. I also hope that it will not be assumed that preparations which are precisely the same in their chemical structure necessarily have the same clinical effect, because I understand that that varies widely according to the methods of manufacture, tableting, encapsulation and so on.
  Does the Minister see any possibility, as he should, of withholding certain types of confidential information from disclosure in certain circumstances? This is particularly important when substances are being prepared purely for export for clinical trials. The American practice has led to their not being able to do clinical tests in Canada without going through a full process of validating their drugs for sale in the United States. It is for that reason that a number of British manaufacturers are exporting medicines to Canada for clinical trials. If they lost that advantage by the Bill's being implemented in a way matching

  1627
  the American practice, I fear that we should lose this manufacture and export, notably to continental manufacturers.
  On export generally, I am not sure whether Clause 19(3) has enough safeguards to protect exporters. As I read it, it requires a separate licence for each product for each country concerned. That seems a very cumbersome method, and I am net clear that it is really necessary. I cannot see why it should be necessary that exports should conform in all respects to our regulations as well as those of the country to which they are being exported.
  I, like other people, am not at all happy about the procedure for appeals on licences. The Minister said something about that. It seems very much as if the same people involved in discussions and the procedures leading up to an original decision will be operating the appeals machinery in practice, and thus be almost judges in their own cause. There is a similar danger in the use of the Pharmaceutical Society's testing laboratories for analyses done on behalf of the Society acting for the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.
  We heard nothing about the question of fees. When we were discussing another Bill earlier today I was interested to know whether the Minister, wearing the little white coat of a drug manufacturer that Clause 30 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill allows him to don, will be subject to the same licensing regulations and fees as he imposes, wearing his bowler hat as Minister of Health, on behalf of the licensing authority on other exporters, importers, wholesalers and retailers, all of which he or his successor may well become in some distant day.
  There is also the question of exemptions from licence fees. I have heard it said that these tend to be both too wide and too narrow. The Minister may regard that as an indication that they are drawn just about right, but there are fears that some of the exemptions extend to the point of nullifying quality control, particularly of importations and perhaps also of drugs manufactured outside industry for sale overseas. That is one of the main reasons why the statutory powers can be
  1628
  said to be necessary, to give protection both to the public and the industry against what might be called fly-by-night operations. Statutory protection with the possibility of a prosecution is stronger than the protection now open to them, which largely depends on civil action in the courts.
  I turn to the question of advertising and research. The Minister paid a tribute to the industry. I think that Lord Platt in his Harleian lecture demonstrated that a great deal of the advances in clinical and chemical medication have been made by research undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry. I suggest that there is a correlation between the effectiveness of the research and the drugs so produced and the demands of the market, that it is simply because the pharmaceutical trade had to sell its goods that it was forced into lines of research that produced drugs which doctors really wanted to prescribe for needs which their patients really had.
  I think that there is a danger in assuming that the more academic kind of research, because it is made without regard to a future profit motive, is necessarily directed to better social ends. I would approach it the other way round, and say that one of the best tests of knowing what people really want is their willingness to pay for it even if, as in this case, it consists of their paying for it as taxpayers rather than as consumers.
  I come now to the whole question of the protection of the public, including doctors. This applies to the whole Bill, which is essentially a protective Measure. So far, licensing provisions, the Commission and the replacement of the Dunlop Committee and the rest have been concerned with protection requiring expert technical and medical knowledge. I want to turn from the more abstract topics to the more ordinary trade considerations.
  The protection of the public in this context can be overdone. The Government can be too bossy. Ministers—not the right hon. Gentleman in particular but Ministers in general—are rather apt to be like masters in a not very good boarding school, with a bland assumption of the superiority of their decisions simply because they are masters and regardless of their efficiency or indeed, the relevance of their knowledge.

  1629
  We must allow people to make their own mistakes and, although one accepts the fact that medicines are very different from other goods in this context, I do not think that they are so different that they should never be advertised, for example. The Sainsbury Committee had a considerable dichotomy. It is unrealistic to assume that all information about drugs can be left to the Commission.
  The other side of the question concerns the general sales list. The Bill reverses the present procedure. Now it is the drugs which are restricted which are listed. When the Bill becomes law it will be those which are free which are listed. There are some dangers and complications here. On the facts and figures, I believe that there are some 15,000 pharmacies as compared with about 150,000 other shops selling some form of home remedies and that the value of the retail trade in household medicines is about £ 40 million, approximately half and half divided between pharmacy and non-pharmacy outlets.
  Considering that the average retail pharmacist gets only about one-third of his turnover from the National Health Service, I see the force of their case that they have some claim to special economic protection. Indeed, the claim was recognised in the Resale Prices Act. But I hope that there is no question of its having relevance in the context of this Bill and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman ensures that everything that is now freely on sale, with the possible exceptions of one or two products which, since they have come on sale, have been found to be more dangerous than was thought. will stay on the initial list as of right and that new additions are made as occasions come forward— in other words, that the general sale list will follow in practice the same procedure as the right hon. Gentleman has laid down for licensing.
  There are many other matters of detail, but now I want to turn to wider considerations. I do not think it possible to consider the Bill coherently in isolation. First, there is the question of what is not in it but which could be put in by regulation. Then there is the scope and effect of the Green Paper and how much the powers the Minister will have under the Bill can be used to implement its recommendations— indeed. how much these
  1630
  powers are being sought in anticipation of the Green Paper. The same considerations apply to the Health Services and Public Health Bill which is equally widely drawn and comprehensive and just as vague.
  The House has heard a lot— and those of us considering that Bill upstairs have heard even more— of the intentions of the Minister, which are magnificently beneficent. I am happy to say that I have no doubts about them at all. But when these two Bills are on the Statute Book, whatever his intentions may be his powers will be formidable indeed and Parliamentary control inevitably not all that effective, owing to the means open to us of negative or sometimes positive Affirmation.
  The composition of the Commission is relevant here, as are the decisions that the right hon. Gentleman has made. It seems that he has recognised the need for Parliamentary supervision. I think that, had it been achievable, an independent Commission would have been the better course. It would have been better if the committees had had to work through such a Commission rather than being responsible direct to the Minister. It would be better if the Commission were entirely independent. But I accept that this would be extremely dangerous, as does the right hon. Gentleman, unless there were some form of Parliamentary control of the Commission or at least of supervising it.
  In passing, I think that this is a very strong argument for setting up a specialist committee which could send for members of the Commission, take evidence and send for papers. That might he an effective safeguard to the very wide powers the Minister is taking. Without such detailed apparatus, Parliament is not really very effective in dealing with wide delegated powers.
  The right hon. Gentleman thinks that I exaggerate. He has said so repeatedly. But he has only himself and his party to blame if we express our fears. Has he gone back on "Signposts for the Sixties "or some of his own writings? If so, what about his party's position, especially those sitting above the Gangway? He can hardly blame us if we fear that at least some elements in the party opposite would like to carry out

  1631
  their expressed policy and if we find his expressed intentions too vague and too likely to be reversed to be really assuring.
  The Minister has repeatedly said that these powers will not be used and that in any case they are for the public good. That is the classic excuse of those more concerned about interfering than about liberty. I am appalled by the sloppy thinking shown by the sort of mixture of fundamental reasoning and arrogant bossiness which does not recognise this danger. Liberties are eroded not by men or evil intent but by good intentions mixed with a fundamental contempt for the ordinary person which such men have for their less gifted fellows. A letter in The Times recently quoted from The Times of 1846. It said:
  "The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complacence, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain."
  That, in another context is the same sort of thing. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper, a id this is the way that I look at this Government. They produce not a proclamation, but about 119 Clauses of turgid prose. Is this an exaggeration? What about these enforcement powers, especially the right of entry, the appeals procedure and the other matters? What about Clause 30 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill, taken in conjunction with the licensing provisions, and all the rest of the apparatus? Why do we have all these powers if they are not to be used?
  There are only three reasons that I can think of. Either that our suspicions are justified or that the Ministry is determined to provide for all possible conditions and contingencies, however remote, with a panic that verges on paranoia, or else it is just a blind obedience to Parkinson's Law. Anyway, the result is a very large, cumbersome and doubtfully efficient Measure to achieve a very laudable but very simple purpose, to give permanence within the framework of legislation to the existing arrangements, which as the already working well and which, as the Minister says, have not been
  1632
  hampered by the lack of any statutory powers.
  We agree that these arrangements should have legislative permanence and statutory powers, but we think that it could be done a great deal more simply and a great deal less dangerously and bureaucratically and, in the end, probably a great deal more efficiently. This is what we shall seek to demonstrate in the course of the remaining stages of this Bill.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The feature of the speech by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) which I found most worrying was the apparent complacency about our present situation with regard to drug production, licensing and so on. For many years I have felt that we have needed to move a good deal further forward towards the procedures which have been adopted for some time on the continent and elsewhere. It has been a matter of some sorrow that it has taken quite so long to establish in a satisfactory framework the kind of organisation that we seem to need for the safety of our people and also to encourage the production and development of the drugs that we clearly require.
  It was very hard to discover from this rather lengthy and also turgid speech of the hon. Member whether he was supporting the Bill. On balance it appeared to me that, in view of many of his strictures, he was recommending the House to oppose it. I take a different view. 1 welcome this Measure and believe that the wide powers referred to, which the Minister will have available, are both necessary and indeed essential. It seems a pity that there has been no time so far to put this Bill within the background of the needs as I and many others feel they exist.
  There is very considerable public anxiety on this question of drugs, their use and misuse. That is not surprising and there are many reasons why this should be so. It is because of this anxiety that gradually a great number of steps have been, quite rightly, taken in a more informal way, non-statutory steps, to try to ensure the proper safeguards. In the view of many of us those steps have been far from adequate, bearing in

  1633
  mind the growing pressures that today exist.
  There are the problems and dangers both of over-prescription of drugs and the dangers of misuse. It is a fact that powerful drugs are prescribed for relatively simple complaints and ailments. This is nothing new, it has been happening for years, but it has reduced the value of the drugs for the conditions for which they were designed. We have recently had a very tragic example of what possibly could arise as a sequel. We had the tragedy on Tees-side, in Middlesbrough, of the death of several very young children, because of resistances that had built up, possibly— I say no more than that— due to the over-use and over-prescribing of drugs over a long period of time. There are some of us who fear that these dangers may well become far more acute unless there is some more adequate understanding of the uses to which modern drugs should be put.
  This is essentially a matter for the Ministry and the medical profession, and I realise that they are both well aware of these dangers, and are discussing effective means which can be taken to meet them. This Bill is one step forward along those lines. It makes it more possible to prevent this kind of danger. Today the general practitioner has full liberty, and it is what he has always rightly demanded, the liberty to prescribe what he thinks right for his patients. One has to modify that for the one exception, at any rate, with regard to the case of heroin, where rightly a limitation has been imposed. Apart from that it still stands, although it is true that the general practitioner can be subject to some challenge afterwards to justify what he has been doing, about the level of his prescribing.
  We know that there are very great pressures on the doctors all the time, both from the manufacturers who, perfectly naturally, want to sell their products, and also from the general public. This is one of the tragedies, that otherwise adult and responsible people assume that it is the continuing job of the doctor to relieve every minor symptom, never mind the complaint itself.
  This is obviously a very important problem, needing continuing education. One must say that the right of the general practitioner, which is retained in
  1634
  this Bill, to prescribe as he considers right and proper, assumes a degree of responsibility on the part of doctors which, frankly, general practitioners do not always display. I completely agree that the great majority of doctors do show a proper and real responsibility, but there are some, as we know well, who do not. This has been shown recently in many problems that we have had to face. One is referring not only to the more extreme cases, where abuse can occur, but to the problems that arise because of the pressure that the doctor has to face, and the kind of case that I have referred to on Tees-side and the danger of some of the risks of the potent and powerful drugs available today. It seems that a permissive attitude to drugs has been built up among adults, who have been assuming that the doctor should provide, by powerful drugs, relief for these minor ailments. This has spread, in many cases, from the parents to the young.
  We face the dangerous, if not critical, possibility of a spread in the misuse of drugs among young people. We should not regard this as the fault of young people alone. The responsibility for this situation is the attitude adopted by so-called responsible adults— the parents themselves. There are few homes which are not overstocked with masses of drugs, and discussion about what drugs should be used for particular purposes is common in families. If this kind of permissive attitude is adopted by the older members of the community, is it surprising that it is being taken advantage of by the young?
  The abuse of "hard" drugs is a very acute problem, but perhaps, within certain limits, it can be contained. However, we also face grave dangers from the abuse and misuse by young people especially of what are wrongly called "soft" drugs. This term gives a wholly misleading impression, because the modern form of use by young people of so-called "soft" drugs— some of the amphetamines— can result in as serious a condition as we have known to result from "hard" drugs.
  These are some of the problems which are in our minds when we consider the Bill to see what it can do to help us in dealing with this serious situation which might become far more serious unless

  1635
  action is taken. This is why I found the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham so unsatisfactory. His comments took no regard of the major problems we face and which are likely to become far more acute.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I was not aware that the Bill had anything to do with the control of drugs in that sense of the word. I thought that that was entirely the responsibility of the Home Office. Indeed, I understand that there is to be a Prayer about it next week. I did not speak about that problem, not because I do not consider it serious, but simply because it seemed to me that under the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum it had nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman shows that he does not appreciate the kind of problems we face. We are talking, not about drugs which come within the special list provisions, but about drugs which are regularly prescribed, perfectly properly, by doctors but which are being misused. This is one of the dangers, together with the other danger to which I referred, which can arise from the prescribing habits of doctors which can be dealt with, possibly, through the operation of the Bill and by the better education of doctors on the way in which they prescribe.
  This matter has been of real concern to many of us. My hope and belief is that one of the more beneficient objects of the Bill is to ensure that the safety of the public is more securely guaranteed under the Commission which is to be set up than has been possible in the past. Despite the welcome which there has been of the way in which the Dunlop Committee has worked, we know that there has been some anxiety about this matter. Through the Bill the Commission, and the committees who are to follow the setting up of the Commission, will give an added sense of safety and security to members of the public which they very much need. It is right that the Minister should retain responsibility and that the recommendation of the Sainsbury Committee in this respect should not be accepted. It is vital that answers should be given in the House on matters which might arise. We need an independent
  1636
  qualified judgment on the value of new drugs and eventually of existing drugs.
  That raises the question which the Minister dealt with about who are to he the judges. I agree that it is only right that those who are involved should have representation and that everyone concerned in the operation of the Bill should accept the independence and authority of the Commission. That is vital. Representation must equally be seen to apply, not only to the Commission, but to the committees which are set up. It is true that, in attempting to reach decisions about the value of drugs. regard must be had to the immense value which some drugs have been to the community and the lives which they have saved, but we must all the time consider the dangers involved. This is possible of achievement only provided the Commission has real authority to take charge of this matter.
  I welcome the provisions about clinical testing. The situation which has developed has been somewhat unsatisfactory, because inevitably the only way in which clinical testing could be achieved would be by the representatives of a firm making private arrangements with a hospital and building up a relationship with an individual specialist in a hospital. This might mean that a smaller firm which might have something of real value to contribute and test has not been able to do so. I hope that it will be possible under the new arrangements to ensure more independent testing.
  We need effective control of so-called ethical and non-ethical products. I welcome the provisions for the control of the general sale list which is to be established. However, I have some anxiety about whether the controls are adequate. I do not take the view that the powers are too great. I am concerned that, in view of the dangers which arise, even products which we might think of initially as relatively harmless should not find their way on to the general sale list.
  It would be wrong to allow the development, as is apparently suggested. of the use of automatic vending machines for drugs. I know that this already happens in some cases. We should consider whether there is a need for automatic vending machines for drugs. Even

  1637
  in the case of the more generally used medicines, there is a danger which needs investigation.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me the difference — I am not being funny— between a 16year-old girl in a chemist's shop and a vending machine? We hand our money over to both. The girl does not know what she is selling, and the vending machine does not know.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I was about to make it clear that I do not accept the whole of the argument put forward by many pharmacists who seem to take the view that there is complete security provided everybody goes into the pharmacy. It depends on who may be serving. There is, nevertheless, an added check. The existence of the vending machines is based on the assumption that these drugs in any kind of quantity are all right. One has to balance the perfectly proper need for some kind of availability to people with the dangers that might arise. I suggest that this should be looked at again.
  So far from regarding the provisions about advertising as too onerous, I doubt whether there is a case for advertising. The needs and safety of the public must come first. Advertising adds little or nothing of value. Indeed, it adds some positive dangers. The provisions now made to ensure that doctors can have a regular flow of information about the new drugs that are coming on to the market in the ethical sphere are right. However, on the wider issue of the non-ethical drugs, the general advertising we see today on television, etc., is potentially dangerous. We could spend a great deal of time arguing whether a particular claim is sound, when in fact there is no value in the expenditure on advertising that goes into it. I welcome the fact that the Minister has cut down on advertising of smoking. It is equally right that there should be an attack on the advertising of drugs.
  The Minister has on the whole got the balances right in the Bill. He needs the co-operation of all concerned in the medical profession, the pharmacists and, indeed, in the industry to make sure that the scheme works effectively. I welcome the detail that the Minister gave
  1638
  as to how he intends the whole operation to be carried out. It meets most of the criticisms which have been put up by the manufacturing firms, which include some highly reputable firms with a very good record. I think, therefore, that their justifiable anxieties are met extremely well by the appeal procedure that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. With the assurance that there will be representation from the industry on the Medical Commission and possibly on the committees, too, I cannot see that any further provision need be made.
  I welcome the provisions of the Bill. I regret that not sufficient anxiety has been expressed about some of the worries that most of us have about the developing pressures and the dangers that can arise from drug-taking both in our adult and in our younger population. I hope very much that the Bill can make a useful contribution to relieve these anxieties.
  6.14 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: The Minister underestimated when he said that this was a complex Bill. I think that it is a very difficult Bill. It is difficult to understand, but admirable in its intentions. It intends to control the safety, efficiency and quality of drugs by two or three methods. First, by the setting up of a Medicines Commission. I congratulate the Minister on taking this under his wing. This is a tremendous step forward. It gives Parliament some little control and some little say by question and answer and by other methods. We may, therefore, in some small way be able to influence this Medicines Commission.
  The licensing procedure which we already have will be greatly enhanced and increased. Reading through the Bill I got a little muddled about manufacturing licence, product licence, wholesale dealer's licence, export licence, and licence of right. I suppose we shall have a Register of Phamarcists and there will be a licence for pharmacists. If we have the list of drugs on general sale there will also be a licence to get drugs on the general list. There is also the issue of certificates: clinical trial certificates and field trial certificates. We are to have increased controls to get safety, quality and efficiency. We are to have controls

  1639
  over conditions of manufacture, conditions of storage, and conditions of distribution; and there are to be controls over labelling of drugs, sales promotion and advertising, and controls over the colour, shape and marking of medical products.
  This will require a lot of staff. We have heard nothing about the increase in staff which will be needed at the Ministry for all this licensing, for all this controlling and for all the inspection that is to go on. On 19th January we were told by the Prime Minister that, in order to save £ 50 million a year, there was to be no increase in the numbers of civil servants. When the Under-Secretary comes to reply, perhaps he will tell us how many additional civil servants will be required, not this year, not next year, but by 1970 when the Act, as it will no doubt become, will be operable. What will it cost? We have not been told anything about the cost of carrying out this enormous operation. There is no Financial Resolution down which should give some indication of the cost. There is a Resolution down today, but it refers to the income from the licences; not expenditure. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he expects the income from these licences to cover the cost of administering this Measure. We have heard nothing about the cost of these licences. How much do licensees have to pay at the present moment? Is there to be an increase in the cost of licences? We should have all these figures and facts put before us.
  We were told that the restoration of prescription charges was to save the Exchequer £ 25 million a year. I noticed in the Financial Times today that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) had got it down to £ 8 million. Is that £ 8 million to go on administering this Measure when it reaches the Statute Book? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us about these things, because they should help, especially when we come to Committee stage, in deciding whether we should go on with this expensive procedure.
  The drugs on general sale list is most important. I do not know who will draw up the list, whether the Medical Corn-mission or the Minister, but when it is drawn up I hope that it will be made as extensive as possible, because this will be of great use. Drugs to the value of £ 40
  1640
  million a year are sold by tobacconists and obtained from automatic vending machines. Some of these drugs are also sold in the Tea Room of this House. It saves a lot of work for the general practitioner if these household remedies can be obtained round the corner. Often when the pharmacist has closed down these household remedies can he obtained. If these outlets are to be discontinued the general practitioner will have a greatly increased burden placed upon him. In Germany, where there was no such list and all these household remedies had to be bought from the pharmacist's shop, they found that it did not work, and in 1962 they instituted a system similar to that which we have in this country.
  The success of the Bill will depend on two things. First. on what is in the regulations, orders, and the additional legislation which we hope to see in the future. Secondly, on the spirit in which these regulations and orders are applied. I have no fear about the spirit in which the Minister will apply them, but one has a little anxiety about these powers being taken to bring in orders and regulations, because we could have a Minister who has not the same spirit or the same outlook as our present Minister. and he could act adversely.
  I would like two assurances before we end the debate. First, I hope that nothing in the Bill will in any way damage what I consider to be our outstanding pharmaceutical industry. This country has always led the world in pharmacy. There have been more worthwhile discoveries of remedies and drugs in this country than in any other country in the world. Over the last 25 years, probably 90 per cent. of the worth-while drugs have come from Great Britain, with the result that we are one of the four great pharmaceutical exporting countries.
  A certain amount of damage has already been done by the Sainsbury Report. One American firm which exports from this country bought a piece of land on the Continent with a view to setting up a factory there so that it could export from the Continent rather than from here if some of the things in the Sainsbury Report were put into this Measure. I am glad that they have not been.

  1641
  This is a useful industry. When it has paid for the raw materials required to manufacture the drugs, and after account has been taken of all the drugs that we import, there is a balance of payments of £ 28 million in our favour.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: It is more than that. In 1966, the last year for which I have figures, exports amounted to £ 75 million, and imports were about £ 20 million, so the figure is more impressive than my hon. and gallant Friend suggested.
  Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: This is a favourable balance of payments, and I should hate to see any of this licensing and the issuing of these certificates causing a delay, an obstruction, or a hindrance lo the progress of this industry.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman like to expand a little on the question of exports by the British pharmaceutical industry and say how much of the profit is made by British firms and how much by American or American-dominated firms in this country?
  Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: One of my hon. Friends will deal with that later. He knows much more about it than I do. I do not know the answer to that question.
  As I said, I would like two assurances before the debate ends. The first is that no limit will be placed on prescribing by doctors, that they will be able to prescribe whatever they think is necessary for their patients. I think that the Minister expressed that view when he spoke, but his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, (Mr. Blenkinsop) seemed to think that there was something in this Measure which would limit a general practitioner prescribing for his patients. If the Bill does that, it will be very unpopular with the medical profession. More of them will leave this country if they feel that they do not have the right to prescribe the drugs which they regard as essential for their patients, and if more doctors go abroad the general practitioner service as we know it will come to an end, and it will be a tremendous blow to the National Health Service.
  6.24 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I have the reference which I was
  1642
  seeking in my mind in connection with the question I asked the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott).
  Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member please speak up?
  Dr. Miller: I have the reference, and it shows clearly that there was a favourable balance of payments on international receipts and payments of £ 28· 3 million in 1965. However, it was British firms which had the favourable balance. United States ones had an adverse balance. It seems, therefore, that there is a mixed blessing about the state of the pharmaceutical industry in this country.
  When the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking I conjured up visions of vending machines with large looking glasses in front of them, with a thermometer and a stethoscope attached, and with suitable instructions telling patients that if they had such-and-such symptoms, or their temperature was above a certain level, they should put 2s. 6d. in the slot and take such-and-such a medicine. I suppose the consultation will he free. I do not want to enter into the pros and cons of vending machines, but I must tell the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that there is a difference between even a 16-year-old girl serving in a pharmacist's shop under the instruction of a qualified chemist, and a vending machine, because the latter cannot refuse to sell a packet of medicine to a six or seven-year-old child.
  Mr. Peter Mills: There are many occasions on which a 16-year-old girl is in the shop without a qualified man being present.
  Dr. Miller: I imagine that she would have received general instructions from the qualified pharmacist not to serve any young children who come toddling into the shop.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) will forgive me if I congratulate my bossy form master, as he put it, at this Westminster school for delinquents, on bringing in the Bill. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was getting so worked up about. It is amazing how any talk about freedom can stimulate such an interest.

  1643
  The hon. Gentleman seems to have a 'lion memory. Perhaps he has forgotten the thalidomide tragedy, which is in the minds of all doctors, and certainly is in my right hon. Friend's mind. Anyone who has seen the tragic results of the thalidomide episode can have no doubt about the necessity of a Measure such as this to bring in a rigid code of safety for drugs.
  Mr. Paul Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend referred to the wide enabling powers given to the Minister under the Bill to be exercised by regulation in some cases, and in others on his sole discretion. He was in no way suggesting that the safety regulations in the Bill were not required.
  Dr. Miller: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent medical publication which says:
  "If the Bill is passed into law, its effect will depend largely on the spirit in which it is applied. Mr. Kenneth Robinson has shown himself to be fair and reasonable in his dealings with the pharmaceutical industry, as with the medical profession, and as long as he is in charge there are unlikely to be any serious problems. But the powers the Bill gives the Minister to make regulations in many areas could be disturbing… "
  I would prefer the Medicines Commission to be independent, and not merely capable of giving advice.
  Thalidomide is not the only drug which can have disastrous effects. It made a dramatic effect at the time, but there are many others which can have serious effects. I believe that my colleagues in the medical profession will agree with me when I say that. As a general rule, no one should take any medicine unless it is essential. We believe that the human body has amazing powers of recuperation without taking anything, but human beings will always find solace in some kind of remedy. I therefore think that it is the duty of those who know the dangers at least to make sure that what people take is not harmful, even if it does no: do them any good.
  Two examples spring to mind of drugs which are widely used and which can be extremely dangerous. I would ask the House to bear with me if I give two personal cases. Butazolidin is one and the
  1644
  other is Sulphapyridine, known as M & B 693. Butazolidin is used in arthritic conditions, and I quote the case of a young woman who began to complain of vague pains in her legs. After three or four weeks she consulted her family doctor who prescribed Butazolidin for her. The patient took the drug regularly for about two weeks according to the doctor's instructions and then began to feel ill. She became pale, developed nausea, and in her own words "felt groggy ". She was sent home from work one day and asked the doctor if it was possible that the drug had anything to do with her condition. The doctor said no.
  She continued the treatment for a few days more, and since the symptoms worsened she stopped of her own accord. But the damage had been done. The condition continued to get worse. She began to stagger, collapsed and was rushed to hospital and with acute anaemia due to internal bleeding. The drug she had taken had either activiated a duodenal ulcer causing it to bleed, although she had no previous symptoms of duodenal ulcer, or was directly responsible for the bleeding. At any rate the butazolidin was to blame. After two weeks in hospital and four pints of blood the patient recovered.
  The second case is of a similar nature, involving sulphapyridine. A young woman who had a mild cystitis, which was not yielding as rapidly as she wished to a conservative form of treatment, was given sulphapyridine and after two days began to develop bleeding of the gums and large haemorrhagic areas over her body. She had developed perpura. The doctor recognised the symptoms and the connection between the drug and the disease, stopped the sulphapyridine, sent her into hospital and after a blood transfusion she recovered in a few days. Even medicines well known to the public as well as to the medical profession can be dangerous, and measures to ensure safety are essential in order to prevent a further development of iatrogenic disease which is all too common at the present moment.
  Medicines should not be taken lightly. I remember hearing the story of a patient who complained to her friend that she had to go to the doctor for pep pills to give her the energy to go to the chemist to get her tranquillisers. We believe in the medical profession that masterly inactivity on the part of the doctor is often

  1645
  the better course of action than giving drugs.
  I would like to refer to one or two aspects of the Bill itself. Although as I indicated I think it is a good idea to set up a Medicines Commission, I feel that probably it would be better to make the Commission independent of Parliament. I know that to talk about the necessity for having Ministers responsible to Parliament is a good democratic resounding phrase, but I also fear the situation which might develop if we had Ministers in the future not quite so enlightened as my right hon. Friend.
  Before a licence is granted for a particular preparation, the licensing authorities, who will be the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, would presumably be almost completely dependent on the advice and recommendations of the Medicines Commission. It might be better therefore if the Medicines Commission were an independent authority with full powers.
  In connection with the promotion of sales, Clause 87, there will be— and again I think this is a sound project— the production of a data sheet. I gather this will be prepared for every new product and I imagine will correspond fairly closely with the control document recommendation in the Sainsbury Report. The data sheet will contain all details about the preparation— its uses, its dangers, its contra indications, side effects, etc. It will be seen by all doctors prior to the drug being released. It is essential that this should not wait until there is a risk of doctors prescribing the drug and not knowing about its dangers and its side effects. This is an important point. It is not only essential for drugs to be tested as to efficacy and safety; it is also imperative that every practising doctor must be fully conversant with all the details of these drugs.
  Here I may strike a controversial note. It is manifestly impossible for the majority of doctors to be fully acquainted with the details of all the 3,000 proprietary preparations which are available to him at the present time. I would like to refer to this in more detail later.
  The drug bill is costing the nation £ 160 million a year, and this is only for prescriptions written by doctors and dispensed
  1646
  by chemists. It does not take into account medicines which people buy for themselves. £ 160 million is almost 50 per cent. more than the total cost of the family doctor service— this gives one an indication of its enormity. The number of prescriptions over the years 1949 to 1966 rose by only 1½ per cent. per annum but the cost of the prescriptions rose during each of those years by an average of 30 per cent.
  As I mentioned a moment ago, there are 3,000 proprietory preparations available to the doctor, and few doctors can know the details of every preparation. I would like to see incorporated in this Bill a method of pruning this list down to preparations which are more easily and capably handled by the average practitioner. In the first place, not all the 3,000 preparations are different one from another. Many are minor variations of others. Is it really necessary, for example, to have 81 preparations for the treatment of high blood pressure and 32 preparations for the treatment of obesity? I believe that the 3,000 products at present available could be cut down to a third of the number, and possibly even fewer, by ensuring that every preparation had some substantial difference from the others, by refusing to license any new preparation which did not have some substantial difference in its makeup from any preparation already on the market.
  I am sure that every doctor welcomes any new preparation whose efficacy is proved and whose safety is ensured as long as that new preparation is different and not merely one which adds to the almost ludicrous proliferation of preparations which we have at the moment. The proliferation is dangerous because, by its sheer volume, it prevents a doctor from having a detailed knowledge of all the drugs in his armoury.
  I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about the drug industry. It is a good drug industry. However, 49 per cent. of all the prescriptions dispensed by chemists in the country are for drugs which are manufactured by companies which are not British companies at all, but American owned companies. Only 27 per cent. of the market is supplied by British companies, with 14

  1647
  per cent. being supplied by Swiss companies and 10 per cent. by other European companies.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman think that anyone bothers his head whether a drug is produced by an American, British or European company, when all that he wants is to get well?
  Dr. Miller: I do not suggest that American-owned companies do not produce drugs which are valuable. However, when hon. Members speak about British industry, they ought to be sure that they know what they are talking about, because there is no reason to assume that British firms could not produce exactly the same medicines.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue Mr. Tim Fortescue(Liverpool, Garston)rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Might I remind the House that interventions prolong speeches? Many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Fortescue: Surely the same argument would apply to the car industry. Fords make cars in this country, we export them, and they are counted as British exports in everyone's mind. What is the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make?
  Dr. Miller: I am not dealing with the car industry. There are many other subtleties associated with that industry. If hon. Members opposite wish to interject some kind of partisan spirit into the debate, I might say that I feel strongly about an industry which this country built up being taken over by the American market. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can shake their heads, but that is the case. I deplore it also in the motor car industry, but I am not dealing with that industry at the moment.
  I wish that the Bill dealt with drug prices and, in some way, with what a doctor had the right to prescribe. It is a sad commentary on our procedures in this House that it takes a Bill of 119 Clauses to attempt to achieve the intended objects.
  I have dealt entirely with the human aspect of the use of drugs. Perhaps I can leave it to one of my colleagues
  1648
  to expand on agricultural and veterinary applications.
  I have no reservations about what is in the Bill. I am more concerned with what is not in the Bill. In spite of that, I think that the Bill makes a valuable contribution to our present situation and, if its provisions can bring home both to the public and to the medical profession the dangers of medicines as well as their uses, it will have served a very useful purpose.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: In accordance with the conventions of the House, I wish to declare my interest in the debate as a director of one of the leading groups of pharmaceutical companies in Britain. That is a personal and a financial interest, but I have also a constituency interest, because it so happens that the headquarters of my companies is located in my constituency. As a result, I can speak not only for myself but also for many of my constituents who work for my companies.
  I hope that I can make a contribution which is based on a certain amount of knowledge. I have spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to understand the complexities of this new, innovating, international industry and the contribution which it makes to our economy.
  I do not think that I need stress the contribution that it makes in human terms. The new drugs which it has developed have prolonged life and relieved pain for countless thousands of people, and it is estimated that as many as 6 million people are living in the Western world today who would now be dead but for the pharmaceutical revolution of the last thirty years. It is literally a lifesaving industry.
  In the past, some hon. Members opposite have criticised the industry for making money out of sickness. Perhaps the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will do so again later this evening. In fact, like doctors and nurses, it makes money by making people well. and I see nothing immoral in that.
  The Sainsbury Committee says that it makes too much money out of the Health Service. I have read the Committee's Report with care. It starts with the conclusions, goes on to the arguments, and ends with the evidence, such as it is.

  1649
  I think that that must have been the sequence in which the Report was conceived, because the conclusions do not emerge from the arguments, nor the arguments from the evidence. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a very good Minister of Health, has not incorporated many of the Sainsbury recommendations in the Bill. Most of them arise out of the allegation that the Health Service has been overcharged by "several million Es "in the three years 1963 to 1965. That is a damaging and a sensational charge. The whole of the Sainsbury Committee's case against the industry depends mainly on the accuracy of that charge. Yet the "several million pounds" is not even quantified.
  How many millions are "several "? I asked the right hon. Gentleman that question on Tuesday, and I am sorry that he is not present as he might now be able to reply. On Tuesday, he said, in effect, that he did not know. Why does he not know? Has he not even asked the Sainsbury Committee? Surely that Committee must know the answer. After two years' work it could have hardly have based its whole Report on a vague sum which it cannot even name. I do not think that it is a very good Report, but I cannot believe that it is as sloppy and slipshod as all that.
  I must tell the House that the Committee's evidence is as suspect as its statistics. It says that of the 27 leading companies, three show a return of from 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. on capital over the three years, but it admits— in Table 18, page 110— that for every company with profits of over 50 per cent. there were three with profits of less than 15 per cent. I am quite entitled to make this point because over the same three years my own group of companies earned average profits, before tax, interest and depreciation, of 22— 2 per cent., which is not at all excessive in a high risk, innovating industry.
  It would be a good thing if some hon. Members opposite sometimes paid more attention to the wise words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, who said recently:
  "I do wish so many of the comrades would stop equating profits with incest or lechery.'
  He went on to say:
  1650
  "If you have a profitable industry, you have the means of further investment and further development and more jobs."
  And of course that is true. Profit is the margin which makes progress possible, and the sooner everyone understands that, the better it will be for Britain.
  In any event, it was quite unrealistic for the Committee to criticise the profits of a research-based industry over a period of only three years. It is far too short. Each successful new product costs, on average, £ 1 million to develop, and takes seven years to reach the market. Therefore, a new project begun this year will probably not be marketed until 1975, may not make profits until 1977, and may not recoup the cost of its research for many years after that.
  A good example is Beecham, one of the companies in the Sainsbury 50– 55 per cent. profit range, and strongly criticised by the Committee for it. It is true that between 1963 and 1965 Beecham made high profits out of its semi-synthetic penicillins, but its research on the product had begun in 1946 and there was no return at all on capital until 1962, when the profit was 1 per cent. In the 16 years before that it had a nil return on the capital employed in its pharmaceutical business, and even now, 22 years after its research first began, Beecham would need to make a further £ 8 million to show an average return on its research investment.
  The Sainsbury Committee knew all this; it was given all the figures; yet, nowhere does the Report acknowledge that the three-year profits it criticised were preceded by 16 years of loss. That is so disingenuous that it casts very serious doubts on the validity and, indeed, on the impartiality, of the whole Sainsbury Report.
  This is of some importance because the very first of the Committee's recommendations is that the Ministry should obtain from the manufacturer a standard cost return for each product. How can a firm allocate its research costs by products when, as the Committee admits in paragraph 288, the very few successful products have to carry the cost of all the abortive research as well as the successful research?
  Research is always a gamble. My own company, which has a good research

  1651
  record, has synthesised 25,000 new chemical entities in the last 10 years and out of these only six new drugs have emerged. I calculate that at least 70 per cent. of our research expenditure is wasted because no product ever reaches the market as a result of it. Even when a product does reach the market, it may not make money. It may be quickly superseded by a better drug or it may have only very small sales. Indeed, we have drugs on which we make an actual loss and which, commercially, we would like to withdraw from the market but ethically we cannot do so because they are helpful drugs to a few patients who really need them.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) today and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman)— and I am surprised not to see him here today— in a speech outside the House have criticised the American-owned companies. The hon. Member for Coventry, North said that they are milking the Health Service. As my own companies are American-owned, I feel that I ought to answer that charge.
  In fact, the five leading American companies which have subsidiaries in this country— and my own group is one— spend £ 58 million a year on research, and their total National Health Service sales total £ 29 million. Therefore, their expenditure on research is exactly double their National Health Service sales. Total research expenditure by American firms is £ 150 million a year, whereas British firms can afford to spend only £ 12 million a year—
  Dr. Miller: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but that figure represents the complete global pattern. He spoke of £ 58 million being spent or research by American firms, but that is the total amount spent, not just the amount spent in Britain. Is he aware that total sales by American firms throughout the world— and the American domination of the market is worldwide; 50 per cent. of the drugs used throughout the world are made by American companies— is £ 1,500 million?
  Mr. Fisher: I do not see that that intervention has any particular relevance, but I shall develop my argument a little further and I may satisfy the hon. Gentleman that
  1652
  we have rather a good case. One American firm alone spends £ 14 million a year on research— £ 2 million a year more than is spent by all the British firms put together.
  But Britain has the benefit, through the English subsidiaries of these firms, of this vast American research. This is where we get the benefit, and at no cost whatever to our balance of payments. My own company exports to Europe 62 per cent. of its total production and holds the Queen's Award to Industry for this achievement. Our exports are worth well over £ 5 million a year— indeed, they are now running at much nearer £ 6 million— and our imports cost one-quarter of £ 1 million. After allowing for all imports, royalties, interest and dividends to our American parent company, we still show a net £ 2 million a year favourable balance of payments for Britain. If every company in Britain were doing that, there would not be much wrong with our economy.
  When an American company establishes a subsidiary in Britain it probably goes to a development area, as my company did, to build its manufacturing plant. It creates employment there. It pays very high United Kingdom taxes, and it creates a very valuable export market for Britain on the Continent. What more can it do? But if, as the Sainsbury Committee suggests, the right hon. Gentleman were to cut prices, weaken patent protection and abolish brand names, could we expect the Americans to go on using Britain as a base for exporting to Europe? Why should they? It would be the other way round. They would use Europe as the base for exporting to Britain.
  Then, our exports would fall, our imports would rise, our trade balance would be minus instead of plus, the brain drain would increase, and we should not continue to benefit from the immense American research to which I referred — and, in the end because of imports, which are more expensive, the cost, even to the Health Service, would be higher. So nothing would have been achieved and much would have been destroyed. I was glad to see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said recently that it was Government policy to welcome overseas pharmaceutical investment in Britain; and it jolly well should be!

  1653
  I mentioned brand names, which the Sainsbury Committee wish to abolish and which could be abolished, I suppose, under the enabling powers in the Bill. To do so, and at the same time to reduce the length and strength of patent protection, which is another Sainsbury suggestion, would be a real killer for this life-saving industry. It would be a bonus for the copyists at the expense of the inventors and the innovators.
  The issue quite simply is this: do we want advanced drugs in the long-term interests of the people's health and the British balance of payments, or cheap drugs in the short-term interest of National Health Service prices? Even that might not follow, because, even if the medicine is cheaper, the treatment may be much more expensive if it involves longer hospitalisation.
  In any case, what incentive is there to spend vast sums of money on research, if one cannot effectively identify one's product when it is marketed? Many drugs cannot be patented, and for them brand names are the only possible protection. One does not spend money on research if one cannot protect the results of it. It is very unlikely, to take an example, that PAS, which saved the lives of thousands of people suffering from tuberculosis, would ever have been developed if there had been no brand names. At home, the brand name is the doctor's guarantee of quality, safety and consistency, and, of course, of therapeutic equivalence. Abroad, it is what we sell on. The industry exported over £ 80 million-worth of drugs last year, virtually all of them brand name drugs. There is not a developed country in the world which does not use the brand name system in this international industry. France tried to modify it, but gave up the attempt in 1960 when it proved unworkable and bad for research.
  To abolish brand names would also conflict with the policy of making our own laws compatible with those of the Common Market countries, and would be a great exporting disadvantage to us. In the last year, my company secured three large orders from Russia for a premium drug simply because the Russians recognised the established reputation of the brand name and wished to buy it. There is no doubt that the
  1654
  Hinchcliffe Committee was right to state that brand names encourage research and should therefore be retained. The Sainsbury Committee has reversed that finding, mainly to save money for the Health Service, but its Report made no attempt at any cost-benefit analysis.
  In fact, only 25 brand name products have cheaper equivalents. The Ministry of Health evidence to the Public Accounts Committee for the 1964– 65 Session showed that, if these equivalent drugs had been universally prescribed instead of brand name drugs, the maximum possible saving would have been £ 442,000, which is well under one half of 1 per cent. of the National Health Service drug bill. And that, of course, takes no account of lost exports or of the value of drugs which would never have been produced if brand names had been abolished.
  I referred to PAS, one of the three great anti-tuberculosis drugs. Sir Derrick Dunlop has said that these three alone are saving the nation £ 55 million a year. It is ridiculous, in this context, to talk of £ 442,000. I suggest that the research and export sacrifices are simply not worth the short-term, domestic savings, and I am thankful that the right hon. Gentleman has not included the abolition of brand names in the Bill.
  Having been far from complimentary about Lord Sainsbury's Committee, I have no major criticisms of the Bill itself. Indeed, I am inclined to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman not only on its omissions but also on most of its inclusions. I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) did, the statutory safeguards for the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines. But I must reiterate what he said, that, mainly owing to the tact and wisdom of Sir Derrick Dunlop and Dr. Cahal, the Dunlop Committee has worked very well indeed on a voluntary basis. I was grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this flexibility and co-operation will continue.
  I accept the licensing system in principle and I am sure that it is right to establish the Medicines Commission and make it answerable to the Minister and Parliament. That is very important. I hope that it will be an efficient and effective Commission, with a small, high-quality membership. I would far rather

  1655
  it had eight or ten members than 18 or 20. The Commission and its expert committees should have a fair balance, and should certainly include people with a real knowledge of the industry. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I think was his assurance that that would be so.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, I am greatly concerned that the Bill provides such very wide enabling powers to cover subsequent Orders and Regulations. That is a convenient way for any Minister to legislate, but it is potentially very dangerous. I do not like the extension of Departmental powers in that way and the corresponding erosion of the powers of Parliament. I am glad that Clause 113(6) provides for consultation before Regulations are made, and hope that the consultation will be full rather than merely formal. That applies particularly to the general list of ordinary products like aspirin and antacids, which I hope will continue to be readily available for the convenience of the public.
  A great many other things come within the scope of Ministerial Orders, and there should be genuine consultations on all of these before Orders are made. We can follow up all these points in Committee. However, in principle, I welcome the Bill, because it should ensure the high standards which the best companies already maintain, without killing research.
  Of course this industry is not perfect— no industry is— but it is innovating, it is exporting and it is efficient.
  Lord Sainsbury's Committee tried to stifle it— I might say to anaesthetise it— and it failed. It tried to destroy, but it did not attempt to build. It tried to save pennies for the Health Service, while the industry is saving £ s for the nation. it is doing much more than that. It is not only saving money; it is saving lives. Tuberculosis and pneumonia are no longer killer diseases, polio is virtually eliminated, diphtheria, scarlet fever and mastoids have disappeared. A child's expectation of life, mainly due to modern drugs, is 10 years greater today than it was 30 years ago.
  There is so far, of course, no cure for cancer. One firm has spent more than £ 4 million without discovering a single drug, but a beginning has been made and I believe that a cure for cancer
  1656
  will be found— provided that there is less carping and criticism and prejudice and hostility towards this industry, particularly— I am sorry to say— from hon. Members opposite, and provided that the industry is allowed to work in a political climate favourable to innovation.
  This is an industry upon which the better health of the people and the greater wealth of the nation both in future depend. Let us be thankful that it exists. Let us allow it to prosper.
  Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that I can call all hon. Members who still wish to participate if they prescribe themselves reasonably brief speeches. Mr. Richard.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the intricacies of the pharmaceutical industry, of which he obviously has far more acquaintance than I have. I am certain that some of my hon. Friends who still desire to speak will be quite capable of dealing with the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  I should at the outset declare a partial interest in this matter in that I was recently approached by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which informed me that it did not have a Member in the House to speak directly on the Bill. It seemed to me that since this was an important Measure and since there are about 15,000 pharmacists in the country who are directly concerned with the way in which the Bill is to be administered, it would therefore be right for me to put some of the points which are concerning that Society.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill is designed to treat medicines as commodities of a special character. This has never been done in English law and English society before and this step is greatly to be welcomed since they are special commodities, varying in degrees of potency, never being entirely safe and may I say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), they can have either a harmful or beneficial effect.
  The failure in the past to treat them as commodities of a special character has

  1657
  meant that the quality, safety, efficacy and selection of medicines have for far too long been left to the pressures of the market. Whatever one may feel about the general application of market economics, it seems to me that in this sphere, where we are dealing with substances which are of such a special character— some beneficial and some certainly harmful— to have developed over the years, a somewhat casual attitude towards medicines engendered by the pressures of the market is wrong and I am, therefore, glad that my right hon. Friend is taking these steps.
  The aim of the Bill is to impose control over all aspects of medicines, and thus to remedy the weaknesses of the present law. The intentions of the Bill are to be warmly applauded. It is the result of long study and discussion and, in the main, seems to have achieved the object which any such legislation which attempts to deal comprehensively with the problem of medicines should achieve. It provides a sensible system of control over the dissemination of substances of a special character in English life.
  The licensing provisions in Part II are some of the most desirable in the Measure because no manufacturers escape the net. They will now be under an obligation to submit all new products for consideration. However, while the result of that obligation will be to ensure that medicinal products, which are now put on the market, will be subjected to additional scrutiny, is my right hon. Friend totally satisfied that he has sufficient latitude to adjust the net if necessary? Can he, for example, permit a general authorisation to be given to pharmacies to undertake the manufacture of preparations normally undertaken in such establishments? If there must be a licence for the manufacture of drugs, it would be hard on pharmacies which undertake the manufacture of these preparations if they had to get one.
  Mr. K. Robinson: It may be convenient if I interrupt my hon. Friend to assure him that there is a specific exemption for pharmacies from the manufacturing licence in respect of drugs which they dispense themselves.
  Mr. Richard: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that assurance because I know that it is one of the doubts which the Society has felt.
  1658
  I come to Part III of the Bill and I hope that the Minister will answer some questions which are causing concern about the general list. As I understand the position, a general list will be prepared and these medicinal products will be freely available in shops other than pharmacies. Is it the intention of the Ministry that one should more or less start from scratch, with the appropriate professional committees, and decide virtually anew what drugs should be permitted to remain in general circulation? I hope so and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the appropriate expert committee would be consulted before any article was put on the list.
  However, I am still doubtful about the desirability of selling such products from automatic vending machines. When this matter was raised, earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) intervened and said, in effect, "After all, if one goes into a chemist's shop for something one may be served by an unqualified girl of 16 or 17, so what is the difference?" That is true, but the degree of control in a qualified pharmacist's shop must be greater than the control exerciseable over any sort of automatic vending machine. There are dangers in this which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider. Again, what possibility is there of registering the shops in which medicinal products on the general list are to be sold? In other words, if a store is to sell a medicinal product and the shop is not a pharmacy, should it have a licence? I would ask the Government to consider this as well.
  Part VI of the Bill deals with the promotion of sales and this clearly touches a subject which has been responsible in the past for more criticism than any other aspect of the supply of medicines. Here, the market pressures have shown themselves most clearly and the need for control has been most in evidence. The provisions of the Bill in this respect seem admirably to cover the ground in the sense of giving adequate powers to the Ministers, but there is one omission which I hope will receive my right hon. Friend's attention. It is whether or not it is desirable, in the public interest, not merely to have the control on advertising set out in the Bill but also to have an absolute prohibition on the advertising of proprietary medicines sold direct to the general public.

  1659
  It is important, when dealing with medicinal products— which, I believe everyone concedes to be articles in a special category— to ask whether the copywriters of Madison Avenue promote an atmosphere in which drugs are disseminated in the best and most desirable way and also whether the effect on the minds of the people at whom those advertisements are directed is such as to ensure that they use them in the best way. This prohibition would go far to create a greater sense of responsibility in the public mind towards the use of medicines. Advocates of the "market philsophy" will agree that the object and effect of advertising must be to encourage the greater use of the product.
  But it does not do only that. It conditions the public mind in such a way as to prejudice the acceptance of advice from a pharmacist on the suitability of a medicine which is requested by the customer. One can imagine circumstances in which a qualified pharmacist would say to a member of the general public, "I do not think that this is suitable for the symptoms you have described to me". The customer might reply, "That may be so, but if only you had watched television the night before last You would have seen an advertisement in which it was made quite clear that this product is designed specifically to deal with exactly my sort of complaint."
  Part VII deals with the arrangements for setting standards for medicines and raises the question of the rôle of the Pharmaceutical Society in this connection in future. The work of the Society in this context has been parallel with, and complementary to, that of the General Medical Council. The Society has produced the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British Veterinary Codex; the General Medical Council— the British Pharmacopoeia, which is now to be produced by the Medicines Commission or a committee appointed by it.
  Although the standards of the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British Veterinary Codex are to be recognised, it appears that, as time goes on, these standards may be superseded by other compendia produced by the Medicines Commission.
  If this is so, it seems regrettable that the experience, the reputation and the
  1660
  general knowledge which the Pharmaceutical Society has built up over the years in setting standards may be lost, or perhaps disregarded. I hope this is not so and that the Minister who replies to the debate may give me assurance about it. It may be that an opportunity is occurring because of the Bill for a merging of the activities which in the past have been carried on independently by the Pharmaceutical Society and the General Medical Council. It is to be hoped that a way will be found to take advantage of the Society's facilities not only in setting standards, but also in publishing them.
  My last point concerns veterinary medicines. I understand that the definition of medicinal products covers veterinary as well as human medicines. Consequently, unless there are special provisions relating to them, they do not have a separate mention in the Bill. My right hon. Friend might consider whether they should be mentioned in the Bill because the control of veterinary medicines seems to have lagged far behind control of human medicines.
  These are, however, points of detail which can be examined more closely and perhaps better in Committee, and I conclude by quoting from the Pharmaceutical Journal of last September which said:
  "The review confirmed the view that the pharmaceutical revolution' of the last 30 years, by introducing powerful and valuable new medicines which have superseded most of the traditional medicines, has given rise to new problems for which our existing legislation was never designed. The need for greater safeguards has been recognised in many other countries too, and controls similar in aim to those now proposed have already been introduced into the laws of Canada and other Commonwealth countries, the United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and others."
  The Bill has involved the labours of many people over many years and all who have contributed to it can feel gratified at the result, even though they may have some reservations on points in the Bill. My right hon. Friend and his staff are to be warmly congratulated on having tackled in such a thorough fashion a problem of such scope and complexity.
  7.23 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Perhaps it is inappropriate that I should speak on this subject when I have a rather severe cold. I mention it so that

  1661
  hon. Members will understand if I become inaudible before I sit down, and it may also show that doctors are as delighted as anyone else to discuss their own ailments. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has acknowledged that many of the points he made are more appropriate for consideration in Committee. He may have raised them in the hope of avoiding being on the Committee, and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not pursue them now.
  We all agree that there is no lack of interest in the House generally in health matters. Only recently we dealt in the Chamber with the Health Services and Public Health Bill, which is now in Committee, and now we have another important Bill dealing with health matters. We also accept that what we are discussing is a subject which has changed very much in recent years. We are not discussing the coloured water which cost little and was largely inert and made up the medicines of the past, but substances which are costly, complex and powerful, and which, because they are powerful, are necessarily dangerous.
  We all agree that there is need for control and regulation in many ways under this Bill. I am sure that every hon. Member would wish to support the Second Reading. I would prefer to wait for the Committee to explore some of the details and, in view of the shortage of time, I shall content myself now by making a few general observations in relation to matters with which the Bill is concerned in the hope that they may prove useful to hon. Members in their more specific considerations in due course.
  The question of safety has been mentioned over and over again. I emphasise, if it is necessary to do so, that we cannot have drugs which are potent and which have a really significant therapeutic effect without at the same time having drugs which have certain dangers. People who campaign for safe drugs and only safe drugs are asking for drugs which will not be very useful. The dangers are part of the price we pay for immense benefits. Penicillin is of immense value. It was discovered during the war and I was one of the first to use it. It has probably saved more lives than were lost during the war. But lives have been lost as a result of the use of penicillin. There have been cases when people who are
  1662
  hypersensitive or have had an anaphyllactoid reaction have died through using penicillin, but its benefit to humanity is almost beyond calculation. We should remember this when we are talking about safety.
  When we talk about testing drugs we should remember that the only finally satisfactory test of the safety of a new drug is by giving it to a patient. If we are never to give a drug to a patient unless it has previously been given to a patient we shall never have any new drugs. The industry and the profession do their best by considering various theoretical considerations to assesss the effect of a drug and they then conduct experiments with animals which are useful, but their use is limited. The final test must be the clinical one of giving the drug to patients. We are then in a situation of some danger, but it is a danger we should not seek to avoid. It is a danger we have to reckon with and control if we are ever to have new drugs of real value.
  Hon. Members have also spoken about the cost of drugs. In this aspect of the subject there are some mis-assumptions. There is a tendency for some to think that the cost of drugs in Britain is immensely high and that we spend an enormous amount on drugs. But in comparison with other countries we are very economical. It is some years since the United Nations did a survey on this subject in which they investigated the cost of drugs per head of population among 13 nations. It was shown that the cost of drugs in Britain was lower than all but two of these countries. Although that was some years ago, there is no real evidence that our position in the league table has changed substantially.
  We must also remember that we cannot assess the cost of drugs in isolation. We have to assess it against other costs. Drugs which control tuberculosis have been mentioned. The development of new chemo-therapeutic drugs and antibiotics has resulted in virtually the total disappearance of a disease which was the nation's major killer until comparatively recently. Apart from the saving in human life and suffering, the actual saving in terms of money is enormous. It has to be considered in terms of occupancy of hospital beds and so forth.

  1663
  The same applies over a large field. Many conditions which resulted in long and highly expensive illnesses are now cured comparatively rapidly with drugs, but those drugs cost a lot of money. We must be prepared to pay a lot of money or we shall not get drugs which are of great use. We ought to see the whole matter of cost in perspective.
  I am not saying that it is not possible to make savings. Of course it is and hope that we shall be able to make them. In making them we all have a part to play, the public, the professions, the industry and the Minister.
  First, a few words about the public. I regret as much as other hon. Members — this point was mentioned in particular by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)— that there is such a dependency on medicines. This is regrettable. I read an account, and I believe it to be true, by a doctor, of an elderly man who, after the death of his elderly wife consumed what remained of her medicine and tablets before throwing away the bottles and containers. When the doctor asked, "Why did you do that? There is nothing the matter with you, is there?", the man replied, "No, but I thought that it might find a weak spot somewhere ".
  This is an attitude which I agree is not to be encouraged, but the medical profession must accept a share of responsibility for this dependency. I have spent many years in general practice. I have to acknowledge that it is sometimes easier to give a patient a bottle of cheap inert medicine than it is to explain to him that he does not need any medicine. A person who consults his doctor about a condition must be examined and the doctor may have to explain, "No. This condition will get better by itself. Leave it alone and wait for a week". But this can take time, whereas the doctor can dish out a bottle of medicine quickly. I, in common with many of my colleagues, have tended to do this, perhaps to a regrettable degree. It is an understandable practice, in view of the severe pressures under which we work. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that my profession must share some of the blame for producing a general habit which is a regret-table one.
  1664
  The answer lies, not in controls which could be put into this or into any other Bill, but in health education generally. I see the object of health education not as creating a nation of amateur doctors but as getting people to look at health healthily and cultivating a more healthy attitude towards illness. This is not a matter for the Bill, although it concerns matters with which the Bill itself is very much concerned.
  I turn from considering the public and how we can reduce excessive expenditure there to considering the industry itself. It can certainly cut costs. I think that it must be recognised that the industry in private enterprise hands, the competitive industry— although sometimes it is not as competitive as I would like it to be— has, broadly speaking, served the nation well. I do not wish to enter into any ideological arguments, but it is important that I should remind hon. Members who sometimes talk hopefully about nationalisation that in the Soviet Union, where very great strides and progress have been made in medicine generally— in general medicine and in general surgery— the drug industry, which is a nationalised industry, has not produced a single significant therapeutic advance. I am not saying that the Russian people live their lives in a total absence of medicines and drugs. What I am saying is that the Russian nationalised drug industry cannot produce the kind of record which our competitive drug industry has produced. Our drug industry has done a good job in its way, but there is certainly room for improvement.
  There has been some talk about advertising. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has weighed the advertising literature which he has received from the drug industry over a period and that it amounted to more than his own weight. Even so, I believe that there are some wrong assumptions here. For instance, people tend to believe that the literature which general practitioners receive from the drug industry is about new drugs and is aimed at persuading general practitioners to prescribe new drugs. It has often been said by hon. Members opposite that there are dangers in general practitioners prescribing new drugs in this way. I would agree, if they did. However, it must be emphasised that on the whole

  1665
  the general practitioner acquires his prescribing habits from the local hospital and the local consultant rather than from anybody else. In many ways it is an economy of thought to use one product for one condition. Let us say that a general practitioner refers a patient to the local consultant who uses a particular drug a hypotensive drug to reduce the blood pressure. For other patients whom the general practitioner does not send to the consultant he will tend to use the same drug, rather than a different one so that he has to scratch his head and think about what drug he has given them.
  I have done much research into this. It will be found that the range of drugs used by any individual general practitioner is not large. He uses only about 20 drugs. The trouble is that we all use a different 20. The point I want to make very much concerns what the hon. Gentleman said. The literature which a general practitioner receives from the drug firms is concerned with persuading practitioners to continue to prescribe old drugs rather than to embark on any hazardous, adventurous process with a new drug.
  The hon. Member for Kelvingrove, on the matter of variety reduction, said that we could reduce the total number of drugs to one-third. I do not accept that, but I agree that it could be reduced in certain ways. I do not share the fears of many hon. Members about the numbers of new drugs. I welcome new drugs. What I do not welcome is the fact that many new drugs, when they are later proved not to be terribly valuable, remain drugs when they become very old drugs. I do not object to new drugs coming forward. What I object to is the fact that we do not seem to see enough of the old drugs disappearing.
  For this, the industry is partly at fault, the profession is partly at fault, and the Minister is partly at fault. I name as an example a simple drug such as aspirin, which is immensely valuable for all sorts of conditions. Acetyl salicylic acid, now part of the national langauge as "aspirin ", is a valuable drug, yet we have learned from experience that it has certain side effects. In certain patients it produces gastric irritation, in other patients gastric haemorrhage, and in other patients interference with the ear and other complications. It is also true that
  1666
  one cannot necessarily predict in advance which patients will be affected in which way. However, it is a fact that these side effects occur in a small number of cases. As a result of recent advances, we now have soluble preparations of this drug which are very much less inclined to give rise to these sorts of side effects. Once we have recognised that something is an improvement, we should say, "This is an improvement and there is no longer any reason for prescribing the old drug which has been superseded ". In short, ordinary aspirin ought now to disappear.
  Mention has been made of what was once a unique drug in medicine— sulphapyridine, M & B 693, one of the most powerful of the chemotherapeutic drugs when it was first introduced. It is still on the market, yet it has been shown that it has all sorts of side effects which, beyond doubt, are extremely dangerous. I believe that it borders on the negligent to continue to prescribe this drug. Yet it remains in use, partly because some doctors like to continue to prescribe old things which they used to prescribe a long time ago, partly because the drug industry itself is reluctant to let go anything which is still selling, and perhaps partly because Government policy in a sense has tended to make general practitioners continue with the old rather than to move to the new.
  If there was greater use of certain new and expensive preparations, they would then become cheaper, and it would be cheaper still if we could drop an awful lot of the old ones. There are many examples of this. I think that we are moving to the same sort of situation in regard to the birth control pill. There are many different kinds of this pill. Different drug firms are producing them. More and more are coming out. Doctors tend to use them in a sort of arbitrary way— "Try this. Try that. Try the other whereas all these different pills have their own value. They are all likely to be suitable for different kinds of patients.
  What we are not getting, either from the Minister or from the drug industry in any concerted way, is a detailed analysis of the relative merits of these different drugs. This is because there is competition between the different firms, each producing different drugs. There should, instead, be co-operation between

  1667
  these different firms. If they were endeavouring to show us what was the whole spectrum and the whole extent of these different products and how we could make a selection from amongst these products which would be most satisfactory for the patient, we should gradually move to a much happier situation for tie Exchequer, for the patient, and, in the end, for the industry itself.
  In the end, machinery of that kind requires a degree of co-operation which we do not have at present. I should like to see us moving towards it. There have been references to this already, and I shall not ventilate that aspect of the matter further now.
  I believe that the Bill will change the role of many people, and of the pharmacist in particular. I should like to see the pharmacist's rô le change in many ways. Dispensing has changed. It is no longer a matter of making pills or making up mixtures. Often, it is no more than a matter of reaching up to a shelf and handing down a bottle. There is scope now for a change in the training of the pharmacist so that he will no longer need to learn quite so much about the mechanical side of dispensing but could learn something about diagnosis and the treatment of certain minor conditions. The pharmacist is frequently asked by patients to advise on what they should take for this or that condition. Some kind of training for that could be helpful to my profession, to the pharmacist's profession and to the community as a whole. If we are to manage with our limited resources, we must make more use of ancillary services of that kind. As I say, this is a change to which the Bill could lead.
  The Bill may have, and ought to have, an effect on another profession in which I am interested— I call it a profession— the drug industry's representatives. I am associated with what is now called the British Medical Representatives' Association. It is valuable that this body is beginning to regard itself as having certain duties other than merely selling drugs. Yet, before it can carry out the other duties, there must be a co-operative atmosphere within the drug industry so that the individual drug company's representative may increasingly be able to advise the doctor about various different
  1668
  preparations produced by different companies, giving comparative statistics on their action, on prices, and so on, in a way which is not open to him at the moment while he is operating in a purely commercial fashion. I welcome the formation of the British Medical Representatives' Association because it has as as its object the promotion of codes of conduct which can do nothing but good for the industry and for the whole community in health matters. We shall have to consider these questions further in Committee.
  What we are trying to do here, and what I hope we shall do, is to make for a variety of choice in drugs and medicines. We realise that competition can be beneficial provided that it is regulated and controlled as the Bill will lay down. We should realise, also, that the more expensive medicines are not necessarily to be regretted; they may be a positive advantage. I explained this point earlier. It is something which ought always to be borne in mind. In many ways, the hope for medicine in this country lies in spending more rather than less on drugs. I hope that, as the pharmaceutical industry advances and we have new and more powerful therapeutic substances, we shall solve more and more of our hospital problems, our surgical problems, and the manpower problems with which the Health Service has difficulty in coping at present. All this will depend on the growth of the drug industry and on the manner in which the Bill operates, whether it encourages or obstructs it. We all welcome the Bill. We are glad to give it a Second Reading, but we shall look carefully at all these matters in Committee.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  Whereupon Mr. SYDNEY IRVING, The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to the Standing Order.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I speak as a layman in this debate in which so many medical, drug and pharmaceutical experts have taken part, but I have, over the years, been much concerned with the problem of the safety of drugs. On

  1669
  5th March, 1962, I raised for the first time in the House of Commons the question of the drug thalidomide, and I think that it might be useful to refer to that occasion in order to put in perspective the Bill before us today. I asked the then Minister of Health,
  " what action he is taking to ensure that all flew drugs are submitted to immediate, independent, and reliable scrutiny before use in the National Health Service ".
  His reply was:
  "I have no powers to do this".
  I then put the following supplementary question:
  "Is the Minister aware that there is considerable medical and public concern about the number of drugs which recently have been shown to have very dangerous side effects, particularly the 40 abnormal births which are now believed to have been due to the taking of one particular sedative by expectant mothers? I know that this is a recurring problem, but when it comes to a child being born without limbs because the mother took a sedative during pregnancy, should the Minister not consult the Home Secretary to see whether some machinery can be set up to screen drugs before they are made available for public use?"
  The Minister replied:
  "Where side effects are concerned, and that is what the hon. Lady has in mind, the mere scrutiny of a drug would not be enough. What is necessary are clinical tests, and the terms of reference of the Cohen Committee were recently revised to enable it to recommend that there should be clinical tests in cases where it thinks advisable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 25— 6.]
  I can still remember the horror I felt when I said those words in the House. It seemed to me that it was too horrifying to be true, and I fully expected to be challenged by another hon. Member on the facts which I had stated. But the remarkable feature was that there was no challenge. There was no response. It was like dropping a heavy stone into a pool of treacle; it sank without trace, without a splash or ripple. In fact, the House was not aware of the thalidomide tragedy although there were already 40 recorded cases of abnormal births.
  It was not until a few days later, when the "Tonight" team repeated the question in its B.B.C. television programme and asked what it was all about and what was being done, that many members of the public who saw that programme became aware of the tragedy. After that, interest grew steadily, until there was a public demand for action to be taken.
  1670
  I mention that matter because it is important to remember that the thalidomide tragedy, in particular, was what led to the many discussions, the committees, the reports, and the long and painstaking work which went into the production of this Bill. However many safeguards we put into a Measure of this kind, we can never be absolutely certain of the safety of any drug. The thalidomide result was dramatic and immediate— we could see it— but there are many drugs in use which may, in 20, 30 or 40 years, prove to have something in their nature which is harmful in its side effects. Our legislation must, therefore, be as comprehensive and as detailed as it can possibly be.
  I welcome the Bill. I welcome the care which has gone into it, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on having produced such a Measure. It has to be long, complicated and detailed.
  I am very pleased, also, that there are provisions covering veterinary medicines and products used in agriculture. We are all aware of the concern which has often been expressed, notably more recently, about the use of antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs and about other substances which are fed to animals and which, though the side effects may not affect the animals, may well affect human beings. Since the Bill repeals the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, I hope that the regulations made on this point will provide much greater safeguards for the consumer in this field, where we are using in a very slap-happy fashion substances which may be dangerous to us.
  I have a thing about labelling, and therefore I welcome the Bill's provisions for labelling, which are absolutely essential. I also welcome the provisions covering advertising.
  Having said that, I want to put a minority point of view which has not been put so far in the debate. I agree to some extent with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) on the width of the net which my right hon. Friend has cast in the Bill. In his use of the words "medicinal product ", which are defined in Clause 114, my right hon. Friend is going very far afield. It seems to me that if, for example, a mother who wanted to offset the effects of eating refined flour and white bread bought wheat germ and bran, which she then

  1671
  administered to one or more of her children with the effect that they increased or accelerated a certain physiological function, she would have been sold a medicinal product in the terms of the Clause! I know that it is not my right hon. Friend's intention that such products as wheat germ, bran and so on should be caught by the Bill. But they could be, as the wording stands, unless special arrangements are made to exclude them.
  Clause 114 has caused considerable concern to those who manufacture and sell what are commonly known as health foods. There was a specific reference to health foods and dietary supplements in the White Paper, but it is not in the Bill. Under the Clause the Minister could catch such products, although he has assured me and other hon. Members that he does not wish to do so. If any of these products are caught, the Statutory Instrument procedure, and in some cases appeal to the court, will provide some protection. But until we see the general sales list and know what exemptions are to be made for specific substances and articles it is very difficult to be certain that my right hon. Friend has not gone much wider with his net than he needed to go. It would considerably allay many fears on the Clause if the Minister made it clear that he will not catch medicinal products which are not capable of being injurious to health in the recommended dosages or quantities.
  It is ironic that when many people have turned to what are known as health foods — have taken the "look younger, live longer" approach— because they are conscious of many of the deficiencies of modern refined foods and because they are doubtful about the safety of some drugs the very products to which they have turned could be caught by the Bill, which is promoted to cover very different drugs of high potency.
  Like other hon. Members, I have had correspondence from a number of organisations, including the Institute of Medical Herbalists. I mention it because my right hon. Friend has excluded herbal products. He has recognised that they are harmless in the sense with which he is concerned. I think that he has excluded them because they are fairly easily defined, al
  1672
  though the medical herbalists state that the definition he has given of a medical herbal remedy is rather old-fashioned and does not cover the modern practice they follow. It is much more difficult to define a health food, dietary supplement, or vitamin supplement or something of that kind so that it can be excluded. We should examine this point when the Bill reaches Committee to see that such foods are effectively excluded, because we are here entering an entirely new sphere.
  Tonight's discussion has been on the orthodox medical approach but many people are turning from that. They have a perfect right to do so and to buy the substances they want in the shops of their choice. The important point is that unless these substances are excluded they will be confined to sale by registered pharmacists, which seems utterly absurd when in the main the registered pharmacists obviously do not want to sell them, and when the people who want to buy them would prefer to do so in shops of their choice.
  I shall say no more on that point, because a number of hon. Members want to take part in this very important debate. We have had to wait six years for the Bill, which we shall obviously have to amend considerably in Committee. We are establishing a standard which the public expect us to establish. We are not just legislating for experts; we are legislating for the general public, to give them the feeling of security that we are protecting their interests by every means in our power.
  While some hon. Members have expressed the view that this is bureaucracy and that we are going too far in the machinery of the Bill, I am sure that the general public, who are concerned about these things and have been very worried about the whole question of drug safety, will welcome the Bill, as I do, and will wish it a speedy course through Committee.
  7.59 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: At the outset, I must declare an interest in that for about 10 years I have been a part-time director, without executive responsibility, of a well-known pharmaceutical company. I hope that after hearing my speech the House will feel that this has enabled me to bring some

  1673
  first-hand knowledge of the industry to the debate. I also hope that I shall not indulge in any special pleading.
  I very much regret that the White Paper was published after quite inadequate consultation with the B.M.A. and the pharmaceutical industry, and that there have been only 10 days between the publication of the Bill and Second Reading, which is a quite inadequate time for such a complicated Bill to be studied by all the interests concerned.
  I have considerable reservations about the Bill, sharing them with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). I have them despite the sweet reasonableness with which the Minister so disarmingly spoke. I congratulate the Minister on resisting some of the wilder recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee. Some of these were superficially attractive to certain people but would have been damaging in the long term to the drug industry as well as to the health and prosperity of the nation.
  The policy of cheap drugs has an emotional appeal, but I often feel, at a time when the idea of profit is under attack and the word itself is regarded as a dirty word, that more hon. Members opposite should listen to the wise words of the Minister of Labour, who said last August:
  "I do wish that so many of the comrades would stop equating profits with incest or lechery. If you have a profitable industry you have the means for further investment and further development and more jobs."
  That was good advice from a Labour Cabinet Minister.
  The pharmaceutical industry has been too often criticised and threatened, these criticisms and threats often arising out of ignorance, dogma and misconception. The record of the industry is there for everyone to see. It is inevitably imperfect in a number of ways and can be selectively criticised. I have no intention of trying to whitewash it. But, without hesitation, I say that it has a fine record, comparing favourably in most respects with that of similar pharmaceutical industries in other advanced countries.
  It cannot be questioned that its prices and profits, taken across the board, are reasonable both as a proportion of the total National Health Service bill and when international comparisons are made. I
  1674
  regret that the Sainsbury Committee criticised the profits of one of the companies by taking two or three profitable years and failing to put them into the context of many years of expensive research, of which no account was taken. This was a great mistake on the part of the Committee and was a piece of special pleading which made its other recommendations suspect. It is a pity that not one member of the Committee came from a science based industry, although it expected to examine one.
  The industry has worked with the Ministry of Health smoothly since the voluntary price regulation scheme was first introduced. We all hope that still further improvement can be made in the scheme as a result of the talks now going on. The industry has also enjoyed excellent industrial relations— something seldom mentioned. I have not myself heard of a strike in it. It has a remarkable export record, showing that its prices are internationally competitive. This means, naturally, that the Treasury and the Board of Trade both have a vested interest in the success and prosperity and expansion of the industry.
  Mention has been made of the remarkable progress of the pharmaceutical revolution in the last 25 or 30 years, which has contributed enormously to the health and well being of the nation. I had thought of going into some detail here by way of background but will not do so because I do not wish to make a long speech as other hon. Members wish to speak. There remain, of course, in spite of great victories, many important fields still to conquer. One thinks of crippling and killing diseases like arthritis, cancer and diseases of the heart and one quickly remembers how many more breakthroughs we are hoping to see.
  I admit freely that the present Minister of Health has shown himself to be well aware of the industry's success record and that he understands its problems clearly. That is most encouraging and I pay tribute to him. But he is under considerable pressure to follow certain courses with popular appeal in some quarters but which would have disastrous long term implications. I am thinking in particular of three courses.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman is under pressure to abolish brand names. But

  1675
  these are of critical importance to the success of the industry and especially to exports. Secondly, he is under pressure to erode still further the inadequate patent protection which the companies now enjoy. That would be a retrograde step. We have only to look at the example of Italy, where there has been no patent protection. No new drug has been discovered there and drug prices are the highest in Europe. Patent protection is in the interests of the public as well as of the manufacturers.
  Thirdly, the Minister is under pressure to introduce rule of thumb standard cost returns on every individual drug. This would be both unworkable and unfair. Indeed, any of these three courses would stifle the industry's ability to carry out the expensive research which is its life blood and would have the effect of driving overseas subsidiaries of foreign parent companies. This would be a consequential loss to the research effort done in this country and would have a bad effect on the British economy, especially on the balance of payments.
  There are sensible omissions from the Bill. Nevertheless, I still have serious doubts about it as it stands. It gives immense powers to Ministers concerned. However great our trust in present Ministers, in particular in the right hon. Gentleman, and their Civil Service advisers, we must examine the Bill as a vehicle which could suddenly and quickly fall into less reliable hands. No names, no pack drill, but I can think of several unreliable hands attached to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill and approach the question from several different angles. It is the vital principle of the doctors' freedom to prescribe. Subject to stringent limitations regarding safety, a doctor must be free to prescribe as he thinks best in the interests of his patients. It is right that irresponsible or negligent prescribing, excessive in quantity or unnecessarily costly, Should be checked. This is already done and is widely accepted as necessary. But the doctor alone can and must decide the best remedy for each patient. He bases his judgment on knowledge of the patient, on the patient's former history and treatment, on the advice of other
  1676
  doctors concerned and on his own experience.
  As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) will agree, no two patients respond in exactly the same way to the same treatment or at least it is very rare. One product which may be more effective for the majority of patients may be less so for the minority. Two products may be only marginally, even fractionally, different, yet one will work on a patient and the other will not. But the decision and choice as to which product to use must rest with the doctor. He is the vital link betwen the research scientist and the patient and the real value of a new product can only be fully assessed through doctors' use of it after trial and observation.
  This will be widely agreed and I think non-controversial. The British medical profession maintains the highest ethical standards of which it is very proud and these follow from the long and exacting training through which its members go. It is therefore fitted for and entitled to the responsibility of freedom to prescribe. Doctors must be warned to beware of interference with their freedom to prescribe, whether the interference comes from political or academic sources.
  What I have been saying may seem to be self-evident, but it does need stating. As the Bill stands the doctors' freedom to prescribe is put at risk in two ways, in spite of the assurances given by the Minister on Second Reading. It is first of all put at risk by the extent of the powers vested in the Minister and secondly by the possibility that cumbersome and frustrating bureaucratic procedures could discourage innovation and slow down the flow of new or improved products in the drug industry. My concern is whether the powers are too wide and too arbitrary. It does not matter whether they are exercised by a medicines commission, by committees, the Minister or anyone else. The question is whether the Bill provides proper safeguards against decisions concerning drug production or prescribing habits being subject to political or economic influences instead of being based solely on the best available medical advice. For example, Clause 20(2) states that the licence shall not be refused on grounds of price. The same Clause, subsection (3) empowers the Minister to

  1677
  refuse a licence on the grounds of safety, quality or efficacy, provided that he consults with the Commissioner or appropriate Committee.
  He can reject their advice. He may refuse that licence on any of those grounds if he considers it "necessary or expedient" to do so. Necessary and expedient for whom? My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham suggested that if Parliamentary control over this great power is to be exercised satisfactorily, there may be a strong case for a specialist committee to study health matters and this is something that I should like to support.
  In this context I am thinking of drugs which show only a marginal advance on existing products. A marginal advance or difference may have specially beneficial effects on one patient compared with others, and compared with a superficially similar product. A marginal advance may lead, and sometimes does, to unexpectedly important breaks-through. I hope that the Bill will be amended to take full account of the assurance given us by the Minister. We shall have to look very carefully indeed at this point in Committee to try to ensure that a licence may not be refused on the grounds that it relates to a product held to be less or no more efficacious than another product already available. This is something for doctors to decide. Their collective professional opinion is surely the best guide to the industry about the value of a product.
  The industry and the medical profession have already had experience of the working of two committees whose functions are now to be given statutory powers. In the industry there is nothing but praise for the Dunlop Committee, which has worked extremely well and at admirable speed. But there are mixed views about the work of the MacGregor Committee. Some people feel that it has been over rigid and out of touch with the industry and general practitioners. Some people think it has been too apt to condemn products on academic grounds and the views of the Committee have not by any means always been confirmed by the experience of practising doctors.
  These factors have a direct bearing on a doctor's freedom to prescribe, and I
  1678
  see a potential threat to it under this Bill. I hope therefore that the Minister will give the assurance that he intends above all to safeguard this freedom in every possible way. He must ensure balanced representation on the expert committees, and he must limit their terms of reference to matters properly and better decided by them rather than by doctors.
  Another power vested in the Minister is that to publish the British Pharmacopoeia which was formerly done by the British Medical Council. I would like to know what the reason is for these powers in the Bill. Why is there power to publish so much more information over and above the Pharmacopoeia? I am thinking of the compendia which are to be published and the promise made by the Minister that in Committee an Amendment would be moved to enable still more prescribing advice to be produced for doctors.
  There is one other important aspect of these far-reaching powers vested in the Minister which concerns me. These are in Clauses 83 to 88 to do with advertising and promotion. I hope that the Minister will co-operate with the industry in trying to improve the code of advertising conduct which the A.B.P.I. and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain already have. No doubt some minor improvements can be made. There is something in this of "trying to keep up with the Jones's "which is undesirable. Some firms do not always co-operate and I would like to see them all co-operating and sticking strictly to this code. But proper rules and restrictions should not be imposed without very careful consultation. We must remember that the profit earned in the marketing of a new drug must be substantial to offset the fact disclosed in the Sainsbury Report that only one in 3,000 of the projects embarked upon by the industry ever reaches the market. This, then, is my main criticism of the Bill, the risk that arbitrary powers could be given statutory effect and could be too easily misused with the consequent serious threat to doctors' freedom to prescribe.
  I also feel that this Bill can easily and quickly lead to a top-heavy organisation, frustration and too much red tape, thus discouraging research and innovation and the taking of risks that lead to important discoveries. The F.D.A. has been very

  1679
  much criticised in the United States. We are told that on average it takes nearly three years for a new product to get through, whereas Dunlop takes only some three months: It is important to learn this lesson. We must not have a top-heavy bureaucracy imposed. We have still not been told how many new civil servants this will mean or what will be the cost of administration.
  There is a real possibility that because of the powers which the Government are taking through the Health Services and Public Health Bill the Minister can provide services, or produce or manufacture goods required by the hospital services in excess of their requirements:
  "… if he thinks it expedient so to do."
  There must then be a threat of Government manufacture, of the Government entering into the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. It is only a short step from entering the industry on a small scale to the wider step of large-scale manufacturing. This is something, nationalisation, which the Sainsbury Report flatly rejects. It expresses grave doubts too about State participation in the drug industry at all. The Minister should be congratulated on accepting this view of Sainsbury. State manufacture would be a retrograde action. In the Soviet Union there has not been one major therapeutic advance resulting from strict State control of the pharmaceutical industry, or for that matter in any other country behind the Iron Curtain. There is a very important lesson to be learned here.
  State control could lead to political pressures on doctors to prescribe State-produced drugs. In some ways, this is the greatest implicit threat to their freedom to prescribe. There is nothing explicit about it in the Bill. There are immense sums available through the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the Industrial Expansion Bill which could be used by the State to take a direct interest in the manufacture and promotion of and research into drugs.
  I now sum up. Although it is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose the Second Reading, there is much in the Bill which gives many of us cause for considerable doubts. We shall have an interesting Committee stage and there
  1680
  will be some hard-fought battles. Everyone interested in the health of the country and the national economy must have a vested interest in a progressive, flourishing and profitable pharmaceutical industry. The Ministry of Health, the medical profession and the drug industry must work together for the good of everyone. This places a high premium on the need for full and genuine consultation whenever important steps are taken in the light of the Bill.
  Good intentions on the part of the Minister are not enough. Therefore, I hope that he will see the wisdom of setting stricter limits on his powers in some of the ways I have suggested and will prune in Committee the irrelevant or unnecessary procedures which could lead to top heavy bureaucracy, delays and frustration. Above all, if anywhere in the Bill the vital principle of the doctor's freedom to prescribe is in any way violated, the profession will find that its birthright has been sold for a mess of political pottage.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: I am a little surprised by the attitude of hon. Members opposite, particularly that of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). He said, among other things, that the profit margin on pharmaceutical products in Europe was greater than it was here or in Canada or in the United States. It may surprise hon. Members opposite, but it does not surprise me. It is hon. Members opposite who want us to associate with Europe in every conceivable way, including this way.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I was talking about retail pharmacy only. Taking the countries which I quoted in Europe, the profit margins of retail pharmacists, where medicines almost exclusively were sold and where price margins were controlled by State or professional bodies, were higher than in those countries where this was not the case. I was not making any comparison between the United Kingdom and Europe.
  Mr. English: The countries which the hon. Gentleman quoted were European in the case of those having higher profits and the countries which he quoted against them were Canada, Britain and the

  1681
  United States. It was precisely because of that that I mentioned the point.
  The Bill has been discussed from the point of view of the manufacturing industry. It has been discussed by one of my right hon. Friends from the point of view of the pharmacists. It has not been discussed from the point of view of the biggest single retailer, the headquarters of which is in my constituency. Therefore, I have a constituency interest in this matter.
  There is a difference between the purely manufacturing point of view and the retailing point of view. Therefore, I am sorry to see the nature of the proposed composition of the Medicines Commission in Clause 2. Subsection (3) provides that there should be on the Commission representatives of the practice of medicine, of the practice of veterinary medicine, of the practice of pharmacy, of the practice of chemistry other than the pharmaceutical industry and of the pharmaceutical industry, except so much of it as relates to retail sale— in other words, the manufacturing side. Nowhere is it proposed that there should be on it representatives of the people who sell the drugs. This is quite extraordinary in a Bill whose object is to control the sale of drugs to the public.
  I know that it might be said that the representative of the practice of pharmacy might be concerned with selling drugs. Equally, they might not be, because many pharmacists are not engaged in selling drugs at all. When the object of the Bill is to prevent drugs which might be harmful being sold to the public, it is extraordinary that there should be no one concerned with the retail side of the industry on the Commission. The Advertising Association has made a similar point, although it is not identical with the point that I am making. It was concerned with the control of advertisements.
  I wish to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about later parts of the Bill. What is supposed to happen if a licence is revoked under Part II? The Minister detailed the licensing procedure at considerable length, and no doubt he was right to do so. But I did not notice in his speech any indication of what is supposed to happen when a licence is revoked. May I make an analogy with
  1682
  the planning permission which are given under totally different legislation? If a planning application is granted provisionally with certain conditions and is then revoked, there is compensation. Is this likely to be the case under the Bill? What will be the procedure if a licence is revoked?
  In Clause 28(3), there is mention of a period of two years within which a manufacturer must start to manufacture the items concerned. It is not clear to me what this Clause means. Apparently the intention is that if the item is not manufactured within two years the licence will cease to be applicable to the manufacturer concerned. That is not the actual way in which it is phrased. However, I should like to know what, in the opinion of the Minister, is the intention behind that particular subsection. In any case, two years is too short a time. I am not familiar with the pharmaceutical industry, but I am familiar with a substantial industry which is also a processing industry. It is impossible to say, after one has discovered a particular item, that it can be manufactured within two years. It just is not feasible. If it is to be done on any scale, one has to set up processing plant and so forth. It just is not possible to do this in modern society in two years. One does not manufacture in a test tube these days. One may need to set up a factory to manufacture a particular product if it happens to be really useful and substantial.
  There does not seem to be any means by which the two-year period can be varied. If only a small amount of a commodity is to be sold and it can be manufactured in a test tube, two years is reasonable. However, if it requires the setting up of processing plant and so on to produce an item after the discovery and proving of it, two years seems a very limited time. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
  In Part III, Clause 43(c), use is made of a famous word that has a long history, "supervision",
  "… supervision of, a pharmacist."
  Section 43 is slightly different from the existing law on the subject. Again, I ask the Minister to indicate what he thinks "supervision" may mean. Is it sufficient if one has a pharmacy with a pharmacist present on the premises normally? Can one prescribe without the

  1683
  pharmacist being present? What is meant by the use of the word "supervision" in that Clause?
  There are many other points which I could mention. I do not propose to go into them because some are Committee points. I notice, for example, that there is no provision for appeal in Clause 73, which may simply be based on normal customs in other professions. Again one asks, why not?
  What is the meaning of Clause 82 in Part V of the Bill? That to me looks as if it is a draftsman's escape route. Subsection (4) says:
  "In any proceedings in respect of infringement of the right to the use of a registered trade mark, or in respect of infringement of a patent or of the copyright in a registered design, it shall be a defence to prove that the act constituting the infringement was necessary in order to comply with regulations made under this Part of this Act."
  In other words, the law relating to patents, registered trade marks and copyright is excluded from the operation of this Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate what it means but it seems to me that this subsection has been put in the Bill by the draftsman to avoid amending in any detail patent law, which this Bill greatly concerns. If one can get round the patent, registered trade mark and copyright law because in any action it can he a defence to say that some provision in this Bill is applicable, this is probably the most remarkable Clause in the whole Bill.
  In Clause 86 (3,b) power is given to control the form of advertisements. I did not comment the other day on the Food and Drugs Regulations, but I observed them. I can only say that Regulations of that character do not give one any confidence that a power vested in the Minister to control the form of advertisements will be used in a way that might be wholly desirable. As I understand it, advertising interests were not consulted about those Regulations, or, if they were, they were not adequately consulted. It is not possible to lay down by law the size of lettering or the precise point at which words will appear on an advertisement. I say this as one who is in favour of some legitimate degree of control of advertising. However, the nature of those particular Regulations was not such as to give me any confidence that Clause
  1684
  86 will be used in a reasonable way. Will the Minister give an assurance now, or subsequently in Committee, that if, for example, this Clause stays as it is and he and his fellow Ministers are given power to prescribe the form of advertisements, there will be some Limitation?
  I do not see, for example, why this power, like every other power, relates to "Ministers ". I do not know why one brings agricultural drugs into this. However, apparently one does it, like everything else, probably again for the draftsmen's convenience.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Three Ministers are involved in the question of human medicines— the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland, and myself.
  Mr. English: I thank my right hon. Friend for that explanation. I hope that this will not make the position worse. Having seen the effect that one Minister can have on the Food and Drugs Regulations, I shudder to think what can happen with three.
  It is quite common in Bills— we saw this the other day in a Bill that went through the House— to say that a power of this kind will be exercised only in consultation with the interests affected. The Bill itself says, in relation to the Commission, that certain types of interests will be represented. With all respect to the Ministers concerned, I say that they are not experts on the form of advertisements, and I hope that at some later stage some provision will be included in the Clause to say that consultation will take place with persons familiar with the industry.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have endeavoured to damn the Bill with faint praise. I have made a few points which are almost Committee points, but—
  Sir Douglas Glover: Faint praise.
  Mr. English: "Committee points" was the phrase I myself used. I have no major objection to the Bill, nor do I believe that people in my constituency, or outside it, have any. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are not opposing the Bill, but the hon. Member for Farnham gave the House a quotation which implied that, although he did not wish to oppose the

  1685
  Bill, he was reluctant that this was the case. It seems to be the case that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot praise the Government for a good action. In my view, and I think in the view of many people in the industry, the Bill is to be welcomed. It will do a valuable job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) mentioned one of the causes of the existence of this desire to protect people. We all desire to protect human being from anything from which it is possible to protect them. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, nothing in this life is certain. We cannot protect everybody from the side effects of certain drugs, but we can do our honest best to help. It seems to me that the Bill will do that, and do it in a way which will not injure the interests of the industry, or retailers, or of consumers as a whole. It is a pity that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have received the Bill with such faint praise. This Measure is to be welcomed. It is welcomed by members of the industry who desire to protect the public. They believe that the Bill will do that without damaging the prospects of having in this country a pharmaceutical industry that is one of the best in the world.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has done less than justice to what he has heard from these benches this afternoon by saying that we wish to damn the Bill with faint praise. I have been here all afternoon and that is not my assessment of what I have heard.
  I have two interests to declare. First, only last Friday I had occasion to feel grateful to the drug and pharmaceutical industry, in that I underwent a minor operation which necessitated my being put out completely in an operating theatre. As I was still conscious for those last few seconds I could hear the anaesthetist say to the surgeon, "You know who this chap is? He is our local M.P." That is the last thing I heard. It was a truly non-party operation.
  My other interest which I must declare, as we have all been opening our hearts and hands this evening, is an interest in an advertising agency. I am a director of an agency concerned with the adver-
  1686
  tising in one instance of proprietary medicines and in another part ethical medicines to the medical profession. I have no intention of making any special pleading this evening, but there are two aspects to which I would draw the attention of the House. One is the question of household medicines, which I hope will be on the general sales list, and the other is the question of advertising, which was touched on by the hon. Member opposite.
  I feel sincerely that the intentions of this Bill and of the Minister are good, but there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, loose ends. It is a very open Bill. Like so many Bills which the Government have presented, there are far too many open "swinging" doors. It is an ill-drafted Bill and a very draughty house in which to construct this legislation.
  I hope that the Minister, having heard this responsible and serious debate, will later in Committee take note of some of these loose ends and tie up this piece of legislation which has good intentions and could be made so much better if it covered some of the points raised by Members interested in the retail industry and pharmaceutical industry, both in manufacture and in distribution. We have heard a great deal of wise and knowledgeable comment from doctors and Members speaking with knowledge of the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.
  I am glad that the Minister is here at this stage. It might be thought that Part III of the Bill— household medicines — is the least important. I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) retelling the story of the thalidomide tragedy, when one could have heard a pin drop. The tragedy was made vivid again to us all and we realise the need for legislation. But the Minister has assumed a wide responsibility and has stretched his net very wide indeed to include these household remedies. These are simple products for the treatment of minor ailments which do not normally call for the attention of one's doctor. Only recently during the flu epidemic the Ministry of Health advised people by advertisements on the radio, by advice on television and in the Press, not to call their doctor unless they were very ill but to go to bed and

  1687
  take a couple of aspirins. This was sensible, pragmatic and reasonable advice.
  Let us not try to restrict the sale of these household medicines. Let us keep our feet on the ground. We are talking about simple remedies for indigestion, headaches, coughs, colds, constipation, multi vitamin pills and glucose drinks.
  There is a tendency for hon. Members opposite sometimes to think of the consuming public as being in need for too much attention from this House in its legislation. We cannot legislate for everything. We should not assume that the consumer is an illiterate person, because he is not. Ordinary people are very wise about certain matters. They have a great deal of common sense about some of the simple things with which they grow up.
  These household medicines are well trusted and understood. There are few people who will take more aspirin than they should, just as there are few people who will take a laxative unnecessarily. I suggest that it is a very dull diet, and even I can think of a better stimulant than a glass of Lucozade, though no doubt it would be helpful after a long day spent in this Chamber.
  These household medicines are available not in 15,000 chemists shops alone but in the shops of another 150,000 retailers like tobacconists, grocers, newsagents and so on. They are meeting a genuine public consumer need. It is not wrong for it to be possible to buy a bottle of aspirin, a packet of Enos or a tin of Andrews at places other than a pharmacy.
  I accept that there are certain medicines which are judged by a special committee appointed by the Minister. I have in mind cough cures containing poisons. Legislation exists to ensure that such medicines are not sold by anyone other than a chemist. It is right that such matters should be under the Minister's eye. However, I want to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that there is a consumer need for a broad scale of availability of the household medicines to which I have referred. We have no evidence of injury suffered by the public as the result of the sale of such medicines by a wide range of shops. They have a
  1688
  trouble free history. They are trusted and known by the public to be safe.
  In approaches made to me by members of the Pharmaceutical Society, it has been pointed out that even aspirin tablets taken in excessive numbers can be dangerous. I am sure that we all know the problem. So many things that we face today are dangerous if taken in excessive doses. It is not for this House to legislate about them by saying they must immediately be taken out of the public's grasp. People already know about the dangers.
  The Bill provides that medicines which are referred to as exceptions to the Bill may in future be sold other than at chemist's shops and are to be put on the general sales lists. My concern is that the White paper was fairly strong on this point and that the Bill is less strong in its terms. Paragraph 47 of the White Paper says:
  "Retail sale of drugs to the public will, with some important exceptions, otherwise be limited to registered pharmacies."
  Clause 42(1) states:
  "The appropriate Ministers may by order specify descriptions or classes of medicinal products, as being products which in their opinion can with reasonable safety be sold… otherwise than by, or under the supervision of, a pharmacist."
  I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that he has not yet defined the list. It will take time to draw up the list. Who is to draw it up, and on what considerations will it be drawn up? What is to be the machinery of appeal for any product that might at this initial stage not be included in the list? There is no mention in the Bill of machinery of appeal.
  There is an under-estimation, at least by the draftsmen, of the size of the business in household medicines, of their general usefulness to the community and their wide availability. We have been told that £ 40 million worth of these medicines are sold each year, only half at present being sold through pharmacists, the rest of the business coming from all these other sources.
  After the wise words we have heard today from hon. Members who are almost experts in their field, I suppose I can say that the Minister is getting from me a touch of commercialism, but, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West has reminded us, the Bill itself has a commercial

  1689
  aspect, though not a cheap and sordid aspect. The commercial aspect relates to the simple remedies that I call medicines.
  Who is coming first in the Minister's mind—the consumer or the legislator? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the consumers have a very big interest in their own health. Does he not trust the public at all? I am sure that he does, but I believe that the Bill as a hole in it which I hope will be patched up. Does the Minister think that the public really need to have Whitehall's apron strings attached to them, as the Bill tends to suggest?
  In suggesting a practical solution for this general sales list, I echo that made by my hen. Friend the Member for Farnham. It is that those products that are currently sold freely outside pharmacies should, for a start, automatically come on the general sales list unless there is some strong protest from the Minister's Committee about any product because of the health and safety factor.
  The Pharmaceutical Society features very largely in the Measure, and has given a great deal of support in many Clauses. It is enlarged to a status that is very new to it. The Society is a very responsible body. Its members are not just retailers in the ordinary sense, concerned only with buying and selling at a profit, but people who give wise advice to their customers about the products on sale. I accept that, but the Bill goes somewhat further in building up the Society and its responsibilities in this matter.
  For example, the Society has in evidence said that it would like to see all public advertising of these household remedies banned. I do not think that this is the Minister's intention. In those circumstances, the public would be asked to rely entirely on the chemist's recommendation and possibly, in future, on his own mixtures and medicines, and would be denied the opportunities in our modern industrial society of the free competition and massive production of simple medicines under good, safe industrial and clinical conditions. What we are talking about, unless we patch up the hole in the Bill, is the disappearance of the market plate for these simple remedies and the sudden substitution for the 150,000 shops of 15,000, which is a restrictive marketing practice.
  1690
  I sometimes sense too much woolly thinking by hon. Members opposite about advertising. It is always thought to be bad and hon. Members opposite seem to find arguments in its favour difficult to discover. They all miss the point, that the introduction of household remedies and the better modern brands—soluble aspirin, for example, is a development on the solid aspirin—cannot await the slow process of word-of-mouth recommendation, so advertising, distribution and marketing are necessary. It is this chain which makes production possible. It has been said, in another context, that the advertising and marketing task is the final stage in the production process.
  To leave the marketing of household medicines to the chemist's recommendation would be an attempt to return to the ideas of the last century instead of helping the consumer to enjoy the real benefits of modern research and production.
  There are already safeguards. Without doing special pleading, I would say that the advertising industry is much more responsible than those outside would think. We already have the independent Advertising Standards Authority and the independent Television Code of Advertising, which is applied by the television authorities. The advertising is seen by them before it is seen by the public, and it can be turned down. Members of the Ministry's Department and representatives of the British Medical Council are represented.
  Without such advertising as is necessary for these household medicines, their supply would be curtailed. I do not accept that advertising in this case produces too great a demand and consumption. It is very hard to achieve over-selling of medicines. No one wants to take more laxatives than he needs, and no amount of advertising will encourage him to do so. No cough cure manufacturer can sell it to people without a cough. As I said, aspirin is a very dull diet. Allied to the advertising problem is the question of the Minister and his Department taking a hard look at what is on the label or the package, which I think has gone too far. Is it necessary for civil servants to try to be authorities in the arts of communication and presentation?
  Let us bear in mind the real spirit of the Bill and the Minister's intentions in it. Let us say that we are looking all

  1691
  the time for the safety of the drugs that are to be sold to the consumer, whether they are simple remedies or ethical medicines. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish rigid, common standards for the wording of advertisements and the size of type faces. There are experts in every field, including this one. They know all about the construction, design and presentation of labels and packages. They should be required to observe sensible, but not rigid, instructions from the Minister.
  The House has been in a fair mood today and a serious and responsible atmosphere has been engendered. This is an extremely serious and responsible subject and, as I have said, the Bill has the right intentions. I have no doubt that the Minister has the right intentions for it. However, I trust that, in Committee, this Bill of good intentions will he improved because there is general feeling among hon. Members that we should put right the faults that exist in it.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was right when he said that the background to the Bill is definitely the thalidomide tragedy. if that is my only comment on his speech, I trust that he will forgive me because very little time remains for this debate. Before I reduce some of the results of the two days' of homework I have done on the 119 Clauses of the Measure, may I put this to my right hon. Friend.
  Two powerful and cogently argued attacks on the Sainsbury Report have been made in the debate, one by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the other by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). It will be impossible for the Under-Secretary to deal with those attacks in his reply tonight because he must be concerned with the Bill. I therefore plead with my right hon. Friend to ensure that an opportunity is provided for those attacks to be answered in a complete debate on the Sainsbury Report, when we will be able to rehearse again the arguments against the Report and have them adequately answered.
  It has emerged that we are no longer a nation of shop keepers but a nation
  1692
  of pill takers and medicine pourers. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was right when he said that it was imperative that the Bill should go forward, when, in his general practitioner manner, he pointed out that, in the last analysis, medical trials must he carried out on people. In other words however much one conducts heart transplants on guinea pigs and other animals, in the last analysis a human patient must be used for clinical trials. Ordinary people must therefore be protected.
  This Measure has been essential for at least the last four years. We said long ago when we were still in Opposition that we would put teeth into the Dunlop Report. One of the most knowledgeable persons on this subject, Sir Hugh Linstead, who was a Conservative Member of this House at that time, prepared the minority report of the Commission which led to the Dunlop Committee and I am pleased to note that the Bill now introduces many of his recommendations.
  Because this is such a highly technical Measure, it is vulnerable to specialised pressures and interests. That is why I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury that in Committee we will find a great deal to discuss when we get into Committee. However, the crux of the Bill is the Medicines Commission and I seem to be in a minority position—certainly I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) —in thinking that the Minister has taken the wrong point of view on this question of whether the Commission should be independent from or responsible to my right hon. Friend. In my view, it is important that, for the Commission's leadership, my right hon. Friend chooses a professor of pharmacology, someone who commands universal respect for it is vital that this body is seen to be independent from politics.
  Reference has been made to the need for clinical freedom for doctors. As advisers who will be involved in the work of the Commission, concerned with both pharmacists and general practitioners, it must be seen, and they must be confident of the Commission's independence from the Ministry. We must remember the tendency of the professional man to say, "This is yet another circular from the Ministry" and, "The civil servants

  1693
  are sending something out again" A high-powered commission would carry more weight with them than the Government Department.
  In the establishment of committees is the MacGregor Committee to go into the framework? Will it be married to the Dunlop Committee to make one single committee, or will the MacGregor Committee have the statutory provisions which we should like to see separately? A recent report showed that one third of the drugs being used had no efficacy for the purpose for which they were prescribed. It is imperative that we should make sure we are not prescribing and paying for a lot of worthless medicines. The type of job which the MacGregor Committee could do is precisely that, and this is most important for the taxpayer.
  I would prefer that the Commission should be the licensing authority. So many licences have to be issued that I dread to think of the headache that will be entailed for the Minister if he is to be subject to political pressures about licences. If the Medicines Commission has this responsibility that could all be avoided. It would be non-political. It is absolutely wrong to exclude all question of price from the Bill. This is where I cross swords with the hon. Member for Surbiton, and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. The licensing authority should have the right to consider price in connection with other things. In regard to Clause 19 I hope to give the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) an opportunity of debating in Committee an Amendment which I hope to move to that effect.
  In the Bill I cannot see any power to withdraw a licence, but that power should be there. There should also be the possibility of licences being reviewed every three years. If this opportunity is not taken by the Minister now, he will not be able to take it later. If he is to secure the procurement of drugs as "services of the Crown" in general practice in the same way as he is able to do it for hospitals, he must do it in this Bill. He will not find an opportunity of introducing a further Bill on these lines or of amending the Patents Act. The Emergency Laws (Re-enactment and Repeals) Act 1964 is totally inadequate
  1694
  for the kind of purpose I should like to see covered by this Bill.
  There are 10 drugs used in hospitals for which the Minister pays £2 million a year. For halothane alone, £¾ million a year is paid in hospital practice. Good business on behalf of the taxpayer means that we should adopt the same kind of methods as Marks and Spencer adopt in buying. A big buyer can secure the best possible treatment. I hope the Minister will look at the possibility of including this kind of provision in this Bill.
  Hon. Members have declared an interest in some companies which has given them a specialised knowledge of the subject. The House appreciates that they speak from knowledge. I cannot speak with so much knowledge when I declare my interest as a member of the Co-op, but I ask for an assurance that there will be no restriction on a corporate body or a publicly owned movement like the Co-operative Movement to provide a pharmacy service for its members, provided that properly qualified men are employed in positions of responsibility.
  Part VI deals with the question of promotion. I wonder if it would be the appropriate place in which to put forward the idea of a "Little Neddy" for the drug industry. If not in the Bill in negotiations which the Minister is seeking with the industry, perhaps as a by-product of the Bill we could secure a "Little Neddy" established for the industry.
  I congratulate the Minister particularly on Clause 84 and the way in which it deals with the whole question of advertising. This is a most brilliant piece of drafting. I wish that the Minister would lend me his draftsman to draft a similar clause in my Hearing Aids Bill to save advertisements which lead to old people having to pay for hearing aids which they cannot afford. I wonder what effect this Clause would have on an advertisement which appeared in the News of the World with the heading: "Rheumatism and Married Life" It has been written by Godfrey Winn. I am not sure whether he is an expert on rheumatism or on married life. The advertisement informs us that we should trust Fynnon's salts, "Thousands do" Fynnon Salt is 95 per cent. sodium sulphate, which is a good purgative, but does a good purge remedy rheumatism?

  1695
  I very much welcome Clause 87, which imports the "control document ", of the Sainsbury Report, but I think that it needs strengthening and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to strengthen it. It has some loopholes which could be stopped. I again differ from the hon. Member for Surbiton. I enjoy following him in matters concerning the Caribbean far more than I enjoy following him about drugs, because in the one case we are like-minded but in this case we are utterly opposed.
  I cannot accept his case for the retention of brand names. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is no guarantee with brand names of quality within the product. The hon. Gentleman will have read, as I have read, the analysis of the late Fred Stock of Birmingham of a whole number of these products, which proved in fact that there is no guarantee even if a product has a brand name on it.
  It has been shown that over the last 16 years, since the National Health Service came in 1950 to its first full year, in the prescribing of non-proprietary drugs in the N.H.S. we have remained steady at just about £10 million. At the same time, the cost of prescribing branded drugs—the proprietaries—has risen from under £10 million to £78 million a year. This is a tremendous difference. I direct attention to some of the differences in prices. It has been said that only £½ million could be saved. I challenge that figure for a number of reasons. I base my argument, not only on a report of a recent Committee, but also of investigations by the Public Accounts Committee in 1961 and 1962, and on present-day prices—for instance, Oxytetracycline, 293s., and Terramycin, 809s. We are prescribing a lot of these drugs and this means a very heavy impost on the taxpayer. It is the same with simple things, soluble aspirin, 8s. 7d., Solprin, 12s. 3d.: Paracetamol, 13s. 4d., Panadol, 22s. 4d. The same is true of a whole lot of these things. If we could greatly reduce the expenditure of £78 million on branded names and concentrate more on prescribing in accordance with the National Formulary and the British Pharmacopaeia, we should save the taxpayer a lot of money.
  1696
  The classic case for the present system of the drug industry has been put very ably. It rests on two main pillars—research and export performance. The only other factor usually brought up was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheadle, who pointed out that the Soviet Union had failed to produce a new drug for a number of years. We have heard these three arguments time and time again over the last ten years.
  As to costings, I would hope that we are able to deal somehow with the £250 per annum spent on representation for each general practitioner. For every 10 general practitioners there is one representative persuading him which drug to prescribe. This means a cost of £15 million which must be included in the £160 million the nation pays, and I think that there could be worth-while savings on this item. The hon. Member for Surbiton challenged us to say how much Sainsbury would save. I would say £8 million a year, but my guess is no better than anybody else's. It can only be an estimate.
  I welcome the Minister's consent to an amendment to make the Prescribers' Journal coming under the Commission, because this will be an important way of doing away with the large number of representatives. What general practitioners want is an adequate supply of information. They do not want glossy literature.
  The pharmaceutical industry seems always to be thought of in a very similar way to that in which the Soviet Union was thought of in the 1930s: heaven or hell, all good or all bad. It is seen as saving a lot of lives, or as a terrible profit-making concern. In my view, it is neither. It is something between the two. We are grateful for the tremendous work in healing the sick that the industry does, I think, at the same time, that it gets too large a share of profit, and I am prepared to discuss how we can reduce that profit to a more reasonable figure.
  In 20 years, the drug industry has given us new weapons to defeat illness or to shorten its duration, with consequent benefit to the wealth of the nation and the health and happiness of its people. I wish the Bill well, so that we may continue to have more effective cooperation with the industry, but we want

  1697
  this co-operation as one of partnership, not on the industry's terms or on the Government's terms but by an arrangement between the two which is fair and equitable.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: This is the second health Bill which we have discussed this Session. It is unusual for the Minister of Health to bring forward as much legislation as we have before us at this time, and I hope that he will not indulge in what I regard as the thoroughly bad habit of trying to be top of the legislative league table.
  Mr. K.. Robinson: The first two in three years.
  Mr. Dean: I hear the Minister say that these are the first two Measures in three years, but I none the less hope that he will not catch that bad habit. I am one who believes strongly that legislation has increased, is increasing and ought to diminish. Many of the ills from which we suffer come not only from bad government but also from over-government, and one of the reasons why we have over-government is that our legislative programme in the House is so clogged with the sheer weight of Bills that it is exceedingly difficult to do one's job properly or for the House and its Standing Committees to scrutinise Bills in an adequate and proper manner.
  In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said that we approached the Bill with what one might call a degree of critical scepticism. One of the good features of the Bill is its title, which is brief, clear and concise. I wish I could say the same of the 119 Clauses and the several Schedules, but, alas, I cannot. Coming from a farming background, I must say that, when I looked at the definitions and saw that "herd" includes a flock, it made me shudder, as, no doubt, it did those of my hon. Friends who know farming so well.
  In so far as the Bill draws together the various measures, some statutory and some voluntary, designed to ensure the safety and quality of drugs and the accuracy of information about them, we support it. I was glad that the Minister paid tribute to the work of the Dunlop Committee and that he acknowledged that the Bill is to a large extent based upon
  1698
  the valuable experience we have gained during the past few years of the working of the Dunlop Committee on a voluntary basis.
  In so far as the Bill brings together the best features of the previous statutory and voluntary arrangements, we support it, but we shall at later stages look with a critical eye at the possible dangers. In this connection, I instance the wide powers which the Bill gives to the Minister, as does the Health Services and Public Health Bill, the possible threat to the freedom of doctors to prescribe which could arise, and the possible danger of controls which will make it more difficult for innovation and the sense of discovery which is so strong in our pharmaceutical industry.
  I was sorry that the Minister said very little about the freedom of doctors to prescribe. He had a lot to say, but there was little in his speech about that, although we welcomed the tribute which he paid to the pharmaceutical industry and the progress in relief of suffering which its inventions have made possible. I was also sorry that he said little about the agricultural provisions, but I shall return to that point a little later.
  The background to the Bill is what has been called the therapeutic explosion of the past 30 years. It has undoubtedly brought untold benefits to mankind in the relief of suffering and the cure of disease, but it has also brought the other sombre side of the picture—the thalidomide tragedy that we still have and shall have for a long time, human beings living as a monument to the kickback which is possible from the new discoveries.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned the recent tragedy of children on Tyneside. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) spoke of the dangers which are inevitable even in clinical tests. To use the old saying, there is no rose without a thorn. But equally one hopes that where there is a thorn there will also be a rose. Some people say that the risks are too great. I think that I have sensed from some of the speeches by hon. Members today that this has been very much at the front of their minds. I think that some almost felt that the prospects of the rose were not worth the danger of the thorn.

  1699
  I think that that point was well put by Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said:
  "I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica could be sunk to the bottom of the sea it would be all the better for mankind and all the worse for the fishes."
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the British ceased to be hypochondriacs, if they ceased to go in for self-medication, they would need a great many more phychiatrists?
  Mr. Dean: I am sure that my hon. Friend has a point which I should like to develop, but the clock is pressing me and so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not.
  Those words of Oliver Wendell Holmes might be called a counsel of despair. But we must recognise that no legislation can possibly eliminate all risks. What it should aim to do is to promote safety without destroying innovation, without hampering progress by unnecessary bureacracy. The ultimate safety is not in this or any Bill but on the doctor's prescription pad, in the chemist's pharmacy, in the good sense of the individual who buys aspirin from the village shop or the supermarket. The ultimate progress in the relief of suffering depends on research and development and innovation by the pharmaceutical industry. The test of the Bill must be whether it promotes reasonable safety measures without impeding progress in the art and science of healing and preventing suffering. It is on that basis that we shall judge its provisions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and many hon. Members on both sides of the House said that the Bill gives the Minister very wide enabling powers. Indeed apart from setting up various bodies to assist in licensing and controls generally it is very largely an enabling Bill. That is particularly so in connection with licensing, labelling and advertising. I was glad that in his opening speech the Minister emphasised the safeguards against arbitrary action in the Bill. But he will appreciate that we shall want to probe his intentions on these important matters very closely.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. StoddartScott), who asked how many public
  1700
  servants will be involved in this policing machinery and what the cost will be. A great deal will depend upon the spirit in which the Minister, the Commission and the expert committees go about their work, and I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he regards the Statutory provisions as a necessary background but hopes that they will not be used. He will forgive me if I remind him, however, that we have heard this argument on previous health Measures. Although we in no sense dispute his good faith in these matters, we have to look at the words in the Statute and not at what he says from that Box.
  The representation on these bodies will be of the greatest importance. There must be fair balance between all the interests, and there must be practical experience so that these bodies, which are to advise the right hon. Gentleman, will retain the confidence of those over whom they are to be set. The success of these bodies will depend not only on the spirit in which they operate but on their success in keeping their eyes on the basic objectives of safety, quality and efficacy of medicines and the extent to which they avoid meddling in promotional techniques, in the all-important export trade of the pharmaceutical industry and in the responsibility of doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned in this connection the general sales list. This is an immensely important part of the Bill. The Minister is proposing to reverse the procedure which now operates and I hope that, at any rate in the discussions which go on in deciding the shape of the list, he will not be unduly restrictive. I was glad to hear that he intends to take advice from the appropriate committee in this connection. That is all to the good. But I hope that it is recognised that it is for the convenience of the public that they should be able to go to shops convenient to their dwellings—this particularly applies to country areas—for what one might call the simple household medicines such as aspirin.
  I shall say no more about the enforcement provisions except that we shall look at them very carefully in Committee, because they are wide powers—far wider than is really required to achieve the

  1701
  objectives the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We are also not happy about the wide powers over advertising. I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) put the point very well when he drew a distinction between the contents of advertisements, over which he agreed some measure of control was necessary, and the form of presentation, which he felt was not an appropriate matter for the Minister. I thought that he got the distinction right and this is another point we shall want to probe in Committee.
  Very little has been said about agricultural feeding-stuffs and veterinary medicines. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), had he been able to catch your eye, Sir, would have said something about this because he has special knowledge on these subjects. No doubt he will have an opportunity later to give us the benefit of his views. I feel that this part of the Bill has got in a little by a side-wind. I suspect that the Minister of Agriculture would have preferred his own Bill on this, had it been possible.
  Because this aspect has been sandwiched into a Bill dealing very largely with human medicines, it is important that it should be examined extremely carefully. Veterinary medicines are in a very different category to human medicines, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will be able to tell us how the expert committee system will operate. I hope that he will tell us that there will be an expert committee dealing specifically with veterinary medicines. As to agricultural feeding-stuffs, while as I understand the Bill the manufacturer and the seller will not need a licence, if they use a medicinal product in their animal feeding-stuffs they will have to observe the conditions in the relevant licence.
  This may be a desirable thing, but we have to recognise that in provisions of this kind we are in a sense exercising more control over the realm of foodstuffs than we are in the case of human beings. We are now exercising control over animal feeding-stuffs, whereas, as I understand it, the line is really drawn on the human side with medicinal products. I am not saying that is is necessarily an incorrect thing. It may be right, but it has very wide implications for the farm-
  1702
  ing industry, for the manufacturers and sellers of animal feeding-stuffs, and will need careful examination in Committee.
  There has been a certain amount of discussion during the debate about the pharmaceutical industry. I was glad to hear the Minister pay tribute to the work of the industry. He referred particularly to the many valuable new drugs which have been introduced and to the high sense of responsibility shown by the industry. We have also had speeches, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who have special knowledge of the drug industry. I was very glad that they took this opportunity to set the record straight after the very damaging and, as I think they showed convincingly, unfair things said about the pharmaceutical industry in the Report.
  I want to give the Under-Secretary plenty of time to reply, but I would like to refer to the position of doctors and their freedom to prescribe. This was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes. In his opening speech I do not think that the Minister referred to this at all. It is of the very greatest importance. One has only to look at Clause 20, which lays down the conditions for a grant or refusal of a licence for a medical product, and at Clause 90 dealing with the British Pharmacopoeia, and other literature, to see that there is a possibility, under the licensing and other arrangements, that the freedom of doctors to prescribe will be limited. I do not believe that this is the Minister's intention, but this could be the case under the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something about that.
  We welcome the general principles of the Bill. We recognise that it is desirable and right to draw together the various provisions, some statutory, some voluntary, which exist to ensure the safety of medical products. We feel that there is a real risk under the Bill that progress in the discovery of new products will be held up. Therefore, we have mixed feelings, and we shall want critically to examine the details of the Bill during its later stages. In the general context, we give a welcome to the Bill, but hope

  1703
  that by the time that it comes back to the House it will be substantially improved.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): We have had an interesting debate, and I think that the House would expect me to try to deal, as far as I can, with the various points, some of them detailed and some of them more major.
  May I start by making it clear what the Bill does not do, because there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about this. There has been criticism from this side of the House that the Bill does not implement all the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) welcomed the fact that that was so and seemed to take it as an indication that the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee which have not been dealt with were to be set aside by the Minister. That is not the case. The Sainsbury Committee made a number of recommendations which are not relevant to this kind of legislation. As is generally known, my right hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers concerned have been having discussions with the various representative interests about, for example, brand names and a number of other recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee. We are not yet in a position to make our final decisions on those matters known to the House.
  I should go on to say, in case there is, again, some misunderstanding, that I would not accept the kind of criticisms which the hon. Member for Surbiton and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) made about some portions of the Sainsbury Committee—for example, those dealing with financial figures, the profits of the industry, and the pricing arrangements. While the hon. Member for Surbiton clearly disagreed with the conclusions of the Sainsbury Committee, he did them far less than justice in suggesting that many of the considerations which he mentioned as important have been completely ignored by the Committee. If he looks at the Committee's Report from paragraph 131 onwards, he will see that many of the points which he mentioned about profitability were specifically dealt with.
  1704
  I am not concerned to argue the merits and demerits of its conclusions. The point I am making is that, in making recommendations, it took account of many of the points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I should have thought that it was common ground among all the people concerned with this matter that the question of, for example, drug prices for the National Health Services poses particularly difficult problems. The introduction of the voluntary price regulation arrangements is an admission by the industry as well as by the Government that there are problems to be dealt with in this area.
  Mr. Fisher: I should very much like to know the estimated amount of savings which the Sainsbury Committee's recommendations would effect. They should be quantified, because we do not know whether the game is worth the candle.
  Mr. Millan: This is something that the hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Sainsbury Committee rather than the Minister. However, before any decisions are taken by the Government on the recommendations bearing on that, we shall have to take account of what we would consider any potential savings to be. I do not think that at this point in time we can argue the merits of that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) was anxious that the Bill should deal with pricing of drugs as well as the other considerations with which it deals. I simply repeat that this is not the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the question of pricing. It is very important that we dissociate matters of safety and efficacy from matters of price. Different considerations have to be taken into account. It does not mean that we are not concerned with extravagance in prescribing and getting economy in prescribing costs. Obviously we are. However, this piece of legislation is not the appropriate vehicle for taking action on that problem.
  The House will know that the Minister of Health and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State, have already done a good deal by way of drawing the attention of general practitioners to the question of excess prescribing and have taken other action to

  1705
  encourage them to show economy in prescribing for the National Health Service. The more information we have about this the better it is from everyone's point of view.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset. North (Mr. Dean) mentioned the veterinary aspects of the Bill. For completeness I had better make a short statement about the Bill's implications in this area. First, it is not possible to be absolutely categoric about the expert committees which will be established. I should be extremely surprised if there were not an expert committee dealing specifically with veterinary products. I think we can take that for granted.
  So far as veterinary medicines are concerned, the Bill puts them virtually on all fours with human medicines. This seems right, since many human medicines are also used for veterinary purposes, and satisfactory arrangements seem to require that both human and veterinary drugs should be dealt with under a comprehensive system. This provides greater protection for both human beings and livestock.
  The development of new veterinary products and new uses of existing products over the last quarter of a century has been a factor in increasing agricultural productivity and improving the quality of our food. But such widespread and rapid application of scientific knowledge inevitably gives rise to problems, including some degree of risk. It is a similar problem to that in the human medicine sector.
  In general, as under the voluntary Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme, the broad purpose is to safeguard human beings, whether as users of a veterinary product, consumers of food substances from treated animals, or other members of the public, livestock and domestic animals against risk from the use of veterinary products.
  These new arrangements under the Bill will ultimately replace the voluntary scheme and the present statutory licensing arrangements regarding the manufacture and import of veterinary therapeutic substances, such as vaccines and sera. It is perhaps important to note that the new arrangements will be all-embracing, since all veterinary medicines will be included in the new scheme. I think the only
  1706
  other point that I need briefly mention is that of medicated animal feedingstuffs.
  The Bill introduces controls over the use of medicinal products in feedingstuffs. The reasons for this are the same as those for controlling veterinary medicines, many of which are in any case administered in feedingstuffs. Our object, however, is to introduce any changes as and when necessary in the light of expert advice.
  Clauses 36 and 37 deal with the main provisions relating to medicated animal feedingstuffs. Briefly, they provide that manufacturers of feedingstuffs and subsequent sellers of animal feedingstuffs need not be licensed as such. But if they wish to incorporate a medicinal product into a feedingstuff a product licence for that medicinal product must exist and the drug must be included in accordance with the conditions of the relevant product licence. Alternatively, the drug must be incorporated in accordance with the prescription from a veterinarian. The owner of a pet dog, for instance, would be excluded from the need to comply with these provisions, but persons owning animals in the course of a business—farmers are the obvious example—would have to act accordingly. This is really no more than requiring the instructions on the bottle, as it were, to be observed. It is considered necessary that farmers should be covered, because their produce is supplied for human consumption.
  There is another point about substances such as some vitamins and crude chemicals which might be added to feedingstuffs, and which would not necessarily be covered by the Bill as it stands. It is our intention that, as necessary, such substances added to feedingstuffs for prophylactic or therapeutic purposes should be brought within the ambit of the Bill by using the power in Clause 93 to apply the relevant provisions to such substances. It would not be the intention to control substances added to feeding-stuffs solely to balance the diet, that is, to replace any normal dietary deficiency, unless, in the light of experience and scientific advice, it appeared appropriate to do so. Thus, for example, the ultimate intention would be to control a vitamin used for medicinal purposes, but not one used to make up a dietary deficiency in the feed. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read that

  1707
  he will find that it is a brief but reasonably adequate explanation of the general effect of the Bill in this respect.
  Perhaps I might now deal with the major provision in the Bill, namely, the establishment of the Medicines Commission. This has had a general welcome although I thought the welcome was rather less than enthusiastic by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). During his speech I was tempted to intervene and remind him of the genesis of the Medicines Commission, because, as a number of hon. Members have said, it started with the thalidomide tragedy.
  It is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman, and the House generally, that the Dunlop Committee itself has recommended that the provisions under which it is operating on a voluntary basis should be placed on a statutory basis. I think it is generally agreed that however well a voluntary system works, in the long run it is unsatisfactory, and it should not be continued on that basis.
  The provisions of the Bill are complicated, but some of the complications arise from the necessity to provide, for example, elaborate appeal provisions so that those who may feel themselves placed at a disadvantage under the licensing arrangements can make representations to the expert Committees and to the licensing authority. My right hon. Friend in his opening speech gave explicit assurances about the flexibility with which it was intended the various arrangements under the Bill should operate, and I can only repeat them. There is no intention of using this legislation, and of course it would be an absurdity to try to use it in this way, somehow to hold back the pharmaceutical industry. It is not the intention that that should happen, or that the industry should be discouraged in its research.
  A number of hon. Members raised the question of the independence of the Commission, but I think that it is the general feeling in the House that in a matter of such importance, when certain statutory responsibilities and rights are to be given to a body, it should be under the ultimate control of Ministers. I think that it would be very unsatisfactory to establish an independent body with such poten-
  1708
  tially wide-ranging powers, and not subject it to the normal disciplines of Parliamentary procedure. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall try to make the composition of the Commission as representative as we can. This will all be done with the co-operation of and in consultation with the various representative bodies who are interested in the establishment of the Commission.
  Mr. English: Can we take that as an assurance that Clause 2 is open to some amendment in Committee?
  Mr. Millan: Everything is open to amendment. At least it is open to hon. Members to try. Everyone who has an interest in either the Commission itself or in one of the expert Committees will be consulted by the Minister about their establishment.
  I was asked about licensing fees. I am not able at the moment to give any indication of what the scale of fees might be, because, apart from anything else, it is a matter which will have to be discussed with the outside interests involved. I would just say that it seems to me an essential principle that licensing fees should be paid, and that we should recoup the expenses necessarily involved in that part of the legislation. The expenditure mentioned in the Financial Memorandum covers a wider field than that, but here there should be licensing fees, and we should try to recoup some of the expenditure necessarily involved. I was also asked about enforcement procedures by the hon. Member for Farnham. This can be debated at length in Committee but I should warn the hon. Gentleman before he allows his enthusiasm to run away with him that enforcement procedures are, in material respects, the same as those in section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, for the authorities covered under that particular legislation. That happened under hon. Gentlemen opposite. This also can be dealt with in Committee.
  The question of revocations was raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Before revocation of a licence becomes effective there is an opportunity for representations laid out in the Bill. Once revocation has happened the various powers which are available to those holding a licence under the terms of the Bill immediately cease.

  1709
  There is no provision for payment of compensation. This can be remedied in Committee. If my hon. Friend will direct his attention to the grounds upon which revocation will take place he will see that there is no case for compensation in those circumstances.
  I was asked a number of questions about the general sales list. It is not possible to be specific because this is another matter on which we shall have the advice of an expert committee. The expert committees and the Commission itself have responsibilities to advise Ministers on all aspects of this legislation, and not just on licensing. It applies not only to the general sales list but to regulations about the retail pharmacies, advertising, the promotion of activities and so on, so we will have to await advice from the expert committee. There are probably contrary arguments. The chemists would like to make this list restrictive, but a number of hon. Gentlemen haw suggested that it should be very wide.
  The hon. Member for Farnham suggested that everything that could be on sale now should be included as of right on the preliminary general sales list. That would be defeating the purpose of the new provision we are making here and obviously one could not accept that proposition. If it was satisfactory that all the products on general sale at the moment should be on general sale there would hardly be need for the introduction of the new provisions in this Bill. It must be something in between, but obviously one would expect the kind of things mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset, North to be continued on the general sales list. Obviously I cannot be more precise about what the ultimate list will be at the moment. In any case, it would be wrong for me to anticipate the advice which we shall get from the appropriate expert committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) raised a point about the registration of shops. However, it would be an elaborate and cumbersome procedure to try to take on this very substantial registration job, apart from the registration of pharmacies. At the end of the day, I doubt if it would be of any real public benefit to do it, which is the reason why it is not included in the terms of the Bill.
  1710
  A point was raised about vending machines, and there are special provisions in the Bill about them. Despite what the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, sales by vending machines are different from sales in a shop. Vending machines are normally open to even quite small children, whereas purchases from shops are not. As a result, there are special provisions in the Bill dealing with them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) raised a number of points about herbal remedies. If she will forgive me, I should prefer some of them to be dealt with in Committee. She knows that we have special provisions in the Bill about herbal remedies, but obviously the details are matters which can be discussed in Committee.
  Dealing with her point about wheat bran, that in itself is not a medicinal product, because its main use is not as a medicine. However, a brand of wheat bran marketed as a laxative, for example, would be a medicinal product, and that is the distinction between something sold as a food and something sold as a medicine. However, that kind of distinction will no doubt keep us profitably engaged for a considerable time in Committee.
  As for labelling and promotion, the hon. Member for Farnham seemed to disapprove fairly generally of the Bill's provisions. He said that, in the pharmaceutical industry, as in other industries, there is much to be said for the discipline of the market place. That may be so as a general proposition, but I should have thought that it was strictly irrelevant, for example, to preventing medicines being sold by false and misleading descriptions, which is one of the objects of the Bill. Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the discipline of the market place would hardly argue that it gives manufacturers of medicines the right to mislead innocent persons.
  There are bound to be special difficulties in the advertising of medicines. Certainly I would not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court, whom I understood to suggest that all advertising of proprietary medicines should be abolished altogether. Obviously there is a strong case for control, and I would direct the

  1711
  attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) to Clause 84 in relation to the kind of case that he mentioned. Obviously it would be wrong for me to mention any particular medicine, but he will see from Clause 84 that, when the licensing system is in operation and one is dealing with a product covered by a licence, any advertisement which includes a recommendation that is not covered by the licence which has been given for that product will be forbidden under the Bill. Again, that seems to be right. It is quite reasonable that manufacturers should be able to sell their wares on the basis of what they can effectively do, but it is wrong that they should try to sell their wares on the basis of making exaggerated claims.
  Those are some of the points raised in the debate. This is a very difficult and complex Bill and clearly there will be a good deal of discussion in Committee. However, from my right hon. Friend's speech and from what has been said during the debate as a whole, the main purpose of the Bill has now become evident. I think that the House generally will accept that it is a useful step forward in bringing our medicines legislation up to date.
  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).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

MEDICINES [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision with respect to medicinal products and related matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a Secretary of State, the Minister of Health
1712
and Social Services for Northern Ireland or the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, except any expenses so incurred exclusively in respect of executing that Act in Northern Ireland;

(2) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in—

(a) the sums payable out of moneys so provided in respect of rate support grants to local authorities in England and Wales which may arise from the inclusion, in the expenditure relevant to the fixing of the aggregate amount of those grants, of expenditure under that Act;

(b) the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment relating to local government in Scotland.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: I hope that the Minister of Health intends to address us on the Money Resolution. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that it did not deal just with the amount of money that has been clawed back from licensing fees and the issuing of certificates, but what else does it include? Does it include a charge to be made for the registration of pharmacists? Does it include a charge to be made to manufacturers who get their drugs sold on a general list? I hope that some one will explain the words
"…new provision with respect to medicinal products…"
No one has attempted to answer my earlier question about costs. Is the cost to be £8 million in 1970—the £8 million we are told we are to save on prescription charges—or is it a smaller figure? Let us be told what the whole Measure will cost when it is operable.
10.2 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am very glad to accede to the request of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) for a little more information. He will understand that I cannot give very much detailed information because such things as the level of fees must be discussed with the interested parties. The additional costs of this Measure when it is fully implemented—that is, costs beyond those now being incurred—are expected to be about £350,000 per annum to the health Departments and about £40,000 to the agricultural Departments. These figures, however, will be partly offset by licence fees. The amounts will only be incurred when the Bill is fully operative. I hope

1713
that what I have said will give the hon. and gallant Member some idea of the scale of the expenditure, which is nothing like as great as the mythical figure he mentioned.
Question put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  MEDICINES
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision with respect to medicinal products and related matters, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of, or in respect of applications for, the grant, renewal and variation of licences and the issue, renewal and variation of certificates under that Act, and the payment into the Exchequer of such fees and other sums received by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

ANCILLARY DENTAL WORKERS
10.5 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move,
That the Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I hasten to reassure the House that my intervention now will not be as lengthy as my earlier one. These Regulations were submitted for the approval of the Privy Council by the General Dental Council and, on behalf of the Privy Council, I now commend them to the House. They revoke and, with minor Amendments, replace, the Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations of 1957, which established a class of ancillary dental worker known as dental hygienists and provided for their training, examination, enrolment and discipline.
The primary purpose of these Regulations, however, is to establish another class of ancillary dental worker to be known as dental auxiliaries, to prescribe the work which they are permitted to do, the conditions under which it may be done, and to provide for their training, examination, enrolment and discipline.
I should first describe briefly the other changes which the Regulations introduce. They are intended to simplify, in the light of experience gained since 1957, the procedures through which the General Dental
1714
Council discharges its responsibilities for ensuring the high standard of professional conduct among ancillary dental workers and to permit a wider range of examining bodies.
The opportunity is also taken to increase the fee for first registration from £1 to £2, the maximum permitted under Section 41(9) of the Dentists Act, 1957. This is not unreasonable, since I understand that, even with the proposed increase, income from registration fees for ancillaries is so far insufficient to meet the costs incurred by the Council in discharging its responsibilities for this group of workers.
I come now to the main object of the draft Regulations. Under the Dentists Act 1957, the General Dental Council was required by the Privy Council to conduct an experiment in the training and employment of a class of ancillary dental worker who would be permitted to carry out the filling of teeth and the extraction of deciduous teeth in order to assess the value of such workers to the community. The first training course began in September, 1960, at a specially provided school for dental auxiliaries in the grounds of New Cross General Hospital; in July, 1961, Parliament approved the Dental Auxiliaries Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 1365, which prescribed the range of work that these ancillary workers could undertake and specified the conditions under which it was to be done.
In due course the Council, as required by the Dentists Act, reported on the results of the experiment; their final report, which was laid before Parliament on 4th August was decidedly favourable, albeit with some reservations about the extent of supervision under which auxiliaries should work. In reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), on 28th November, 1966, I announced the Government's acknowledgement of the valuable contribution that dental auxiliaries could make to the dental health of the community and our intention to consult with the General Dental Council on the steps needed to establish the class on a permanent basis in the light of the Dentists Act, 1957.
These consultations led in due course to the submission to the Privy Council by the General Dental Council of the

1715
draft Regulations now before the House which, in essence, permit a dental auxiliary to extract deciduous teeth under local infiltration anaesthesia, to undertake simple fillings, to clean, polish and scale teeth, to apply prophylactic solutions and to give advice on oral hygiene, provided that the work is carried out in the course of providing national or local authority health services—in effect this means in hospitals, the priority and school dental services of local authorities and in health centres—and under the direction of a registered dentist after that dentist has examined the patient and indicated in writing to the auxiliary the specific treatment to be provided.
These requirements differ from those set out in the Dental Auxiliaries Regulations of 1961 only to the extent that the directing dentist has to provide a written indication of the treatment to be provided by an auxiliary. This I regard as a useful safeguard which should demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that dentists remain responsible for prescribing treatment and ensuring that the treatment so prescribed is satisfactorily carried out.
I wish to emphasise this, since I know that some dentists are not yet entirely convinced of the potential value of the auxiliary and have urged the General Dental Council and the Government to apply to dental auxiliaries a degree of personal supervision more restrictive than anything Parliament envisaged when it passed the Dentists Act, 1957—and, indeed, more onerous than has been found necessary or practicable even in the case of dental hygienists.
I recognise the genuine anxiety for the welfare of patients that lies behind some of this opposition to the permanent establishment of this class of dental auxiliary. But I am satisfied, having regard to the long and exhaustive experiment in their training and employment and to the findings of the assessors who inspected their work, that this anxiety is misplaced. Many honourable Members will recall similar doubts being expressed 10 years ago about the dangers of introducing dental hygienists. Just as these doubts and fears have subsided and dental hygienists have won for themselves a permanent place in the dental team, so I am sure will opposition to
1716
this new class disappear. Indeed, I was interested to note that in a recent survey a majority of younger dentists had no hesitation in supporting dental auxiliaries.
At a time when there are not enough registered dentists, it is important that the skills of those we have should be deployed to the best advantage. Surely, like their medical colleagues, dentists should delegate to less highly qualified, but well trained and expert ancillary workers, some of the less exacting, but time consuming, procedures. There is no doubt that ancillary dental workers have made a notable contribution to the promotion of dental health in, for example, New Zealand and, given the safeguards in these Regulations, I see no reason to doubt that dental auxiliaries will make a similar contribution to the improvement of the priority and school dental services in this country, too.
Some members of the profession believe that auxiliaries should be permitted to work only under the direct personal supervision of dentists. The Government cannot accept this. Not only does it go further than Parliament intended in 1957 but it would, as I have indicated, impose on auxiliaries restrictions more onerous than a general dental practitioner would regard as acceptable for his dental hygienist. Moreover, "direct personal supervision" is a somewhat inflexible phrase and takes little account of the skill and experience of individuals.
"Direction" enables a dental officer to assess, in the light of his personal knowledge of the auxiliaries in his team, the degree of supervision each one needs, varying from the very close supervision that a recently qualified and inexperienced auxiliary clearly must have, to the minimum essential direction required by a skilled and experienced auxiliary. It would be wasteful and uneconomic to apply the same rigid standards to all, regardless of individual skills and reliability.
The operative date for these Regulations is 1st September, 1969. Before the Regulations can come into force, the experimental arrangements under which training at the School for Dental Auxiliaries is now being carried on will have to be terminated. The choice of 1st September, 1969, will enable the General

1717
Dental Council and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I to fulfil the obligation we feel to students now in training; that they should be able to complete the course and sit the final examination under the same terms and conditions as they were accepted for training. It has the further advantage, however, of ensuring that the transition to more permanent arrangements will be as smooth as possible and that there will be no hiatus in training between the termination of the experimental scheme and the beginning of the new permanent training arrangements.
I refer briefly to the powers conferred on Health Ministers by the Dentists Act, with the consent of the Treasury, to reimburse to the General Dental Council the costs of the training school at New Cross and the payment of maintenance grants to student dental auxiliaries. These powers will expire on the termination of the experimental scheme, and we are therefore proposing to seek in the Health Services and Public Health Bill, now in Standing Committee, new powers which will enable us to continue to meet the expenses incurred in the training of auxiliaries when these Regulations come into operation. We shall be introducing a suitable Amendment to this effect in Committee.
I have watched these trainee dental auxiliaries at work and have been greatly impressed with what I have seen. I believe that the House will welcome, as I do, the establishment of this class on a permanent basis, and the Regulations, which bring this about. I am confident that the dental auxiliary will make a significant contribution to the improved dental health of our children.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: We on this side of the House welcome these Regulations and we are grateful to the Minister for his very full explanation of them. We welcome them rather as one welcomes an old friend to whom one said goodbye many years ago and never expected to see again. It is a remarkable fact that the last debate on dental matters in this House took place in November 1955. It was on the Second Reading of the Dentists Bill, which became the Dentists Act, 1956. It had a very short Report and Third Reading stage on 26th January, 1956. Nothing
1718
was said except for a few short remarks on the consolidating Act of 1957. Since then the dentists have not appeared on our horizon. However, they have not been idle for in the period between then and now there has been a great improvement in the number of dentists and in the dental services provided.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who was Minister of Health in 1955, said in that debate that we had less than half the number of dentists we needed at that time. He said that we needed to take in an extra 900 recruits a year and at that time the number was about 470. We are all glad to know that since then the position has gradually improved and for the year 1967–68 the number approaches 900—it is in the 890s. There can be little doubt that this improvement has been in part due to the presence of dental hygienists and auxiliaries who have made life so much more pleasant for practising dentists.
It seems a long time since that debate, but no time was wasted—at any rate not at first. The Dentists Act, 1956, was consolidated in the Act of 1957. After that Measure received the Royal Assent, the Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations were laid. Dr. Summerskill, as she was then, from this Dispatch Box chided the Ministry of Health for the long delay in producing the Regulations. How times have changed! The then Minister said he was very sorry and hoped that it would not happen again. As a result of those Regulations, the dentists got on with their job and established a high-powered committee, acquired premises at New Cross and formed the dental school. Students entered the scheme in 1960. In 1963 they reported that the work was going well, but up to that date they did not have sufficient evidence to say whether the scheme would be a success or not. They reported again in 1966. Although their approval was perhaps a little grudging, on the whole they came down on the side of the experiment. The Privy Council promptly told them that they could get on with this job. They terminated the scheme and new draft Regulations were made for auxiliaries on a permanent basis, which are the Regulations before us this evening.
I have one or two small questions to ask the Minister. Why cannot hygienists

1719
and auxiliaries under these or any other Regulations clean and polish teeth, especially the teeth of children with whom they work most of the time, without the permission of a registered dentist? Dr. Summerskill, as she then was, asked this question in 1957. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West told her that he agreed with her in principle and that no doubt the General Dental Council and the Privy Council would take note of what she said. Neither the General Dental Council nor the Privy Council has taken the slightest notice of what she said, although that was 11 years ago. What is the reason for this apparent intransigence in face of the views of so eminent a personality?
Next, why can dental hygienists under these Regulations work outside the National Health Service whereas dental auxiliaries can work only within the National Health Service? This seems to be a distinction which needs some explanation. It is not apparent to me why this should be so. There must be a reason, and I should like to know what it is.
Finally, the Minister indicated, though he did not state, that all the recommendations the General Dental Council made in its Final Report had not been incorporated in these Regulations. There are two which do not appear—first, that a dentist must examine the patient before he is treated by a dental auxiliary and, secondly, that a dentist must be within call when a dental auxiliary is extracting a tooth or filling a tooth. These were firm recommendations in the Final Report of the General Dental Council in 1966. Neither appears in these Regulations.
I believe that it is for that reason that some members of the dental profession have a slight suspicion that these auxiliaries will infiltrate too far and too much into their lives and into their professional scheme of things. For that reason I was delighted to hear the Minister say today that it was his strongly held view that the responsibility for dental treatment must always remain with the dental practitioner or the dental surgeon and that there can be no question of an auxiliary or a hygienist taking that responsibility. I believe that with that assurance and
1720
that safeguard all fears and misgivings among the dental profession will be removed and I was very glad to hear it.
With those very few words I welcome the new Regulations.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: First, I offer my congratulations and good wishes to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. If we must have Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, I prefer them to come, in limited numbers, from Merseyside. I assure and warn the hon. Gentleman that we shall watch his activities carefully.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister. On Part II, Regulation 4, paragraphs (2) and (3), which provide for re-enrolment every 12 months, why has 12 months been chosen—it seems to be not too long a time—instead or two or three years? Secondly, on Part III, Regulation 7, which deals with training, examinations and courses of instruction, I have in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby the North-East Liverpool Technical College, which is engaged, and has been engaged for some time, on training courses for dental technicians, mechanics and other dental workers. Can I have the Minister's assurance, because the College is concerned with these regulations, that the intentions of the Regulations can be made available to those who are at present engaged upon similar or previous courses? They are concerned about the effects of this and about how soon it is proposed to extend the experiment to the North-West. Any information which can be provided direct to this and to other establishments will be welcome.
10.23 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am glad to join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) in giving a welcome to the Regulations. By discussing the Regulations at all we are emphasising and underlining something rather unusual in our law, namely, that for many years now we have exercised very strict control over what people do in patients' mouths while we do not exercise much control over what people do inside other orifices. It is interesting to note, as was highlighted earlier, that

1721
the whole field of dentistry has been pretty carefully controlled, whereas the field of medicine certainly has not.
It is a long time since I advocated the greater use of auxiliaries and ancillaries of one kind and another in the whole field of medicine. At that time, in common with many others, I came in for a certain amount of criticism from my colleagues in the medical profession and from my friends in the dental profession. There is a resistance among professional men to anything which they feel could possibly lead to a dilution of their professional standards.
Nevertheless, we must accept, as the Minister has accepted in bringing forward these Regulations, that, if we are to maintain the standards which we wish to maintain in medicine and in dentistry, we must make more use of ancillaries of one kind and another. When there is a shortage of doctors, it is essential that the doctors we have spend their time doctoring. Similarly, with a shortage of dentists, it is essential that the dentists we have spend their time using the high degree of skill with which they have been equipped. There are limits to the extent to which one can make these arrangements, of course, and I am glad that opinion within the dental profession has now, apparently, changed. This is a credit to the way in which the subject has been approached. If we were to introduce Regulations of this kind with indecent haste, we should merely arouse intense antagonism within the dental profession. By doing it more gradually, however, we have reached a stage at which the dentists themselves welcome the move.
There is a special factor regarding recruitment into the dental profession which should be borne in mind. In the past, there were a good many people on the dental register who were known as registered dentists, that is, men who had not qualified in the ordinary sense but who have been practising for a certain number of years prior to the original Dentists Act. They were allowed automatically on the register by virtue of their having been engaged in active practice. But these dentists have never occupied places in the dental schools. Now that they have, so to speak, died out with the passage of time, we have, in a sense, a shortage because the dental schools were
1722
not expanded sufficiently rapidly to make up for this loss in recruitment. Fortunately, some expansion has taken place, but, even so, with the greater emphasis on preventive dentistry nowadays, which results in more work, though very valuable work, we need more people in dentistry.
I am sure that this is the right way to go about it. As I look forward to the future of our medical services, I am certain that it will depend on the greater use of ancillaries. Nevertheless, at every stage we must proceed with care so that those in the professions concerned feel that they are in control; and not only must they feel that they are in control but, in the public interest, they ought, in fact, to remain in control. I shall be very interested to hear, during our proceedings in Standing Committee on the Health Services and Public Health Bill, what the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts are about the future. If this sort of move is to go well, the ancillaries, the hygienists and others, must remain not merely now but always under the effective control of the dental surgeons with whom they work.
Now, one or two questions for the Minister. I notice that the dental prosthetists—I prefer to call them dental mechanics, because it is rather easier to say—are conspicuous by their absence from the Regulations. I know that they have, through their organisation, been agitating for some time to be allowed to make dentures individually and separately, not under the control of a dentist. I am not sure that I agree with that, but I am wondering why there is no provision for them under the Regulations. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We cannot discuss in this debate matters which are not raised by the Regulations.
Dr. Winstanley: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we can discuss them on the other occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I shall make a point of doing so.
I welcome the Regulations. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that they have the support of the professional organisations concerned. He may, at least, be glad to know that they have my support.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. K. Robinson: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the points raised.
I have seen so much of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) in Standing Committee that 1 had not appreciated that this was his first appearance at the Dispatch Box opposite. I should like to add my congratulations to him.
I was interested in his historical reminiscences about the last time we discussed dentists. Relying entirely on my memory, I seem to recall a debate on an Estimates Committee Report on the dental services which I think was one other occasion since then. But I agree with the implication that we do not very often discuss the dental profession's affairs in the House, perhaps not as often as they deserve.
There is the same answer to all the hon. Gentleman's questions on why the hygienists cannot clean or polish teeth except under supervision and why they can work outside the N.H.S., although this new class of dental auxiliaries can work only within it—and, indeed, in the priority classes in the school dental service and health centres. The answer is that these are the arrangements that the Privy Council has made with the General Dental Council to obtain its agreement.
It is understandable that with a new class of auxiliaries there are some misgivings in the profession. There always are in these matters. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should accept certain restrictions in order to help allay these professional anxieties. That is really the broad answer to both those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) asked why there was only a 12 months' interval for re-enrolment. The answer is simply that the class will maintain its registration each year just as a dentist does, and as I believe is the practice in most professional groups where registration is involved.
As to the possibility of a course in the North-West, or perhaps more particularly in the Merseyside area, there are no present plans to open other schools, but the experimental scheme has not yet come to an end. There certainly would be no statutory obstacle to other schools, provided the necessary powers are
1724
obtained in the Health Services and Public Health Bill, under the new Clause to which I briefly referred in my opening remarks.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that this is just one more example of how we can help the professions associated with the Health Service to make the best use of manpower resources, particularly skilled manpower resources. I am sure that one of the best economies we can make is to ensure that all our professional groups exercise the skills for which they are trained and leave to others the lesser skills which require a lesser degree of training.
I repeat that I am very glad that the Regulations have met with the approval of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Service Act, 1946 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 and make other amendments connected with the National Health Service and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State in the exercise of any power conferred by the said Act of the present Session to make payments to persons or bodies with whom arrangements are made for the provision of instruction in connection with certain health and welfare services, and to persons availing themselves of such instruction.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
Adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [1st February] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
CONSOLIDATION, &c. BILLS
Mr. Antony Buck discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills; Mr. Tom Boardman added.—[Mr. McBride.]

KEVIN O'FARRELL (DEATH)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
10.35 p.m.
Mr. George Wallace: First may I make a short personal statement to the effect that the O'Farrell family who are involved in my debate tonight have not been constituents of mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) and myself have an arrangement whereby one of us is available to the citizens of Norwich every week in order to give maximum service. He has always agreed to my continuing with this case, which is the subject of the debate tonight, as I intend to do; indeed, I have never given up.
Kevin O'Farrell was sentenced to six months detention for shortening a gun barrel, together with concurrent sentences. He had ammunition in his possession. There seemed to be no criminal intent, but this act can now, in the light of medical evidence, be clearly related to his mental condition and the suicidal intent—doubted by medical opinion until the last tragic determined act of this boy, who committed suicide on 23rd September, 1967.
The boy was found hanging by his belt from the door of his cell at 3·25 p.m. Early that evening the parents of the boy were advised by Norwich City Police to telephone Grendon for details. Subsequently they were told by phone that the inquest was on Tuesday, 26th September. After a long journey that day they were told that the inquest was postponed until Wednesday, 27th September. The first written communication from Grendon was received on Wednesday, 27th September, and dated 26th September, stating that the inquest would be held on Wednesday, 27th September. This and subsequent incidents added to the mother's distress and increased her anger and demand for a public inquiry.
Time does not permit me to go into the details now. I have been in frequent touch with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I have had personal discus-
1726
sions with him. He has extended every courtesy and explanation and has offered to meet the parents. He repeated his offer on 30th January last. The boy's parents have refused the interview and the mother's mind is fixed on a public inquiry in spite of detailed replies given by Lord Stonham. I support that plea, but I would go further. Kevin John O'Farrell, aged 17 years, committed suicide on Saturday, 23rd September, 1967. An appeal had previously been lodged on his behalf and would have been heard a month later. Tonight's debate I regard as his appeal.
This boy's mother and father had been worried for some considerable time about his mental state, but without avail, as no one seemed to realise his need for treatment until he attempted to cut his wrists with a razor blade when he was confined at North Sea Camp Detention Centre. He was transferred to Grendon Underwood and the parents were told that he had been transferred because he was not happy at North Sea Camp.
Kevin had attempted to take his life twice before this incident. First he attempted to jump out of a window. This was reported to Norwich City Police and the probation officer.
Then, before the Court hearing, he attempted to gas himself. This was reported to the probation officer but not stated at the court hearing when medical evidence was submitted. I accept, of course, that it is not the duty of the probation officer to submit medical evidence, but—and this is an important point—this attempt at suicide only emerged in the medical report dated 4th September, 1967, and I have all the medical reports which were submitted to the boy's solicitors in preparation for his appeal. The medical report of 4th September said that
"…even the reality of suicidal intent was conjectural".
But in the medical report submitted by a senior medical officer to the magistrates when the case was heard it was stated, amongst other things, that its results suggested
"…that his fantasy life is cut out from reality and under stress he would have no resources of personality to exercise control over impulse."

1727
But no recommendation for treatment was made to the magistrates and the lad was committed to North Sea Camp Detention Centre.
At the inquest it was stated that when Kevin was examined at Grendon there was a suggestion of serious mental illness. He was examined by two qualified psychiatrists who did not find any evidence of suicidal intent, in spite of his earlier attempts at suicide, although they did say that he might be suffering from early schizophrenia. Suicidal intent was tragically confirmed when, during a period when he was unsupervised, Kevin hanged himself with his belt from a height lower than himself—from the door of his cell—which was a definite and determined suicide. Kevin O'Farrell indeed had proved the experts wrong when it was too late.
I know that the authorities take a serious view of this tragedy, and I accept, as a result of the various approaches I have made and discussions with my hon. Friend and his officials, that special measures have now been taken to avoid something similar happening again. I accept, too, that one cannot always rule out suicide in a psychiatirc prison. But steps have been taken.
Steps have been taken indeed! But Kevin O'Farrell is dead. The build-up of medical evidence on his obviously stricken mind was too late. Having dealt with this case—and I am not a medical expert but a layman—I say that this lad should not have been sent to prison. He was mentally sick. He needed treatment and, in view of the medical evidence and the evidence of suicide, the only reparation that can now be given is a pardon, and for his mother's sake I ask for just that.
10.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): This is a very sad case indeed, and everyone in the House and outside will share the feeling of deep sympathy that Kevin's parents and his family have had to bear this blow. I must also acknowledge on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Home Office, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has dealt with this, the efforts which the hon. Member for
1728
Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) has made to assist the boy's family in giving some relief to their feelings by clarifying the situation which led to Kevin's untimely death.
I hope, too, that it will be accepted that the Home Office, for its part, as the hon. Member has accepted, and those concerned with the running of the establishments where he was held in custody, have done everything before and after the event which could reasonably be expected of them.
I propose to give the House a resume of the events which led to Kevin's suicide, but I first wish to emphasise three points which I regard as fundamental to the issues raised by the hon. Member. In the first place, those in charge at the North Sea Camp acted urgently to deal with the situation as soon as the extent of Kevin's need for treatment was realised. Secondly, if there are any complaints that lie against the staff at Grendon, these cannot be complaints of neglect, they can only be concerned with medical judgment. Thirdly, since the events, the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the noble Friend the Minister of State, have done everything possible to investigate this case and to meet the requests for information that the hon. Member, quite rightly, made, and that Kevin's family have made.
I want to turn now to the events of the case. I cannot really comment on the decision reached by the magistrates. It would not be proper for me to do so. Subject to the maximum penalty prescribed by law, the penalty in each case is entirely a matter for the court to decide, and it has to have regard to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to give directions or advice to the courts on the nature of the sentence that should be imposed, or to interfere with the decision on any particular case. My hon. Friend has asked for a free pardon. This is not really a case in which any grounds can be said to exist of the kind in which a free pardon is granted.
I now turn from the decision of the court to a matter for which the Home Office does have responsibility, and that is in the matter of the probation. Since complaints have been made about the

1729
way in which the probation officer concerned dealt with the case, it is only right that I should say why I think that these were unfounded. Kevin was under the supervision of a senior probation officer in Norwich for two years before his court appearance last July. During this time close supervision by the probation officer was not possible because Kevin failed to report and because he refused the probation officer's help in obtaining employment.
The probation officer also had difficulty in contacting the boy's parents, who later told him that Kevin must have intercepted the written messages which he left at the house for them. Although this was not obviously apparent at the time, Kevin's failure to keep in contact with the probation officer was no doubt, in part at any rate, due to the progress of his mental condition.
As to the complaints which have been advanced though not by my hon. Friend, that the probation officer did not make a medical. report to the court, there was a medical report made by the medical superintendent at Hellesdon Hospital, Norwich. He was a proper person to make such a medical report. It would have been not only unnecessary, but improper, and might have been felt by the court to have been outside the jurisdiction of the probation officer if he had made a report.
He made it clear to Mrs. O'Farrell that he would not be giving a medical report to the court and, so far as I am aware, Mrs. O'Farrell did not mention to the probation officer a previous attempt by Kevin to commit suicide. The probation officer was unaware of this. I hope that the House will accept —and this is extremely important—that the probation officer concerned, far from failing in his duty to the boy and the parents, did as much as he could in handling this particularly difficult case.
Let me now turn to the events which follow on Kevin's reception into the North Sea Detention Centre on 31st July last. At the camp his behaviour was correct, but he caused concern to the warden and the staff by his withdrawn mariner and negative attitude. Efforts were made to ease him through his training at the camp, but he resisted all attempts to get to know him. An incident occurred on 13th September
1730
which, in the light of future events, was of some significance.
Whilst working with a party of boys on the camp estate, Kevin was noticed to have some scratches on his left wrist. He refused to show his wrist or to produce the razor blade which had been in his possession. It was considered that this was a gesture rather than a true suicide attempt. The medical officers were of the opinion that Kevin's state of mind merited a thorough investigation. He was therefore seen by a medical officer from Leeds prison on 15th September, and the medical officer concluded that psychiatric investigation and treatment was urgently necessary. Arrangements were immediately made for Kevin's transfer to the Grendon Psychiatric Prison. He was in fact transferred to Grendon on the day the examination took place. His parents were informed immediately and the probation officer, although it was no longer his case—again I should mention this—also visited Mr. and Mrs. O'Farrell the same evening to tell them about Kevin's transfer.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, at Grendon Kevin was seen by two qualified and experienced psychiatrists, neither of whom, in the course of their examination, found any evidence of intention to commit suicide, although they thought he might be suffering from early simple schizophrenia. He was not placed on special watch, because the condition which they had diagnosed in fact calls for full association with other inmates. He was also allowed to wear ordinary dress in the hospital.
As my hon. Friend has said, tragically, on 23rd September, about 3·25 p.m., he was found hanged. Attempts were made to revive him by artificial resuscitation, but unfortunately he was already dead. Shortly afterwards the Deputy Governor phoned the police and asked them to notify Mr. and Mrs. O'Farrell of their son's death.
I am extremely sorry that there was in fact a misunderstanding about the inquest. As I understand the position, the dates were slightly different. Kevin's parents were asked to attend at Aylesbury on the afternoon of Monday, 25th September, to identify the body. There appears to have been a misunderstanding —it is by no means clear how this arose—

1731
as a result of which they were undoubtedly under the impression that the inquest itself had been fixed for that date. But this was not the case; the Coroner had fixed the inquest for the Wednesday. I am told that the parents were informed of this at the time of the identification. They attended the inquest on the Wednesday, which was completed on that day. There was no question of a postponement of the inquest. This question never arose.
As my hon. Friend has said, we have tried since that date, in correspondence and in meetings with him, to answer all the questions which have been put, and, as has been said, Lord Stonham has offered more than once to receive the boy's parents for a personal discussion in the hope that he could do something to satisfy them in their distress. Unfortunately, this offer has been rejected, although the noble Lord would still, very willingly, be glad to discuss the case with Mr. and Mrs. O'Farrell if they felt that that would be of any help.
In view of our inability to satisfy the parents in this matter, they have asked, as has the hon. Member tonight for a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has considered this request most carefully, but he has come to the conclusion that since this case has already been very fully investigated and since the real issue turns on a question of medical judgment, a public inquiry would not produce any significant information that is not already known
1732
and would not serve any purpose in relieving the parents of their distress or preventing a similar occurrence in future.
Perhaps I should say something in general about tragedies of this kind. Medical officers attached to prison hospitals are fully qualified, and, particularly at Grendon, in view of the number of disturbed persons who pass through their hands, have special experience in dealing with cases such as this. It is only fair to say that from time to time, despite the closest supervision, as my hon. Friend very fairly recognised, a patient determined on suicide will succeed in taking his own life. There are, fortunately, very few of these cases, and my noble Friend Lord Stonham has said that each of these cases haunts him. The number is about 15 a year, whereas before they used to run into the 20s. They are few in number, but they happen. It is an unfortunate and inescapable fact that they happen, that determined patients succeed in taking their own lives, and I would only be misleading the House if I were to suggest that there are any absolute safeguards which can be devised.
Before I end I would like, and I know that I can associate the House with this, to repeat the very deep sympathy which I and my colleagues at the Home Office have for Kevin's parents and his family who have had to bear the sorrow of this very sad and tragic event.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools (Staff)
  Approved Schools (Staff)
  Taxicabs (For Hire Sign)
  Taxicabs (For Hire Sign)
  Civil Defence Corps and Auxiliary Fire Service
  Civil Defence Corps and Auxiliary Fire Service
  East African Immigrants
  East African Immigrants
  Motoring Offences (Prosecutions)
  Motoring Offences (Prosecutions)
  Court Lees School
  Court Lees School
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Criminal Proceedings (Victim's Civil Remedies)
  Criminal Proceedings (Victim's Civil Remedies)
  Immigration Officers
  Immigration Officers
  Criminal Law (Codification)
  Criminal Law (Codification)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Prison Service (Senior Officer Rank)
  Prison Service (Senior Officer Rank)
  Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
  Charles Wilson (Cost of Recapture)
  Charles Wilson (Cost of Recapture)
  Obscene Publications Acts, 1959 and 1965
  Obscene Publications Acts, 1959 and 1965
  Mr. Luckhurst (Report)
  Mr. Luckhurst (Report)
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Police Power)
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Police Power)
  United States Citizens (Political Asylum)
  United States Citizens (Political Asylum)
  Vietnamese Orphans
  Vietnamese Orphans
  Weapons Amnesty
  Weapons Amnesty
  Adoption Act, 1958 (Survey)
  Adoption Act, 1958 (Survey)
  Temple of Peace, Cardiff (Explosion Inquiries)
  Temple of Peace, Cardiff (Explosion Inquiries)
  Electrical Appliances (Safety)
  Electrical Appliances (Safety)
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Security (Public Expenditure)
  Prison Security (Public Expenditure)
  Mentally III Patients (Custody)
  Mentally III Patients (Custody)
  Illegal Immigrants (Deportation)
  Illegal Immigrants (Deportation)
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Home Defence Services (Essex)
  Home Defence Services (Essex)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List
  Waiting List
  Direct Dialling Service (Austria)
  Direct Dialling Service (Austria)
POST OFFICE
  Mr. C. J. Parker (Compensation)
  Mr. C. J. Parker (Compensation)
  Post Offices (Littlethorpe)
  Post Offices (Littlethorpe)
  Greater London Business Directory
  Greater London Business Directory
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools Council and National Foundation for Educational Research
  Schools Council and National Foundation for Educational Research
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  First Degree Students
  First Degree Students
  University Entrants
  University Entrants
  Infants School, Wellingborough
  Infants School, Wellingborough
  School Building Programme (Gateshead)
  School Building Programme (Gateshead)
  Late School Leavers, Gateshead
  Late School Leavers, Gateshead
  Institutions of Higher Education (Academic Boards)
  Institutions of Higher Education (Academic Boards)
  Comprehensive Education (West Midlands and Birmingham)
  Comprehensive Education (West Midlands and Birmingham)
  Immigrant Pupils
  Immigrant Pupils
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Sikhs (Discrimination)
  Sikhs (Discrimination)
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (FUNCTIONS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (FUNCTIONS)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DISCUSSIONS WITH T.U.C.)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DISCUSSIONS WITH T.U.C.)
  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  MENTALLY SUBNORMAL CHILDREN (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  MENTALLY SUBNORMAL CHILDREN (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  NORTH WEST (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NORTH WEST (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS WITH U THANT)
  PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS WITH U THANT)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  NORTH WEST (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NORTH WEST (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT, 1967
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT, 1967
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Argentine Meat
  Argentine Meat
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Army Officers (Overseas Training)
  Army Officers (Overseas Training)
  Defence Cuts (Advertisement Cost)
  Defence Cuts (Advertisement Cost)
  Aircraft Carrier (Sale to Australia)
  Aircraft Carrier (Sale to Australia)
  R.A.F. Transport Command (Vietnamese Orphans)
  R.A.F. Transport Command (Vietnamese Orphans)
  Desert and Jungle Training
  Desert and Jungle Training
  Naval Officer (Car Advertisement)
  Naval Officer (Car Advertisement)
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, Category III
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, Category III
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Hunt Committee
  Hunt Committee
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Tax Tables
  Tax Tables
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
  National Insurance Contributions (Allowances)
  National Insurance Contributions (Allowances)
  Cmnd. 3515
  Cmnd. 3515
  P.A.Y.E. Codings (Family Allowances)
  P.A.Y.E. Codings (Family Allowances)
  Economic Forecasts
  Economic Forecasts
  Decimal Day
  Decimal Day
SCOTLAND
  Public Contracts (Architects)
  Public Contracts (Architects)
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Shrieval Bench
  Shrieval Bench
  Judicial Appointments Board
  Judicial Appointments Board
  Government Departments and Hospital Boards (Scottish Suppliers)
  Government Departments and Hospital Boards (Scottish Suppliers)
  Legal Profession (Unification)
  Legal Profession (Unification)
  Grant Committee Report (Bodies Consulted)
  Grant Committee Report (Bodies Consulted)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Local Offices
  Local Offices
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development Certificates (North Warwickshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (North Warwickshire)
  State-Owned Tourist Organisation
  State-Owned Tourist Organisation

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Tedder—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Erskine Bridge Tolls Act,

Administration of Justice Act,

Trustee Savings Banks Act,

London Cab Act.

SYNTHETIC SWEETENERS IN FOOD
3.6 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what synthetic sweetening agents are permitted to be added to foods and beverages, and what obligation there is to disclose the presence of these substances to the consumer.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the artificial sweeteners which may be used in foods and drinks are those forms of saccharin and cyclamates which are named in the Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1967. As a general rule, where a food contains any artificial sweetener, the label must declare the fact.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, arising out of his reply, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that all these artificial sweeteners have no nutritive value whatsoever?
196
And may I ask also whether, in the case of cyclamates, there is not evidence that they are toxic?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is that they have no nutritive value, and I am aware of this. In answer to the second part, I know that the noble Lord holds the view that they have a toxic quality, but the very authoritative Committee which sat on these matters is of a different opinion.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how permission to use these synthetic sweeteners in foodstuffs and drinks can be reconciled with the direction contained in the Food and Drugs Act that the Minister should have regard to the desirability of restricting as far as practicable the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients in foods?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I reconcile that by the fact that the regulations are very selective in these matters. For example, in the case of ice cream, because it is necessary to increase its nutritive value, these particular sweeteners are not allowed. In the case of certain other articles—for example, soft drinks—the amount of artificial sweeteners is severely limited in order to ensure that nutrition from sugar is included in the composition of the article.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, some of us like to take saccharin because it has no nutritional value?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also aware that cyclamates present a rather different problem from that of saccharin, because it is generally thought—in fact, it is recommended—that there is a safe daily limit of intake? Is the noble Lord not aware that the reason why it is thought that cyclamates should be specified definitely is that it will enable people to judge whether that daily safe limit is being exceeded?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, it is the fact that saccharin has a bitter after-taste for some people and that

197
cyclamates have not such a taste, and are therefore more suitable in certain cases. The more cynical, however, may well say that cyclamates are more widely used in some of these articles, because they are cheaper than saccharin.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, entirely missed the point of my question? This is a question of the safety of the daily level of intake. Would he look further into this subject and have a word with his right honourable friend on it, because it is a matter which is raising a considerable amount of comment? It is thought that perhaps it would be better to have cyclamates specified definitely rather than simply included under artificial sweeteners.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry; I take the noble Lord's point. If more than a certain quantity of some of these sweeteners is taken it is thought by some that there would be a possibility (I put it no higher than that) of its having certain laxative effects. But I do not think the danger of that is very great. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like more details, I would gladly send them to him.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I am right in thinking that the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America prohibited the use of cyclamates?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the position is, as I understand it, that the question has been raised in the United States by a number of people, including friends of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch; but at the present time the regulations there permit the use of these artificial sweeteners.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that since the Food Standards Committee made its recommendation about cyclamates more data has been published, indicating that they may be toxic in themselves, or that they break down into other toxic substances?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, one body did find that there was a suggestion, that there was a breakdown into other substances. That possibility, although
198
not particularly dangerous, is now being followed up by another body.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend was talking about a Committee in the United States of America, and, if so, will he make that clear?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have been talking about a number of Committees and other bodies. In answer to the question put by my noble friend Lady Summerskill I was talking about regulations in the United States. In answer to the question put to me by Lord Douglas of Barloch I was talking about the examination by a body in this country who came to a certain finding which did not cause any undue alarm; but the possibilities to which they pointed are being followed up by another body.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—before we get too deeply interested in this subject—that there is some toxic characteristic in practically every food we eat and every beverage we drink?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But there is no reason to add to them.

STANSTED AIRPORT RUNWAYS
3.12 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHYRE: 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 local residents whose properties may for the first time now be affected by the proposed re-alignment of projected runways at Stansted Airport are to have an opportunity to protest and make representations on the new runways.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, it will be known to your Lordships that my right honourable friend on January 12, 1968, consulted local authorities and local interests in the area about a proposed realignment of the runways at Stansted. Most of those consulted have now replied to my right honourable friend and many of

199
them have raised the issue posed in the noble Lord's Question. All these replies are now being carefully considered by my right honourable friends.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask when the Government will be in a position to give an assurance that those newly affected by the proposed realignment of runways will have, in the name of justice and fair play, and possibly in the name of the law, the same opportunities as the original citizens affected, who had a chance of making representations at a public inquiry?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot put any particular date on anything which might be said by the Government, but I repeat what I said in my original Answer, that these matters will be considered since they have been pointed out by the local authorities and other interests.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister has stated definitely that there will be no further inquiry? If that is the case, how is that consistent with his genuinely looking at the representations that have been made and considering them?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, since the consideration of the representations is proceeding in these very days, I hope that the noble Lord will understand when I say that it would be discourteous to those who had made the representations if I were to say any more at this point.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's statement, which clearly indicates that there may be a possibility of some further inquiry, could the noble Lord say whether or not the consultation to which he referred consisted of more than just the writing of one letter?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it consisted, first of all, of consultations about how to consult; secondly, the sending of an account of the proposed realignment accompanied by certain maps and supporting data; and it now consists in considering the answers to what had been sent.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, would the
200
Minister agree that when Stansted was originally recommended one of the main advantages was the existing 10,000 ft. runway?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is another question, which I should be grateful if the noble Lord would put down for separate answer.

DECIMAL CURRENCY: BASIC UNIT AND INAUGURAL DATE
3.15 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: 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, now that the British penny equals the U.S. cent, they will consider decimalising the currency by selecting a major unit of 100 pennies, equal to one dollar; thus achieving parity between the world's two reserve currencies.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the decimal currency system based on a major unit of the pound sterling is best suited to both the internal and external purposes of the United Kingdom. The incidental fact that the British penny now equals the United States cent is no reason for considering a change to an inferior system at a time when planning is well advanced—I say, well advanced—for the change over to the system for which the Decimal Currency Act 1967 provides.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. "Well advanced" has a rather imprecise meaning. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to explain a little more precisely what is meant by those words?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think it would be proper for me to go into too much detail as I understand that there will be an announcement later on this afternoon by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale. But I think I can say that "Decimal Day" has been fixed now as February 15, 1971, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been invited to place in the Library of the House five

201
specimen coins of the new denominations, which will be available for inspection after 4 o'clock.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, though it is very improper for me to do so, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence to intervene, in order to say that the Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board is the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who will be taking a more prominent part in the Press Conference than I shall, but I appreciate what the noble Lord said about my participation in it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, will the Government continue to study the currencies not only of the United States, but also of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? Are the Government really determined that we shall remain for ever out of step with practically the whole of the English-speaking world in the matter of currency?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we shall never reach the stage when it will not be profitable at least to study what is going on in other parts of the world, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that, having decided by vote of both Houses of Parliament, to embark on a certain policy, we ought now to make a success of that, especially as planning is so far advanced. May I take the opportunity of saying that, looking as I do at the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, he was more significant in my sight than my noble friend Lord Fiske, whose pardon I beg.

ASIAN IMMIGRANTS FROM KENYA
3.19 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: 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 the newspaper report (The Times, January 25, 1968) that Asian immigrants are coming into this country from Kenya at the rate of more than 1,000 a month is correct; and, if so, whether these particular immigrants have an unquestioned right to enter this country, and, if so, why.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the immigrants to whom the noble Lord refers are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who did not acquire local citizenship on independence. They are therefore eligible for passports which exempt them from control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Numbers of them have been coming here for some years, but the rate of arrivals has recently risen. In 1967, the total was 13,600.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his very definite Answer to my Question, may I ask one supplementary question? In view of circumstances which I think I might call unforeseen, and which are likely to deeply intensify this influx of immigrants into this country, and also in view of the fact that the vital interests of the people of this country and some of its serious problems are likely to be intensified by this fresh influx, is it not desirable that Her Majesty's Government should be considering steps to modify, if possible—to be fair to all, if possible—or to check to some extent, at least, this influx?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is an extremely difficult problem, not only in this country but also, of course, in East Africa, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the matter under continuous consideration. I think it should be clearly understood that there is this statutory obligation. As The Times leader of February 13 put it:
"In order to achieve a settlement the British Government of the day"—
that was, in 1963—
"in effect handed out promises for the future in the obvious hope that not many of them would have to be honoured. The British Government has changed since then, but the obligation has not."
This is one side of the difficulty we are in; and the noble Lord has mentioned the other side. We are considering these matters very closely and carefully.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? While, of course, what he has stated is legally exactly the position, could he give this assurance to the House: that if the Government are, as they very well may have to be, considering the whole question of whether there should be any

203
further control of immigration into this country, they will not feel in the least inhibited by the past? Let me put it this way. Whether the Government supported by noble Lords on this side were responsible for the present position, or whether it was the Government of noble Lords opposite, may I ask that the present Government will not be in the least inhibited from dealing with this issue in Kenya, and will they make that plain?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that the tone and length of the Answer I previously gave carried no indication that I was trying to apportion the blame. The responsibility rests with Her Majesty's present Government. But the major difficulty is that if we did have legislation to remove from these people the freedom from operation of the 1962 Act, it would remove from them their right to United Kingdom citizenship and make them Stateless; and under the United Nations Convention of 1961 the United Kingdom Government are pledged to avoid any increase in future Statelessness. This is the kind of problem we have to consider before the Government can come to any conclusion on this matter.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I was not in the least trying to say who was to blame. Let me accept that the Conservative Government were just as responsible for the present position as the present Government are. The really important thing is that our hands should be absolutely free to do what is right in the future.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will be encouraged to have the noble Earl's assurance in advance that he will support them in whatever action they think it necessary to take.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord quoted The Times as an authority for his statement that certain undertakings were given. Can he give any other authority?—because I have heard it suggested there were no such undertakings given, and that that was only something that appeared in The Times. I do not know.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 is the authority, and the arrangements then made excluded these Kenyan Asians (if I may call them such) from the provisions of the 1962 Act, which leaves them the right to apply for passports to come to this country.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to undertakings in his original Answer, and he based that statement on something that appeared in The Times. Leaving on one side any statutory provisions, can he give any information about the undertakings he said were given?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot recall using the word. I quoted a passage from The Times as an illustration of the position. But surely an obligation in a Statute is an undertaking, and in fact an undertaking of a kind which cannot be altered or withdrawn without Parliament's agreeing a new Statute.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have had any consultations with the Kenya Government, and indeed with other African Governments, about this problem to try to ease the present situation? It is a problem which is causing difficulties for us, but which will undoubtedly cause even more severe difficulties in Kenya in the near future.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have had consultations with the Government of Kenya over a period of some months. But, as your Lordships will be aware, the Kenya Government is pursuing a policy of Africanisation with some vigour, and in July they passed the Kenya Immigration Act, which has really exacerbated the present situation and brought about the increase in the flow of immigrants from Kenya.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have informed the Kenya Government that they deplore a policy of racial discrimination against Asians?
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in reply to the Question

205
and the first two supplementaries, may I ask him whether he could agree with me that a Kenya Asian who holds a British passport as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has more right to enter this country and to seek work here than foreign nationals of other Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan and India? Could he also agree that the Kenya Asian who has lived under British rule since birth until Kenya independence in 1963, and in many cases speaks English in his family, domestic life, is far more likely to be a suitable immigrant to Britain, and to have a far greater adaptability to life in this country, than those from the Asian mainland? Further, would the noble Lord agree that the discriminatory legislation against British subjects in Kenya, which has, as the noble Lord has said, precipitated this exodus, is something which, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has just mentioned, should be taken up with the Kenya Government? Moreover, could he give an undertaking to ask his right honourable friend the Minister to take steps to talk these things over with the Kenya Government? Furthermore, is he aware of the damage that may be clone to the Kenya economy and to the stability of that country, especially as the British taxpayer is providing quite substantial funds for the maintenance of that economy?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would not agree that there is any difference between the citizens of any country coming here, who come here with the consent of, and by agreement with, the United Kingdom Government. There cannot be any difference if they enter in accordance with our laws. With regard to the standard of what I might call education, and of the commercial ability and acumen of the Asians, I understand it is generally agreed that they are high; and these are matters, of course, for the consideration of the Kenya Government, including the extent to which the more or less induced departure of these Asians from Kenya may prove a handicap to the future of that country. The position with which we are confronted in this case is that legislation of the kind which has been suggested might well mean that these people would have a British passport but that the only place they could not come to on that passport would be Britain.
206
That would be a very serious matter indeed.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend would agree that the position of these Asians from East Africa is to some extent in the nature of the position of refugees, and refugees who have a very particular and special claim on our hospitality?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, these people are British citizens and have the right to come here, and when they exercise that right they can scarcely be regarded as refugees. But, at the same time, all the facilities which we have in this country for the assistance of immigrants who come here are, and will be, made freely available to them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but in view of the fact that the noble Lord has said it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that in all the circumstances these people shall be allowed to come here (and I am not arguing about that) would he ask his right honourable friend to take up the matter again with the Kenyan Government, so that this influx can be slowed up as far as possible? According to the Answer given by the noble Lord, the Kenyan Government is pressing these people to get out quickly. I rather doubt whether that is the case. I think there is some uncertainty on the part of the Asians, and perhaps further consultation with the Kenyan Government might have some effect.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Trade Licensing Act was passed in Kenya only last month, and this restricts the opportunity for the Asians to work and prosper in their own country. Other than that they are not being forced out. With regard to making representations to the Home Secretary, I said in answer to the original Question that he is giving continuous and anxious consideration to this matter, and he has most certainly done all he possibly can in the way of representations to the Government of Kenya, and will continue to do so.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is true, as has been stated in the Press, that the number of persons throughout the Commonwealth, as distinct from East Africa, who are entitled to by-pass the Commonwealth Immigrants Act by means of

207
citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is not 190,000 but 370,000?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there is no question of "by-passing" when people possess rights; but so far as Africa is concerned, according to the estimates made last November which were published in another place, the total number is 230,000, of whom 167,000 were then resident in Kenya. The figure that he has quoted must take into consideration parts of the world other than Africa. If that is so, then the total figure which he quoted is still not correct.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, does not the Minister think that this matter of race discrimination by the Kenya Government should be brought up in the relevant Committees of the United Nations and condemned?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is a matter for consideration by the responsible authorities. I think I have given sufficient indication to show that this is already a matter for consideration by the United Nations.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
3.34 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment during the next few minutes I shall be repeating a Statement to be made in another place on foot-and-mouth disease.
May I take the opportunity to apologise to the House for any inconvenience which may have been caused through a breakdown in the printing of the speakers' list. I apologise for this, but unfortunately a fault developed in the machine.

HOUNSLOW CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I was unable to be here yesterday when the procedural difficulty in connection with the Trade Descriptions Bill was discussed. There is one point which I think ought to be made in one House or the other and it so happens that this is the only opportunity in which it can be made in either House. The noble Lord the Leader of the House twice said yesterday, in almost similar words, that there had been no failure on the part of anybody in this House or anybody connected with this House in this matter. Of course, that is true in respect of the staff of this House. Of course it is true in respect of the great majority of noble Lords. But I should like to say, and to say flatly, that it cannot be true in respect of noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite.
Many of us know the procedures in these matters. At some time in the last few months a Committee of Ministers has considered this Bill and has considered also, and in particular, where it should be introduced. Admittedly Parliamentary counsel (who, if I may say so, are very overworked slaves of the governmental lamp) should have drawn the attention of Ministers to the dangers attaching to Clause 39, and that clause should have been omitted from the Bill in your Lordships' House and put into the Bill in another place. Nevertheless, the whole system by which the Government machine works in this country is that the responsibility for blunders which are made—and

209
this, however small, is a blunder—lies individually and collectively with Ministers, in whichever House they may sit. I want to assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I make this point with no malice towards him, but the fact is that in a certain capacity in another place I "had my tail twisted" so often with previous Governments which made similar muddling blunders that I really cannot resist the opportunity of putting the true facts of this case on record.
I may say, having said—and said sincerely—that I meant no malice in this House, that the "tail twisting" in another place in the past was not without malice, and that these similar incidents were used considerably to delay the business of the Government of the day. I respect the customs of your Lordships' House, but I do not doubt that if this incident had occurred in another place my honourable and right honourable friends in that place would have taken advantage of the opportunity with far more vehemence than I am doing at this moment. I only ask that the noble Lord should admit that the Government have blundered in this matter and that Ministers in this House should take their share of responsibility for the actions of the Government as a whole.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies may I make two points? The first arises from the way in which this Bill has arisen. It will be remembered that we started off with a Bill called the "Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill", and that Bill, in Clause 40, had a financial provision, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will remember. That clause was removed from the Bill. I cannot quote it because I find there are no longer any copies in the Printed Paper Office—they have all disappeared—and I did not have time to go to the Library for it. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, explained that that clause was not necessary. I think it would be embarrasing to your Lordships if the clause came back, so I hope his explanation was correct—I say that in view of what my noble friend Lord Redmayne has said about the practice of not including financial clauses in a Bill when it starts in your Lordships' House. The fact is that this financial clause was in the Protection of Consumers Bill and was not there when the Bill came back to us a second time.
210
The other point is this. I am sure we all want to see as much legislation started in this House as possible, and certainly any kind of mishap of this kind might tend to influence the Government of the day not to introduce Bills here. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can work out some means by which in future it will be impossible for this to happen. Indeed, this happening would have been impossible had the clause been put in italics from the start. It would then have been left out at the last stage, or some appropriate provision would have been made. I would ask the noble Lord to deal with those two points.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, feels better now. I am sorry he suffered so much, and if he now has got something back in return we shall all be very much happier. He embarrasses me slightly, because it is not appropriate in your Lordships' House to refer in any detail to those who advise us. I could perfectly well have specified who was not to blame, but I chose that phrase to save them embarrassment, and I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, would recognise that. So far as the Government are concerned, again if it makes the noble Lord happy that he is able to "twist the tail" of the Government on a point as technical as this—so far beyond the comprehension of practically everybody except the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who do understand these things in much greater detail—and if it is necessary for the Government to accept blame and this will make the noble Lord happier, I shall be happy to accept blame also. I think he is taking a heavy hammer to crack this nut, and I think your Lordships dealt with it in the sensible and co-operative way that we do in this House. Therefore I do not propose to comment on what goes on in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised some very interesting points. I had been thinking about this matter myself. But it is extremely difficult for us here to interpret what is the privilege of another place. Nor is it very easy to expect them always to know what may

211
be put into a Bill at some stage. I agree with him it would be very unfortunate if it had the effect of discouraging the introduction of Bills in your Lordships' House, and I do not think that will follow. None the less, it is a matter which it may well be worth examining a little further, and I think this might well be done in the Procedure of the House Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill results from the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Eighth Report, Theft and Related Offences, which was published in 1966. A Bill of 35 clauses and three Schedules cannot exactly be described as massive; nevertheless this Bill represents a monumental amount of work. It amends 18 other Acts of Parliament; repeals in whole or in part 92 more Acts and, in addition, there are many consequential repeals. Their time scale ranges from the First Statute of Westminster, passed in 1275, in the reign of Edward I, to Acts which reached the Statute Book as recently as 1967. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work done by this Committee of distinguished lawyers, under the chairmanship of Sir Frederic Sellers. It has been rightly acclaimed in many quarters as an invaluable contribution to the strengthening, modernisation and simplification of the criminal law. We have indeed cause to be very grateful for the efforts of the members of the Committee.
The subjects dealt with in the Bill form perhaps the most complicated and difficult part of the substantive criminal law. It is a valuable contribution to the Government's aim of creating a comprehensive criminal code embodying the whole of the criminal law and procedure. When the further work now planned has been completed the law on any criminal matter will be much more readily ascertainable than at present, because the need to consult old Statutes and judicial decisions, will be largely obviated.
When they came to examine the existing law on larceny and related offences, the Criminal Law Review Committee decided that it would be necessary to make far-reaching changes, not merely by amendments to the present law but by introducing a completely new code to cover the relevant offences. On all the most important of these they found that the law was so defective that they had to go back to first principles—to consider what were the essential elements of the offence, and reconstruct the law on that basis. The Bill now before us is in all

213
essentials the draft Bill which the Criminal Law Revision Committee annexed to their Report; but it incorporates some changes, including a new Clause 11 which meets a suggestion made by the Committee and deals with the removal of articles on show in buildings open to the public. We hope and believe that in dealing with an infinite variety of theft the Bill provides a simple, efficient, and satisfactory code.
In the hope of avoiding what would otherwise be an intolerably long speech, I propose to deal only with the more important provisions of the Bill and explain the thinking and policy behind them. Clauses 1 to 7 deal with the new offence of theft, which will replace the existing offences of embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, and the twenty or so different varieties of larceny. The law of larceny at present is difficult and complex. It calls for a great deal of interpretation by the courts, yet fails to deal with certain kinds of dishonesty which should certainly be punishable. To me as a layman, with memories of Bleak House, the deepest complexities of the law are in the field of Chancery: but I was interested to see that in a recent case—it was one which raised the fascinating question whether mussels are wild animals—a distinguished counsel said
"As one who normally practices in the Chancery Division I am left wondering at the legal complications that may arise in the more sophisticated forms of larceny."
The Bill will reduce that wonder, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with the wilder habits of mussels to answer that legal poser.
The defects in the present law arise mainly from the fact that larceny is regarded as essentially a violation of the owner's rights of possession, and not of his rights of ownership. The offence depended originally on a "taking" of the property. Although this notion of taking was extended to certain cases of obtaining possession without a taking, and to certain cases of appropriation by a person in actual possession, larceny still does not cover many kinds of misappropriation which are indistinguishable from stealing. For example, a taking amounts to stealing only if the taker at the time of taking is acting fraudulently, and intends to deprive the owner permanently of the property. An innocent
214
acquisition followed by a dishonest decision to keep or dispose of property is, generally speaking not larceny. So a finder of lost property who intends to return the property to the owner is not guilty of larceny even if he changes his mind and dishonestly keeps or disposes of it. Again, larceny by finding is committed only where at the time of the finding the finder believes that the owner can be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
The law of larceny is also complicated by the existence of a great many separate statutory offences, some of them inconveniently divided between various Acts. The Larceny Acts 1861 and 1916 achieved some measure of consolidation, but there are many provisions in both Acts which are completely covered by other provisions in the same Act, even in the same section, and many of them are obsolete or unnecessary.
My Lords, I turn now to the simplifications in the law which we believe the Bill's redefinition of theft will achieve. First, embezzlement disappears as a separate offence. The distinction between embezzlement and larceny is one of the technicalities which the Committee thought should be abolished. At present the success of a prosecution may depend on such subtle questions as whether a clerk or servant has placed property in what the law regards as an employer's possession. If, for example, a cashier misappropriates money before putting it into the till he commits embezzlement; but after it goes into the till the money is regarded as being in the employer's possession, and if the employee then takes it out of the till, that is larceny. The enforcement of the law should not depend on the prosecution's guessing correctly how the courts will deal with such subtleties. He who steals is a thief, and this Bill will enable him to be charged as such.
Next, the separate offence of fraudulent conversion will disappear. The essence of this offence is misappropriation of property by a person who has possession of property on behalf of somebody else, but, as in the case of embezzlement, having a separate offence inevitably makes for difficulty and complexity. I have just mentioned a hypothetical case where money is taken from a till. Had the offender in my example been not a clerk or servant, but in some other

215
fiduciary relation to the person defrauded, his offence would, under the present law, be fraudulent conversion. Thus criminal conduct, which is in essence the same may be larceny, embezzlement or fraudulent conversion according to very fine points of distinction. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the courts should not have their time wasted in dealing with such technicalities.
The Committee's solution was a single offence of theft. This is Clause 1 of the Bill, and under it a person will be guilty of theft if he
"dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
Clauses 2 to 6 interpret the expressions used in this basic definition, and Clause 7 provides for a single maximum penalty. The law will thus concentrate on what the accused dishonestly achieved or attempted to achieve and not, as under the present law, on the means which he used in order to do so. In this way we avoid the need for a number of different offences which are all in the same family of theft.
The idea of dishonest appropriation, which underlies the new offence of theft, corresponds to the idea of "fraudulent conversion" in Section 20 of the Larceny Act 1916. But the new offence departs from the present offence of fraudulent conversion in dropping the requirement that the offender should, at the time of the conversion, be in actual possession of the property. The offence will thus extend to ordinary stealing by taking property from another's possession. It is as if fraudulent conversion were widened to include the whole of larceny and embezzlement under the umbrella of theft; but the new offence will also include as theft conduct which may not be criminal under the present law. One example is dishonest appropriation by a parent of things taken and brought home by a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility.
The word "dishonestly", which is very important, since dishonesty is a vital element in the offence, is partially defined in Clause 2. It replaces the requirement in the definition of stealing in the Larceny Act 1916 that the offender should take the property "fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith".
216
The effect of the definition in Clause 2 is to preserve the present rule that a "claim of right made in good faith" is inconsistent with theft, and also that a finder of property can be guilty of stealing only if he believes that the owner can be discovered by taking reasonable steps. The offence will apply to any kind of property; but under Clause 4 land, things forming part of land, wild creatures and things growing wild will be capable of being stolen only in defined circumstances. Generally speaking, a wild animal or plant can be stolen if it is taken for a commercial purpose.
We have included in the Bill Clause 6, which partially defines the expression,
"with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
so as to cover certain sets of circumstances, in which, although there may not be an "intention permanently to deprive" on a strict and literal meaning of the words, what is done amounts, for practical purposes, to permanent deprivation, and is larceny under the existing law. With Clause 6 we are providing as complete a statutory code as is practicable of this branch of the law. Without it we should have to rely on cases decided under the old law of larceny; and there would always be the risk of argument that the courts should not, after the Bill was passed, adhere to those cases.
Under Clause 7 the maximum penalty for theft will be ten years imprisonment. This replaces a whole "shopping list" of maxima for the offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion, ranging from six months, on first conviction for stealing a dog, to life imprisonment. Five years is the present penalty for simple larceny, and the increase to ten years may seem severe. But some increases—and decreases—of penalties are inevitable if we are to get rid of the present jumble. And already under the present law a person convicted on indictment of simple larceny may be sentenced to ten years if he has been previously convicted of larceny or, since the Criminal Law Act 1967, of any arrestable offence within the meaning of that Act. So already a thief with a serious previous conviction is liable to ten years imprisonment; and the courts will not contemplate sentences of that gravity except in the worst cases.

217
Clause 8 defines the offence of robbery which at present is not defined but rests on Common Law. The new offence of robbery will thus remove uncertainties. The essence of robbery is stealing by using force against the victim or putting him in fear. It will not be necessary for the person on whom the force is used, or who is threatened, to be the person from whom the property was stolen. The clause simply requires that force should have been used or threatened in order to steal, but it limits it to force used or threatened immediately before or at the time of the stealing. To give a simple example of the change made by the clause, if at the time of the "great train robbery" force had been used on a signalman instead of the driver of the train, this, under the Bill, would have been robbery. The maximum penalty for robbery or for an assault with intent to rob will be life imprisonment. At present the maximum penalty for robbery is fourteen years' imprisonment, but it is life if there is any of a number of aggravating features, one of which is the use of personal violence. Similarly, the present penalty for assault with intent to rob is five years' imprisonment, but life imprisonment can be imposed if the aggravating features are present. The single maximum penalty of life imprisonment simplifies the law and removes some anomalies. I do not think the House will have much doubt that the offence is one for which a general maximum of life imprisonment is appropriate.
Clauses 9 and 10 deal with burglary and aggravated burglary. They replace the complicated "breaking and entering offences" and provide that a person will be guilty of burglary (a) if he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of committing certain serious offences in it, or (b), if he commits any of those offences or attempts to do so after having entered the building or part of it as a trespasser. The existing law is unnecessarily complicated. It distinguishes between, for example, places of worship, dwelling-houses and other places. There is a bewildering variety of offences and some of them apply to some kinds of buildings and not to others. In some cases the offence depends on the breaking and entering being in the night. And the concept of "breaking" is itself unsatisfactory. For
218
example, "breaking" applies merely to turning a door handle or gaining admission by a false pretence, but often a breaking is difficult to prove. This Bill draws no distinction between different kinds of building or between night and day; the concept of breaking disappears and is replaced by the concept of entering as a trespasser.
Aggravated burglary, under Clause 10, will consist of burglary when in possession of a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon or offence or explosive. The Committee thought it desirable that burglary with these aggravating features should be a separate offence from ordinary burglary, as defined by Clause 9, so that the burglar who went armed should be punishable with imprisonment for life. Again I do not think noble Lords will be in much doubt that the severest penalty must be available for the armed burglar. The maximum penalty for ordinary burglary will be fourteen years imprisonment, replacing widely differing penalties which apply at present to burglary and various breaking and entering offences.
I now turn to Clause 11, which makes it an offence to remove a work of art or similar object from a museum, art gallery or similar place without authority, but without the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. The Committee regarded this as one of the exceptions which should be made to the general principle, in the Bill and under the present law, that temporary deprivation of property should not be stealing or any other offence. The removal of works of art and other objects from museums and similar places is a mischief which has given rise to a good deal of concern, not least among those responsible for our national art treasures. We all remember the removal of the Goya portrait of the Duke of Wellington from the National Gallery. Such objects are particularly vulnerable to being taken away in circumstances falling short of theft because they are displayed to the public and the public has access to them. Even if the removal of such an object is not, and is not intended to be, permanent, the taker may put at hazard of loss or damage something of great value or which is irreplaceable. Because of their vulnerability such objects and owners require special protection, and

219
this the clause aims to give. The offence it creates will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Clause 12 is also concerned with temporary deprivation. It replaces the present offences of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without authority under the Road Traffic Act 1960 and taking and using a vessel under the Vessels Protection Act 1967 by a new offence applying to conveyances generally, except pedal cycles. It creates a summary offence applying to pedal cycles. Taking and abandoning pedal bicycles has become a serious nuisance in some places. It causes hardship and inconvenience to the owners, and puts an unnecessary burden on the police. We have made the maximum penalty for taking pedal cycles a £50 fine.
Clause 15 is another major provision. It provides that new offences of criminal deception should replace a number of existing offences concerned with obtaining by false pretences or other deception or with practising deception in order to obtain something. Under subsection (1) of the clause it will be an offence dishonestly to obtain by deception property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The definition of the word "deception" replaces the words "false pretences" in the 1916 Larceny Act. Because of it the new offence will be committed not only where there is a false pretence as to an existing fact but also where there is a false pretence about an intention. The courts have interpreted the present offence of obtaining by false pretences as applying only to a pretence about an existing fact. Thus, in one case, it was held that a man who worked as a pest destroyer was not guilty of obtaining money by false pretences when he obtained it under contracts to destroy pests when he had no intention whatever of carrying out the contract.
Because of the decision of this House in the case of Fisher v. Raven in 1964, this sort of conduct also does not amount to the offence of obtaining credit by fraud under Section 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869. If, however, the accused had obtained his money for some useless product which he sold to householders as a pest-destroying specific but which he knew to be useless, he would have
220
been guilty of obtaining money by false pretences because the pretence would have been as to a fact—the nature of the contents of the bottle. The definition of deception in subsection (4) of the clause removes this kind of anomaly, and makes a change in the law which was suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, as Lord Chancellor, when this House was considering the case of Fisher v. Raven. The penalty for the offence under subsection (1) will be ten years imprisonment, the same as for theft. Under subsection (2) of the clause it will be an offence with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, to obtain credit or further credit by deception. This replaces, with some changes, the offence of obtaining credit by deception under the Debtors Act, 1869.
Subsection (3) creates a general offence of dishonestly, with a view to gain, inducing a person by deception to do or refrain from doing any act. This does not correspond to any general offence under the present law, although it will supersede a number of offences of deception in existing Statutes. The main object is to cover cases of dishonest deception which ought to be criminal and which are not or may not be dealt with under the present law: for example, dishonestly inducing a person to release an offender from payment of a debt or to give him a rebate or allowance; or dishonestly obtaining employment or some other contract or opportunity to get money or money's worth.
I now come to Clause 20—blackmail. It is an astonishing fact—at least, astonishing to me—that there is at present no offence called "blackmail". In this clause we create one, to replace the group of offences of demanding property with menaces and similar conduct. When this Bill becomes an Act a person will be guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces. For the purpose of the clause a demand with menaces is unwarranted, unless the person making it believes that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and that the use of menaces is an appropriate means of reinforcing the demand. I have tried to think of a precise case of "unwarranted", but I am not quite sure. I shall have to leave it

221
to the courts. The penalty for blackmail will be fourteen years imprisonment. The comparable offences in the Larceny Act 1916 carry penalties of life imprisonment, five years, and two years. Blackmail can be an extremely cruel offence, apart from being a detestable offence, and it seemed to the Committee, as it does to the Government, that a general maximum penalty of fourteen years was not excessive to cater for the worst cases.
Clause 21 replaces, with a new offence of handling stolen goods, existing offences of receiving stolen property. The new offence will be committed not just by a receiver, as now understood, but also by anyone who dishonestly helps in keeping, removing or disposing of the stolen goods or arranges to do so. It will, for example, catch the intermediary who puts a thief in touch with a buyer; or the man who knowingly moves the stolen goods from one hiding place to another. In this respect the Bill carries forward the extension of the offence of receiving made by Section 4(7) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which the Bill supersedes and repeals. The maximum penalty for this offence is fourteen years imprisonment. It is a higher penalty than the ten years for theft, but the same penalty as at present. It seems right that such a severe penalty should still be available for the large-scale handler of stolen goods who encourages, and may indeed arrange, major crimes.
Clause 24, is a useful clause which should strengthen the hand of the police. It makes it an offence for anyone to have with him, when not at his place of abode, any article for use in the course of, or in connection with, any burglary theft or criminal deception. This replaces several offences of which the best known is possessing housebreaking implements by night. The existing offences are capable of being committed only at night, a restriction which is abolished in the offence under the Bill. In addition, the offence in the clause is not confined to housebreaking implements so that it will be committed by, for example, the car thief who has with him car keys or false number plates, or the confidence trickster with the traditional "gold brick" in his pocket. The proposed penalty for the new offence is three years compared with five years for the corresponding offences under Section 28 of the 1916 Act, or ten
222
years after a previous conviction for an offence under the section or for an arrest-able offence. The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered that three years was adequate for an offence which is essentially of a preparatory nature; and I agree with them.
It only remains, I think, to make a special mention of Clause 29. This is an interesting clause, because it provides that husbands and wives should be liable, as if they were not married, for offences under the Bill by one spouse against the other's property. It also makes two changes in the position of husbands and wives under the criminal law generally. It enables them to prosecute each other as if they were not married; and it makes it clear consequentially that husbands and wives are competent witnesses in such prosecutions and that they are competent witnesses in prosecutions instituted against the other spouse by a third party for an offence against the spouse or his or her property.
Broadly speaking, husbands and wives who are living together cannot at present steal from one another unless the offender is "leaving or deserting or about to leave or desert" the wronged party. But while, of course, nobody would want petty disputes between husbands and wives to get to the courts in the form of allegations of theft, it is possible for a spouse systematically to make away with the property of the other, and it seems wrong that the criminal law should not be able to deal with that kind of situation. The occasions on which there is a question of prosecuting husbands and wives for offences against each other's property are not likely to be frequent. If the spouses are living together neither is likely to see much point in getting the other sent to prison or fined. But we have added a safeguard against whatever risk there may be of vexatious prosecutions, by requiring the authority of the Director of Prosecutions for prosecutions for stealing, and malicious damage to, the other spouse's property.
My Lords, I am conscious that there are issues raised by the Bill which I have not touched upon, and which the House may wish to consider now or at later stages; but I have tried, at the risk of wearying the House, to draw attention to all the main changes made by the Bill and

223
the principles underlying it. May I in conclusion repeat what was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House last November:
"Our law of theft has been in a mess for a long time"
and:
"The Criminal Law Revision Committee have done an excellent job and a beautiful piece of drafting ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/11/67, col. 397.]
I feel sure, therefore, that your Lordships, who will have had the advantge of reading their very detailed Report, will give full weight to their opinions on the many important issues raised by this Bill and that you will give it Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stonham.)

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
4.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to report to the House on the present position of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.
"The number of outbreaks has continued at a low level since I last reported to the House in a debate on January 30. In the week ending at midnight last night there were seven outbreaks, almost the same number as in the preceding week. In view of this, I have been able to make substantial reductions in the size of the controlled area, releasing those parts of the country which are now distant from the remaining centres of infection.
"This is encouraging. But deafly the epidemic has not yet been stamped out. When I made my statement about meat imports on December 4, I said that, in any event, the arrangements would he reviewed in three months time; that is, by March 4. This review is being undertaken, and we are also studying the first results of the investigations carried out by my veterinary advisers into the origin of the present
224
epidemic. I propose to announce before March 4 results of the review. In the meantime the arrangements announced on December 4 will continue.
"I have already told the House that I propose to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into our policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. I am glad to say that the Duke of Northumberland has accepted my invitation to act as Chairman of this Committee of Inquiry. The terms of reference will be:
'To review the policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and to make recommendations.'
I hope that the Committee will make a full investigation of the circumstances of the recent epidemic and advise on the policy that should be adopted to control foot-and-mouth disease in this country in the light of the latest scientific knowledge. I am about to invite a number of other possible members to serve."
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for reading out the Statement made in another place. I welcome the news that the epidemic seems to be subsiding and that the outbreaks are now at a low level; and perhaps I may express the hope that soon they will have died out altogether. May I also welcome his announcement of the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry? As the noble Lord is aware, there has been some criticism of the delay in making this announcement, but now that we have heard the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, we shall all agree that it was well worth waiting for.
With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the review, which is still going on, of the temporary ban on imported meat from sources where the disease is endemic, I note that no decision has been made yet, and I hope that the silence on this matter to-day indicates that the temporary ban will be continued during the period of the Inquiry. Is the noble Lord aware that the devastating losses that have occurred in the farming world have caused immense anxiety, and that it

225
would be a very great relief to know that this ban is to continue at any rate until a long-term policy has been decided?
With regard to the long-term policy on meat imports from sources where foot-and-mouth is endemic, will the noble Lord confirm that the terms of reference of the Inquiry, which he has read out to us, include a review of the sources of supply of our meat, including importation from sources where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, because this could be a major factor for the Committee of Inquiry? If importation from these sources with endemic foot-and-mouth continues, the Committee of Inquiry might very well make one recommendation with regard to the best method of controlling the disease. On the other hand, if it were decided not to continue to import from such sources, they might very well recommend another method of controlling the disease in this country. Therefore, it is vitally important to them. But may I express my best wishes to the Inquiry in this very important matter?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may reply at once to what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has just said. First, I would say that I share with him—and, indeed, I am sure, the whole House—the hope that this epidemic will shortly be completely stamped out. May I thank him, too, for the welcome which he has given to the appointment of the Duke of Northumberland. I am sure, as the noble Lord says, that the appointment will carry the confidence not only of all sections of the farming community but also of the rest of the country. I am glad to tell the noble Lord that the terms of reference are certainly as wide as those given to the Gowers Committee, and will enable the Committee of Inquiry to deal with the matters to which he referred. They can make recommendations about imports, although, of course, those recommendations will be based on animal health considerations, and the ultimate decision in these matters must necessarily rest with the Government, who must take into account all the national considerations.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said in relation to this Inquiry? So far as the
226
terms of reference are concerned, I think he has put his finger on a weak spot. The terms of reference can possibly be stretched to mean almost everything, but in fact they do not cover prevention. They cover dealing with the disease, and they cover control, but they do not cover prevention. I think the Government will have to think very closely about this point which the noble Lord made, because it is not enough to say that terms of reference such as were given to the Gowers Committee are wide enough for this Inquiry. They must be a little wider.
In relation to the ban, may I just say this? Obviously, the Ministry of Agriculture will have to come to a decision on this ban long before the Committee can report. I personally hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that the ban will be extended until that time. Nevertheless, the Minister of Agriculture is under very considerable pressure from other interests, and I hope that what I may term "blackmail" from the Argentine will not be listened to too closely.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said will be borne in mind. With regard to the Committee's terms of reference, I do not think he properly heard what I read out at the end of my right honourable friend's Statement, when he said that he hoped the Committee would
"make a full investigation of the circumstances of the recent epidemic and advise on the policy that should be adopted to control foot-and-mouth disease in this country…"
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is known how many farms there are in the restricted area which has not yet been affected by the disease?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I could not answer that question without notice, but I will certainly send the information to the noble Marquess.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, express a word of thanks to the Minister for the Statement that he has given to us of the Committee has been appointed will I know that the news that the Chairman give the greatest satisfaction. May I also

227
add my word to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in wishing this Committee well? At the same time, perhaps I may remind the Minister—although I am sure he does not need any reminder—that the people concerned in this epidemic have passed through a traumatic experience, and it is therefore very important that their confidence should be restored at the earliest possible moment.
I hope that the ban on meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic will be kept on until this Committee, possibly with an Interim Report, have been able to consider this particular issue. But may I also remind the Minister that there are other matters, which I think will probably be outside the terms of reference of the Committee, about which some assurance is needed? There are these questions of compensation, for instance, and the question of the encouragement of the employment of skilled labour, so that these men are not lost from the places where they are so greatly needed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right, of course, in saying that there are other considerations. They were touched upon in the debate which we had in this House, and I hope that what I said then indicated that the Minister is fully aware of them.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, may I be allowed to express my thanks to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement to-day, and also to welcome the appointment of the noble Duke as Chairman of this Committee? I think it would be difficult, if I may say so, to find a more suitable person to fill this very difficult post. The noble Lord will perhaps remember that in the debate the other day I said, I think wrongly, that I understood the Inquiry was to be held in public. But, to clear up that matter, can the noble Lord assure the House that in fact the Report of the Inquiry will be made public after the Inquiry has taken place? Also, could he say anything today about the size of the Committee, and from what fields of experience its members will be drawn? Further, can the noble Lord give me any idea when this Committee will be able to start work? He will agree, surely, that it is a very
228
urgent matter. Perhaps he can also say something about another point which I raised with him the other day, on the question whether the secretariat which will serve the Committee is already at work and preparing what one might call advance information in a dossier which will help the members of the Inquiry in their work when they get down to it.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. The Committee is expected to be about the same size as the Gowers Committee, which noble Lords will remember was eight in number, including the Chairman. It is expected that the appointment of the members will follow fairly quickly. It is a matter to be entered into after full consultation with the Chairman; but, certainly, it is hoped that the Committee will be able to start work fairly soon. I assure the House that the Working Party to which I referred when the noble Lord raised the relevant matter of getting and collating information now has a mass of information already there to be put before the Committee when it starts work.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord not to dismiss lightly what my noble friend Lord Henley said? The terms of reference used the phrase "dealing with". The statement talks about "controlling" foot and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom or in this country. What many of us are worried about is the prevention of it in the future. I submit that those two words "dealing" and "controlling" in this country do not necessarily cover prevention by the banning of imported tinned meat.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have just the same feeling of worry, especially when the Minister, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seemed to think that "control" was the same as "prevention". It obviously is not. "Control" assumes that the disease is there; "prevention" means not allowing it to arise. To the ordinary person who is not versed in the technicalities of this matter, one of the main elements in the problem has been the question of vaccination, which has been tremendously argued upon by lay people and which has given rise to a great deal of correspondence in the newspapers. That is very important indeed; but it might well be said that it has nothing to do with control; that it is purely

229
a question of prevention. If the Committee cannot go into this problem of vaccination then I am sure it will be a disaster. I hope that the Minister will look at the terms of reference again and make it quite clear that prevention is covered.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any doubt in the minds of those who have spelled out the terms of reference, nor, if I may venture to say so, in the mind of the Chairman who has been appointed. The terms of reference are very wide. I spoke about "control" and other noble Lords used the word "prevention". In fact, in the terms of reference it speaks of "arrangements for dealing with". Certainly, the question of imports from abroad will be within the terms of reference of, and within those matters to be considered by, the Committee. Indeed, the Gowers Committee sent representatives, if they did not go themselves, to various countries in different parts of the world, including South America. There is no reason to believe that this Committee, if it so wishes, will not also go. The only point I made was that the final decision, in regard to the trading policy of this country, must be a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while welcoming the appointment of the noble Duke as Chairman of the Committee, which I think is excellent, may I ask whether there will be an Interim Report or any time limit set on the Committee's work? Sometimes these Committees hang on for a long time. This is a matter of great urgency, and I hope that either an Interim Report will be made or that the Minister may be able to set a time limit.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the Chairman realises the urgency of this matter. It is not for the Government to set a time-limit; but clearly we want, on the one hand, a deep-searching and authoritative investigation and, consistent with that, a Report as early as possible.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, in regard to the question of preventing foot-and-mouth disease from being introduced here, may I ask whether we should not immediately ban the import of bone manure from endemic countries?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is an opinion which is shared by many.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCFITER: My Lords, although I agree with everything that has been said this afternoon—and anything that could prevent a recurrence of this terrible disease must take first preference—may I draw the Minister's attention to the other side of this issue? I happen to know that there are £150 million worth of exports involved with South America. I should like the Minister to bear in mind the value of that trade to us. If some sort of compromise solution could be worked out, which in no way left the possibility of this disease coming back again, I think it would be worth studying. For instance, I would suggest that bone meal is prohibited, and possibly also meat on the bone; or something of that nature.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord indicates the other considerations that have been the reason for the delay in reaching a decision on this matter.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Debate continued.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, thought that the subject that has just been under discussion might involve blackmail from the Argentine, I hope that I may draw the House back to the question of blackmail in this country and other offences dealt with in the Theft Bill. I suppose it is only those who, like myself, are allowed to deal with the simplest cases of larceny who still think that the definition of larceny in the 1916 Act is the approximate of Holy Writ. Nevertheless, it came as an astonishment to me to read the Criminal Law Revision Committee Report and to find out how defective not only that definition but a great deal of the rest of the Taw on this subject has become. It is not only the cases decided in 1824 which have caused the trouble; surprises still turn up, such as the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of Fisher v. Raven which was decided in your

231
Lordships' House in 1964 and apparently put an end to what had been a common form of prosecution for an offence which had always been thought perfectly proper theretofore.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee Report is, indeed, a monumental work and one which is fascinating to read. Incidentally, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if he has a Report like this upon questions such as were raised by the Street Offences Bill of last week will find himself very well done by indeed. I entirely accept that the moment has now come to think of a restatement of the essence of these offences, bringing about a simplification and a complete tidying-up of the law on this matter. It is also very right indeed that the House—indeed everybody interested in this subject—should thank the Committee for the formidable job they have done and for the reasoning which is so clearly set out—at least in most cases—in the Report.
It will not, I trust, be considered a criticism of them if I draw the attention of the House to one or two points on which I think it will certainly be rewarding to have some extra throught in the course of the passage of this Bill through Parliament. I will try not to fall into the error of dealing with Committee points on Second Reading; but there is one substantial point of theory that I consider should be dealt with at this stage. I rather think my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, may have something to say about it as well. It is clear, in the new definition of theft in this Bill, that it is no part of the essence of the offence that gain or loss to the thief or to anybody else should form part of the underlying theory of the offence. Indeed, it is quite clear from Clause 1(2) and from Clause 2(2) that this consideration does not come in at all. I think the same applies when one looks at Clause 15, so far as the first two subsections are concerned.
There runs through the Bill the whole question of dishonesty; and this has been used, I think, to mean very much the same thing as has previously been represented by "fraudulence" in the existing law. I seriously wonder whether the consideration of the Committee has
232
quite followed through to the proper conclusion the abandonment of the use of "fraudulently", and all that it has been construed to mean—and whether they may not have produced later on in the Bill some definitions of these offences which are going to cause exactly the same sort of trouble as a result of judicial decisions as have occurred in the criminal law we are attempting to clear up. There are a number of other offences—not the one of theft nor of criminal deception under Clause 15(1) and 15(2), but others I shall mention—where an inherent part of the crime itself is causing gain to oneself or loss to another, and your Lordships should realise, as I have no doubt is the case, that this matter is dealt with in the definition clauses; because it will be seen that in Clause 33(2)(a) "gain" and "loss" are defined as
"extending only to gain or loss in money or money's worth, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent".
My Lords, it may be—it certainly has been suggested—that instead of thinking in terms of gain and loss in the monetary sense, the real underlying and indeed the common concept which runs through all these offences is an intention to prejudice the rights of others; not just their pecuniary rights, but their rights in general, or to prejudice the interests of the State. I should have thought that when it comes to blackmail under Clause 20, or the new "hold-all" crime of criminal deception under Clause 15(3): or false accounting; or suppression of documents; there may be things other than monetary gain and loss which lie behind the crime and which, if these definitions are not changed, will cease to be crimes. They are crimes at the moment, but they will cease to be crimes under the Bill: for instance, the destruction of another person's reputation; or the wish to obtain the custody of a child of whom one is not entitled to have the custody; or the intention to cover up, not some future misconduct, but something that has already taken place in the past may well, I suggest, not be taken into account by this insistence upon gain and loss in the Bill.
There is no coherent application of these principles. I have already mentioned that in Clauses 15(3), 16, 19 and 20 the test is the gain and the loss in

233
the pecuniary sense. But it is not in the main offences of criminal deception under Clause 15(1) and (2). There are some other curiosities, because, for instance, under Clause 13 which relates to abstracting electricity, gain does not come into it but loss does; whereas under Clause 15(3) gain comes into it but loss does not. I should have thought that it would be necessary to look very carefully at these matters in order to make sure that we have got it right. Incidentally, I should have thought that a great deal wider definition was required under Clause 13 because I believe that this is a very useful "catch-all" crime. I may be wrong about this, but it might deal with such things as obscene telephone calls and matters of that nature. If I am right, then I should not have thought that the definition in Clause 13 would be apt to cover such offences.
My Lords, there is another curious introduction of the concept of gain which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It appears in Clause 4(3), which relates to mushrooms and wild flowers or plants, and in subsection (4), which relates to animals. Reading the Report, I think it is clear that "wild animals" includes fishes. I think it is a matter for considerable thought whether the test of the commercial taking of these items should be the one that underlies the question of whether or not it is theft. I should have thought that someone who went out and took game and put it in a deep-freeze and kept it for a long period, but did not propose to sell it was just as much of a nuisance, and just as guilty of the sort of thing one is talking about in these subsections, as someone who went straight off and sold the game in the market.
I wonder whether this does not bring in another difficult proposition. It is always a problem to know what is and what is not an offence in territorial waters, but I should have thought that the effect of subsection (4) would be to make all commercial fishermen in trawlers or any other boats guilty of theft every time they caught a fish. To me this would appear to be one interpretation of the definition in Clause 4(4), and I am certain that is not intended. This is a fundamental point and one which applies to the whole definition. I can find no clear exposition in the Criminal Law Re-
234
vision Committee's Report of why they have changed between gain and loss and both and neither in these various concepts, and I think we ought to discuss this point later on in Committee.
Then, my Lords, there are other and somewhat more miscellaneous points which perhaps I may mention at this stage, if only to give the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, an idea of what is in people's minds. I refer to Clause 2 and particularly perhaps subsection (1)(b). This is a parallel consideration with the definition of blackmail in Clause 20, and it relates to the use of the word "reasonable". It is perfectly clear from the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report that these defences, which is what they are in each case, involve a subjective belief on the part of the person who is accused of the matters which make up the defence as set out in the Bill.
Then it comes to be considered whether, for instance, the person to whom the property belongs can or cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps, or, in the case of blackmail, whether the person believed he had reasonable grounds for making a demand. Are these two sorts of reasonableness to be objective reasonableness which ought to be judged by the jury on the ground of what a man in the Clapham omnibus would think, or are they involved in, the subjectivity of the accused person's belief? Again, I am not sure that there may not be considerable trouble (indeed, there has been trouble already) about "reasonable" and "probable" in the field of blackmail. I think that there may be trouble here as well.
Your Lordships' House will be grateful for the explanations given by the noble Lord, particularly his explanation of Clause 6. This is indeed new, and I should like very carefully to consider what he has said. If he is right in saying that it will avoid any difficulty about the possible attribution of interpretation to various decisions which were taken before this Bill, and will make certain what it is the Bill means with out having to go back to old case law, then I have no doubt that it is the sort of thing which ought to be in the Bill. But I should like particularly to consider what the noble Lord said.

235
Then there is a small point, but one which I think is dubious, that occurs in Clause 9(3). This relates to burglary in a houseboat, caravan or some other inhabited vehicle or vessel. Is it the intention of the Government that the vehicle or vessel should have to be actually inhabited at the time of the crime? Or would it be sufficient if it was a vehicle or vessel that was generally inhabited, even though there was nobody at home upon that occasion? I do not think that the Bill is clear on this point.
I now move on to Clause 11. The noble Lord explained that this was the Government's implementation of the suggestion put forward by the Committee which they did not include in their draft Bill. I welcome the theory which under lies this clause, but again I am afraid that I must pick a bone with the noble Lord about this test of commerciality. I am not sure that this is the right way to do it. The protection which is given under this clause applies only, among other things, if the object of admitting the public is not a commercial one. Then subsection (2), among other things, sets out what is the commercial object. It is quite clear, I should have thought, that anybody who opens his house to the public as a private individual is capable of getting within the protection, provided that he does not have any excess of income over the expenditure incurred in connection with the admission of the public and the upkeep or management of the building. But if he does have any surplus, unless it is going to Her Majesty or to a local authority or for an ecclesiastical or charitable purpose, he has no protection.
I should have thought that this was a thoroughly untenable method of distinction between two types of house or other building, the contents of which are meant to be protected by this clause. It is not uncommon now for people who have houses worth looking at by the public to obtain a grant from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and one of the terms of these grants is that the public should be admitted thereafter. But the question of whether the contents will be protected by the new criminal offence created by Clause 12 will depend entirely on the level of the admission charges the owner happens to make. So I understand it. I think that
236
this makes no sense at all. I think that the clause needs widening and to be much more comprehensive.
Moving on rather more rapidly now to the later parts of the Bill, I am glad to have in Clauses 22 and 23 a new and much more comprehensive definition of what used to be receiving. I expect that difficulties will arise in fairly large numbers under Clause 23(2), because it is a complicated piece of drafting. There may be some method of simplifying it. At any rate, the genuine thought given to this matter by the Committee, and the lucid way in which they worked out how this offence is going to overlap with the offence of theft, are entirely acceptable. The general reasoning on this matter seems an admirable example of the clear way they have approached this problem, apart from clearing up in the details of the Criminal Justice Act last year, a number of difficulties that have for a long time bedevilled the law of receiving.
In Clause 25 there are other matters which I think will also have to be thought over. I see the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in his place, and it may well be that he will take the view that under subsection (2) of the clause a superintendent of police should not be allowed to authorise a constable, without any warrant from the justices, to go and search private premises in the way the clause provides. I know that the Committee made this recommendation because they said that at present it is only the chief constable who can do this, and since the police forces have been amalgamated and enlarged it is not so easy in such cases to get a chief constable's authority. But I am not a bit happy. This may be a dangerous principle, and I cannot see why there is a substantial difficulty in getting a justice's warrant, if that is the proper way of doing it as a general rule. I should be glad if the noble Lord would explain a little more than perhaps the Law Revision Committee did why he thinks this is right.
Clause 27 is a complete reproduction of the clause in the draft Bill the Committee recommended, but I do not think we have been given any clear exposition of how it is that, under Clause 27(1)(a), under this new and much wider system of restoration, a third party may be made subject to an order of the court requiring

237
him to give up goods without any opportunity of being heard. It does not say anything about the circumstances in which he came to obtain the goods, and there must be cases when a person subject to an order like this from the court, who has not himself been accused, will think it unfair and strange if he is not given an opportunity to explain to the court why an order should not be made against him. This again is a general matter, relating to the freedom of the individual and of his property, which ought not to be passed unnoticed by your Lordships' House.
There will be a great many points raised in Committee, but the fact remains that noble Lords on these Benches welcome this Bill, which sets out a new law on this subject. I believe that the whole House will be most anxious that when the Bill leaves us it shall be as correct and perfect as possible, so that it will not fall into the errors that have occurred in past legislation. We must be delighted to see that the Schedule of Repeals at the back of the Bill stretches over an enormous number of Acts, which certainly lightens the Statute Book a great deal. I hope that the House will welcome the Bill most heartily on its Second Reading and speed it on its way.
4.55 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I hope it will not be thought presumptious for a humble member of the legal profession to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in congratulating and thanking the Criminal Law Revision Committee for the Report upon which this Bill is based. It may be appropriate for a member of the junior branch of the legal profession to say a word or two on a Bill of this kind. It seems to me that this Bill has two great virtues. The first is that the Committee rejected the idea of trying to consolidate and improve the existing law, and took the bold and imaginative course of getting down to basic principles and rewriting the law from the beginning. That is a very great advantage. One has only to look at the third Schedule to the Bill, at the enormous number of enactments that have been repealed, to see the amount of dead wood which has been cut away and cast into limbo.
238
The second great virtue of the Bill is that it is written in language which is simple and comprehensible to ordinary people. I think that all too often the Statute Book is defaced by Acts of Parliament which are incomprehensible to ordinary people. That may not matter so very much if they are dealing with the law of companies or property, because people working in these fields usually know sufficient about them to find their way around, or they have access to professional advice; but to me it is disgraceful to put on the Statute Book an Act which touches the vital things in the lives of ordinary people and express it in a way which ordinary people cannot be expected to understand. One of the most disgraceful Acts of Parliament from that point of view—I am saying nothing about the content—was the Rent Act 1966, which affected millions of tenants and which it is impossible to understand unless one has a pretty close working knowledge of all the Rent Restriction Acts, trailing back to 1923. How much more important it is in a criminal Statute that the wording should be comprehensible and clear! That is the masterly achievement of this Bill.
If I may be allowed, I would not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in the points which he made, but would like to speak for a moment on one aspect of the Bill. I am concerned about the new maximum penalties which are being prescribed, because the number of different types of offence which can be committed in misappropriation of other people's property is being vastly reduced by this Bill and because, in particular, the new offence of theft comprises and encompasses all sorts of existing offences including embezzlement and fraudulent conversion. Because that is happening it has been necessary to reconsider the maximum penalties, for the maximum penalties for simple larceny, for example, and embezzlement are at this moment quite different. Therefore it became necessary, as soon as a number of existing offences were joined together in one offence of theft, to look at the maximum penalties. In exactly the same way, when you join together the offence of criminal deception with many existing offences, again there have to be attached different maximum penalties, and it was necessary to look at them.

239
What has been done is this. In this Bill, in the case of the new offence of theft, the maximum penalty is put at ten years; and in the case of criminal deception, equally the maximum penalty is put at ten years. What is the practical result of this? In what is to-day simple larceny the maximum penalty is being increased from five years to ten years; and in the case of false pretences the maximum penalty is, again, being increased from five years to ten years. I should have thought that, on any showing, that is a serious step to take, and it ought not to be taken without due consideration.
May I make four brief observations upon what I think is the importance of this matter. It must be true that the offences of simple larcency and false pretences make up a large proportion of all kinds of offences of misappropriation of property. I do not know what the proportion is, but it must be considerable. Therefore, if you are going to increase, as you do in this Bill, in fact double, the penalties for that wide range of offences, you are obviously going to take a step of considerable importance, and it is a major revision in the law. My second observation is this. These penalties—five years maximum for theft and false pretences—have stood for fifty years or more. Indeed, I am not sure that they have not stood since the Larceny Act 1861, but certainly they have stood since the Larceny Act 1916. I do not know that anybody has complained during that time that those maximum penalties were too low. Indeed, in the Report itself the Committee do not say, so far as simple larceny is concerned, that they consider five years is too low, although they do so in the case of false pretences. But these are penalties that have stood their time. It is surely a fairly startling thing in 1968 to be doubling penalties for simple larceny and false pretences, after they have been on the Statute Book for that length of time.
The third point is that this alteration in penalities for simple larceny, in particlar, involves a curious anomaly—in fact, it involves a set of anomalies. I will give only one example. Under the existing law the maximum penalty for the offence of falsification of accounts is seven years imprisonment, and under this Bill it will
240
remain at seven years in prison. What does that mean? It means that the maximum penalty for what is now simple larceny is going up to ten years, overtaking the offence of falsification of accounts, which has, as it were, fallen in the hierarchy of mischief. I do not think it is even in the "top ten" now. But is it to be said that something has happened during these last fifty years which has increased the moral iniquity of the offence of simple larceny, and has made the moral iniquity of falsification of accounts less? Possibly we should have to seek assistance of the Lords Spiritual to find an answer to that question.
The last observation I want to make about these changes is this. When the Committee were considering revision of the law, redefinition of the law and redrafting of the law, of course their authority was pre-eminent. We could not have had a more authoritative body to pronounce upon matters of that kind. But when one comes to the question of penalties and punishment, I suggest that new considerations come into view, questions of penology and sociology, and one cannot safely leave the matter of punishment and penalty entirely to the lawyers. This is a matter for this House and for the other place, and a matter for the public generally, when we are talking about penalties which have to be attached to particular offences.
The Report itself recognised that this proposal to increase the penalty for simple larceny from five years to ten years would invite criticism; indeed, the Committee anticipated the criticism. I should like, very briefly, to refer to the arguments which they advanced in support of their proposals. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, they said that, although under the present law the maximum penalty for simple larceny is five years, nevertheless if the person convicted has had a previous conviction, either for larceny or for any other felony, the maximum penalty is then ten years. I do not consider that that is really an answer to the objection to raising the penalty for simple larceny in this way. What is the object of having maximum penalties at all? Surely, one of the objects, at any rate, is to give guidance to the courts as to the gravity which Parliament attaches to any particular offence. If you make an overall maximum penalty for all kinds of theft of ten years, you give no indication

241
to the courts as to whether you draw any distinction between the gravity of the offence of, say, simple larceny and that of the offence of something more complicated, such as embezzlement.
The second argument which was advanced in the Report was that the Committee were recommending a general increase of penalties. I accept that. They pointed out that although the maximum penalty for a new theft is to be put at ten years, the maximum penalty for the old offence of embezzlement is being reduced from fourteen years to ten years. And they point out, quite rightly, that the maximum penalty for blackmail and for ordinary burglary is being reduced from life imprisonment to fourteen years. But I do not quite understand the logic of this. Can it really be said that if they are reducing the maximum penalties for certain offences, there is some justification for increasing the maximum penalty for another offence? It does not seem to me to follow logically. I do not think that in this context you can properly argue that what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts. It would not be very much consolation to the petty thief to be told that the penalty for his offence has been put up but that he may console himself with the thought that his blackmailing brother in crime is being dealt with more leniently.
The last argument—I hope I have summarised the arguments accurately—is this. In their Report, in defence of their proposal, the Committee say that there is no need for alarm about this because the practice of the courts over the period of the last fifty years or so has changed with regard to sentencing; that in these days what is necessary is that Parliament should lay down the penalty appropriate to the worst type of offence, and that then one can safely leave it to the discretion of the courts to apply the proper penalty in each individual case. I am sorry to say that at present I am not persuaded by these arguments, and I think that this matter must be further considered.
The argument that there is no need for alarm, and that we can safely leave these matters to the discretion of the court in individual cases, is really, it seems to me, an argument for abolishing maximum penalties altogether. If we can
242
safely rely upon the courts to deal justly with everyone who comes to court there is no need to have maximum penalties at all. Why do we have them? I suggest that we have them for two reasons. The first is to give guidance to the court as to what gravity Parliament attaches to the particular offence; and the second, and perhaps more important, is to introduce uniformity as between the practices of different courts. As soon as one increases the penalty for simple larceny—and here it is doubled—to that extent one enlarges the area in which courts may differ in their sentencing practice.
This is an important matter because it is well known to members of my profession, and I am sure to members of the Bar, too, that if you are acting for the defence of somebody who is likely to be found guilty, or to be pleading guilty, there are some magistrates, some judges and some chairmen of sessions before whom you would not wish to come: you would like to have a choice. Of course, this is inevitable and inescapable, because everybody has individual views upon these matters, but the reason why there is difference in sentencing policy as between one judge and another is not due only to the idiosyncratic differences between different judges but is due to something more fundamental; namely, that there is often a profound difference between individual members of the Bench as to what is the purpose of punishment.
At this time of day I am not going to embark upon a dissertation on the old question of whether punishment is for the purposes of deterrence, of rehabilitation or of retribution, but it is an odd fact that we can look in vain in the Statute Book of this country to find guidance as to what the purposes and objects of punishment—and in particular imprisonment—may be. The result is that there is a wide difference of view as between one judge and another. It seems to me that if a judge has a preference for a so-called deterrent penalty, and he thinks the first object of punishment is to deter other people from committing the same sort of offence as the offender before him has committed, he is almost bound to pronounce a sentence different from that which will be pronounced by the judge who takes the view that the first

243
object of punishment is something appropriate to that particular offender and that particular offence.
It seems to me inescapable that if we are going to punish for the purpose of deterrence the punishment will be different from that which will be given if we are attempting to rehabilitate the offender. We pay lip service, at any rate, to the theme that the object of imprisonment is the rehabilitation of the offender. I say that we pay lip service to it; but I am afraid I cannot believe that it is in more than a very small minority of cases that we have any success in rehabilitating the prisoner in the present conditions of our prisons. I am bound to say that I prefer the view of Oscar Wilde, who said that in prison
"Some go mad and all grow bad".
Here, at least, we adhere to the humanitarian principle that we do not put a man in prison for his degradation but with the object of rehabilitating him and making him fit to come into society again. But when any judge sentences a man, not for what he thinks he deserves, or what will do him good, or what is appropriate to that offender or his rehabilitation, but with the object of making an example of him, and so hoping to deter other people from doing the same thing, in my opinion not only is it an injustice to the individual but it also creates grave problems in the prisons. Because the object, and I believe the first duty, of the prisons is to try to render the man fit to return and lead an honest life in society, and there they have delivered into their hands somebody who has received a sentence which is, by definition, not the sentence that is appropriate for him. My Lords, for these reasons I feel some concern about this Bill and the penalties it imposes, and I hope that during the course of its passage these matters may be considered afresh.
The last thing I wish to say is that I do not believe that the difficulties about which I have been speaking are incurable. The Committee themselves, and the authors of the Bill, have in one instance said, "Yes, it is quite all right to distinguish between one offence and another for the purposes of penalty". What they have done in the case of burglary is to say that ordinary burglary will attract a maximum penalty of fourteen years but
244
that in aggravated burglary the penalty shall be life imprisonment. The difference between ordinary burglary and aggravated burglary is that the latter is something done while the offender is at the same time using a weapon or an explosive. I can see no basic objection in principle to making a similar distinction between simple theft and, if you like, aggravated theft. It is only a matter of trying to work out a satisfactory definition. Therefore, there is no real matter of principle involved.
I do not believe that the grave problems of crime with which this country is faced to-day will be solved in our criminal courts by piling on the penalties. I do not believe that the solution of these matters lies there at all, and I think that, so long as we persuade ourselves to believe that, we shall divert our attention from the fields of human activities in which the real causes of crime and the solutions to the problems of crime are to be found.
5.20 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I was glad to hear noble Lords who preceded me describe this Eighth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee as a monumental Report. I think it undoubtedly is a monumental Report. It is packed with learning and wisdom, based upon a range and variety of experience which it is difficult to conceive of as being assembled otherwise than within the confines of a Committee of this sort. I am glad to have the privilege of making these remarks to your Lordships in the presence of the very distinguished Chairman of that Committee, Sir Frederic Sellers, who, I am glad to say, is listening to this debate. My noble friend Lord Stonham was obviously inhibited by modesty in refraining from congratulating the Government on introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House. He is one of the Ministers who is obviously responsible for it, as is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary.
I think this is a Bill of very great importance, important to the ordinary man and woman in the street, for this reason, if for no other. I suppose we each and all of us think that we know at least one thing about the law, and that is what is the meaning of the word "theft", and we are all wrong. If one

245
approached half a dozen ordinary citizens and asked them to give a precise definition, for example, of the legal expression "an equitable interest pour autre vie", some of them might hesitate. But if one conceives the investigators who go up and down the country approaching a solid burgess on the top of the proverbial Clapham omnibus and asking him, "Do you understand the meaning of the words 'A stole from B'?", he probably would be met by a somewhat incredulous and rather angry look. But if the solid burgess did condescend to reply to such a question, he would undoubtedly say that if there were one thing he as a respectable person did understand it is the meaning of the word "stealing". I was in entire agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he said it was surprising really that when one looked at the definition of "larceny" in the Larceny Act, contrary to what we all thought, it was really so defective.
If the solid burgess indignantly says, "Of course I know the meaning of the words 'theft' and 'stealing'", one might put to him the story, so movingly and graphically told in paragraph 23 of the Report, about the two gentlemen on a windy and stormy night in the autumn of 1888, one of whom wanted to borrow a shilling from the other. The other was a willing lender, but when he handed over what he thought was a shilling he in fact handed over what was a sovereign, and neither realised, because it was dark, that it was a sovereign and not a shilling. The borrower when he discovered, having subjected it to the light, that it was a sovereign, instead of disclosing the mistake dishonestly changed the sovereign and appropriated the proceeds. He was convicted of larceny. That seemed simple enough until he appealed. He appealed to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and in that court 14 learned judges deliberated upon the problem of whether he was rightly or wrongly convicted of larceny. The issue was not wholly satisfactorily resolved because they differed seven against seven, so nobody will ever know whether that borrower was rightly or wrongly convicted in 1888.
A similarly agonising problem is posed in paragraph 26 about the welshing bookmaker. A punter handed a bookmaker some coins. The bookmaker welshed and was convicted of larceny by a trick.
246
That decision was very severely criticised in a book of very great authority, Russell on Crime, on the ground that the punter when handing over the coins did not expect to have returned to him in due course the identical coins but some other and additional coins, and that therefore the punter intended to part with the ownership of the coins, with the result that it could not be larceny. Then it the solid burgess, going back to 1888, says, "Oh yes, but would he not be guilty of obtaining money by false pretences?", he would be wrong again because you cannot, as the law has been laid down, make a false pretence as to your future intention. A false pretence must be a false pretence as to art existing fact. Apparently it is no use pointing cut, as has been pointed out by one learned judge, that the state of a man's mind is as much an existing fact as the state of his digestion. It still leaves the result, in terms of Russell on Crime, that the bookmaker was wrongly convicted, and indeed was guilty of no offence at all.
When one says that the existing law, without most people knowing it, is really riddled with defects, I should have thought the Report amply demonstrates that that is the case. I entirely agree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who, in looking at the scope and purposes of the Report, commended it by saying that what the authors of it do is to go right back to first beginnings and seek to redraft these basic offences in terms which ordinary people can understand. I would add one further commendation—and I am quite certain the noble Lord would accept this—and that is that not only have they sought to redraft these basic offences, but they have tried to get them right, to produce in the language they have chosen a workable structure of offences which will cover the sort of cases which come before the courts in the vast majority of instances. I am glad that the Government have introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House in the first place instead of to another place, because when we come to examine it in Committee we shall have happily at our disposal so much experience and learning from noble and learned Lords who are Members of your Lordships' House that I hope we can find how far the Committee have succeeded in their very admirable endeavour.

247
I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in this particular and simply address myself, in order to test the success of their endeavour, to one single clause. I will not follow him in his most interesting analysis of the penal provisions of the Bill, but I should like to read later on his closely reasoned argument. I want to put something a little bit more simple, and I would base the test I would invite your Lordships to consider on Clause 20, which is the clause which deals with blackmail. As my noble friend Lord Stonham pointed out, there is at present no definition, and indeed no use of the word "blackmail" in the existing legislation. The Committee have very courageously gone back to first beginnings and they have used the word "blackmail" in Clause 20, and they have defined it. I wonder whether they have really got it right—and I say that with the very greatest deference to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee. What they have done is that they have adopted for the purpose of their definition a purely subjective test as to whether the menaces used are unwarranted or not unwarranted. It depends really upon the opinion of the person charged.
May I try to make good what I am submitting? If I may take a little time to read the clause, it says:
"A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces…"
First, you have to ask whether he wants to get something out of it and whether he makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Then the clause goes on to tell one what is meant by an unwarranted demand, and here prays in aid the opinion, in effect, of the person who utters the threat. It reads:
"… for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

So one has to inquire by the ordinary process of the court whether in the belief—I suppose a sincerely held belief—of a person charged with making the menaces, he had reasonable ground for making the demand, and that the use of
248
the menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
In order to make the point I seek to put before your Lordships, I instance the case of a lady who supposes that she is in an interesting condition as the result of her association with a gentleman who is married. She has asked him to make provision for the expected arrival in this world of a new child, and he has refused. He is well-off and she thinks, no doubt rightly, that his conduct is indescribably evil and selfish. She passionately thinks it, and so she goes to him and says, "Look here, if you don't make an adequate settlement on this child I will tell your wife, I will tell your employers; I will write letters to the Press; I will do everything I can to make you make a settlement on the child." Does she, in these circumstances, commit the crime of blackmail? I should have thought that undoubtedly under existing law she does. But if one tests by cross-examination the question whether she really and sincerely has the belief that she has reasonable grounds for making the demand, I should have thought that in a situation of that sort, unless there were some reason to disbelieve her credibility, most juries would say clearly that she thinks she has. She is in a certain condition; a child is to be born into the world; the man responsible has plenty of means at his disposal but declines to lift a finger. Has she not in her belief, the jury would be asked, reasonable grounds for making the demand?
If the answer to that question is Yes, then the next question arises: Did she make the demand with menaces in the belief that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing her demand? How else is she to compel him to make a settlement? How else can she do it other than by saying, "I will tell your wife, unless you make a proper settlement on this infant"? Looking at the words of the clause, I should have thought in that case, if the jury came to the conclusion that she was animated by the bitterest of feelings, by a real and earnest desire to make provision for this child that was to come into the world, she had satisfied both those tests and could not be convicted.
In order to test the matter a little further, and possibly to make the example

249
a little more difficult, may I assume this: that she is a lady who feels that this unfortunate infant is going to be born into the world, through no fault of his, labouring under the stigma of being an illegitimate child. What would be a reasonable settlement in the case of an infant born in lawful wedlock into a family is not sufficient in his case; it must be a much more generous settlement. She might say: "You must give three-quarters of your wealth in order to make a settlement on this unhappy child which is going through life with this disadvantage." The amount she has in mind might be such that ordinary people would think it a wholly unreasonable request. But if the jury are to ask themselves, what does she think about it, what is her belief, however unreasonable it may be, however it might beggar the family of the married man, ought they not to come to the conclusion that she is not guilty; that she has the belief that she has (a) reasonable ground for making the demand, and (b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand?
The clause goes on to say:
"The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial."
So it does not matter that she wants the married man to do something that is utterly unreasonable. He may be a millionaire, and she may say, "Settle £1 million on the child". The clause says:
"The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial."
It does not matter that it is £1 million. The relevant question concerns her belief.
May I put yet one more ingredient? Supposing it be the case that, contrary to her suspicions, she is not in the condition that I have described. She is in exactly the same condition, without knowing it, as she was before she met this man who is married. What then? A lady who has no anxieties of the sort that I have described, nevertheless believes that she has, and insists upon £1 million being settled. Where are we? Is that blackmail or is it not? I see that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is looking at me rather severely. If he, with his great sense of fairness, were directing a jury—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was listening with the greatest attention and with the greatest agreement to the noble Lord. I am sorry he thought I was looking severe.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount did not think that my reference to him was intended to be other than wholly complimentary. I am most grateful and flattered to think that he is listening to me with such care. What I meant was, that if he were presiding at the trial he might feel himself obliged, in regard to a clause in this form, to direct the jury that really the case could not be established.
I have made the point. I do not want to delay your Lordships further. I concentrate on that point, although it is really a Committee point, because it is one that is of fundamental importance. I think that blackmail is one of the most terrible crimes that can be committed, and I greatly hope that in this clause, in its ultimate format after consideration in both Houses of Parliament, we shall get the matter right. I cannot help thinking that possibly there is something in the criticisms that I have voiced. I do not intend to delay your Lordships further. Obviously, we shall consider this most important Bill with great meticulousness as it goes through Committee. That is all I have to submit to your Lordships at the present stage.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE.: My Lords, I think everyone so far has described this Bill as a monumental Bill. That, I think, has an unfortunate connotation, a sort of relationship with the graveyard. I would not use that word to describe it. I do not think it is a monumental Bill; but I think it is the most important Bill in relation to the criminal law that has come before Parliament for a long time. I should like to begin my speech by joining in the congratulations to the most distinguished Committee which has worked so long, and must have worked hard, first under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and then of Sir Frederic Sellers, who I am glad to see here to-day. It is true that the Bill is based almost entirely on their recommendations.

251
It should not be forgotten, when there are those who seem to be under the impression that law reform started only in 1964, that this Committee which performed this task was appointed by Lord Butler of Saffron Walden when he was Home Secretary, no less than nine years ago. It was only a few days ago that we in this House were considering the Civil Evidence Bill, the result of the Report of a Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson; and if my recollection is correct that Committee was appointed by me when I was Lord Chancellor.
Work undertaken by these Committees necessarily takes a long time, and no one who appreciates the magnitude of the task can possibly complain about the time which has been taken. So it happens that the work started in the lifetime of one Government reaches fruition in the lifetime of its successor, of a different complexion. Of course, history may, and I hope will, repeat itself, and a Conservative Lord Chancellor may have the pleasure of bringing to Parliament Bills which result from work initiated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I agree with everything that has been said about the time having come when the law of larceny and the law in relation to other offences had to be reviewed. The Committee have done a great deal to simplify the criminal law by reducing the long list of offences which can be committed. There is a great deal in this Bill which is very good indeed. I do not share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in regard to maximum sentences, for I do not believe it to be the case that those who are charged with the responsibility of passing sentence look to see what is the maximum which Parliament allows to be passed. They first consider what in all the circumstances is the least sentence that they can impose, and then they look to see that they are within the maximum.
The abolition of the technical distinction between larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion, and the replacement of these three offences by the offence of theft will, I am sure, be generally welcomed. As has already been pointed out, a number of gaps have been filled in the existing law. I do not propose to say anything more about all the good
252
parts of the Bill, but I hope that what I am now going to say will not be understood to mean that I do not praise the Committee and congratulate them upon the work which they have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said quite rightly that the question was: had they got the answers right? I am sorry to say that I am not at all sure about some parts of the Bill. I should like to draw attention to them now, in the hope and belief that the Government will give them careful consideration before the Committee stage. We ought not lightly to reject any of the proposals put forward by this Committee, a committee of such distinction. At the same time we should examine these proposals carefully and not hesitate to alter them when we think that we can improve them, or reject them when we think that they are wrong. There is so much of this Bill which is of a novel character that I hope and trust we shall give it all the consideration it deserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, started by referring to the definition of "theft", which of course is vitally important. He referred particularly to the word "dishonestly". Those of us who have practised in the courts know that every single word in the definition of "stealing" or "theft" is of very great importance. I must confess that, although the word "dishonestly" has at first sight some attractions, I am rather doubtful whether it is the best word to include in this definition. I will say why I am doubtful about it. I think that different people have different ideas of what constitutes dishonesty, to what kind of conduct that word "dishonestly" can properly be applied. I am rather fearful that the use of this word my lead to widely differing applications of the definition in different courts and in different parts of the country.
To be guilty of theft under this definition a person must dishonestly appropriate property. In paragraph 39 of the Committee's Report it is claimed that "dishonestly" has the same meaning as
"fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith".
Those words are to be found in the existing definition of larceny, and the Committee say that "dishonestly" means the same as those words. I wonder whether magistrates and juries will understand

253
that, and will understand that that is what the Committee mean.
The Bill does not define "dishonestly", but it says in Clause 2 what is not to be regarded as dishonest; and also that an appropriation may be dishonest notwithstanding that the person who appropriates the property pays for it. I am not quite sure what that means, but perhaps we can get certain guidance on this matter in Committee. But if the word "dishonestly is meant to mean the same as "fraudulently", a word of the present definition of larceny and a word which is well understood in the courts and about which juries have little difficulty, will it not have to be explained to juries that that is what is meant? I think that it will have to be explained: and if that be the case it seems to me that it would be better to use the words which convey the meaning that "dishonestly" is intended to have.
The reasons advanced by the Committee for making this change are simply these. They say that "dishonestly" seemed to them a better word than "fraudulently", and that the question "Was this dishonest?" was easier for a jury to answer than the question, "Was this fraudulent?" I do not think it is a better word if what is meant to be understood by the word is fraudulent, and I very much doubt whether juries will find it easier to answer the question, "Was it dishonest?", for views on that differ widely. I do not think that juries have any real difficulty in answering the question, "Was this fraudulent?" One part of the Committee's Report seems to envisage that a judge will not have to give any guidance to a jury as to the meaning to be attached to the word "dishonestly". If this is so—and I doubt it very much—my fear is that a far wider meaning will in fact be given to the word "dishonestly" than the Committee's Report shows that they intended. If this be the case, then the offence of theft will be extended by the Bill to cover conduct which at the present time does not constitute theft. If by "dishonestly" is meant "fraudulently", it seems to me that it would he much better to use that word in the definition.
In this branch of the criminal law, as I think in most branches, the commission of an offence does not depend upon the motive with which it is committed. There
254
may be a wide variety of motives. In nearly every case proof has to be given that the accused acted with the necessary intent. But although the words "intent" and "motive" are sometimes used interchangeably, there is a very real difference to lawyers, and I think to most people, between, for instance, intent to defraud and the purpose or motive of the fraud, which may be to acquire gain or to inflict a loss on someone one does not like. There is a real and valid distinction between "intent" and "motive".
For the first time, in many clauses of this Rill the question of motive is brought in, and as my noble friend said, the criminality of the conduct will depend on proof of motive. The first time one finds this introduced is in Clause 4(3), the effect of which will be that a person who picks wild flowers is not to be regarded as stealing them,
"unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose."
So that to establish guilt the prosecution presumably will have to prove that the conduct intentionally done was done for the purpose of reward or for sale or commercial purposes; that is to say, motive has to be proved.
When one realises that, I should like to ask the House to consider it in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, considered the clause dealing with blackmail. Suppose that some person—perhaps a gipsy—is found coming out of a wood with a bundle of bluebells under her arm. She has taken them deliberately and intentionally, but whether or not she is liable to be convicted of a criminal offence under this Bill will depend on whether it can be proved that she took them for reward or for sale or for some commercial purpose. I think it wrong that the criminality of conduct of that individual should depend upon the purposes for which those flowers were picked. I am not at all sure that the picking of wild flowers ought to be regarded as theft at all. I am very doubtful of it. But if it is to be so regarded, you cannot properly, to my mind, draw a distinction based upon the purpose for which the conduct is done.
Let me consider it further. That having to be proved by the prosecution, are they ever likely to be in a position to prove it without an admission by the

255
accused person? How will they be able to prove that the gypsy coming out of the wood was going to sell the bluebells? Your Lordships may say that it is obvious, but what is obvious still has to be proved in the courts.
Before I pass from Clause 4(3), there is one other matter to which I should draw attention. I see from the Committee's Report that it was intended to make stealing a wild plant an offence. So if you pick wild primroses, not for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose, you are not guilty of any offence—you are not stealing. But if I have read the Report correctly, if you dig out the primrose plant, even though it be not for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose, you will be guilty of the offence of stealing. This is thought to be covered by the insertion of the words in the subsection, "without injury to the growth". If that is the purpose, I doubt whether it is achieved by the words of the Bill. But I am not at all sure that the taking of wild plants which are not anyone's property should be theft, whatever the motive. If you pick a bunch of white heather in the Highlands, you surely should not be liable to be convicted of the offence of theft if, and only if, you pull it up by the roots.
Similarly, in Clause 4(4) it is provided that the test of whether there has been a theft of wild animals is whether it is proved that they have been taken for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross gave the example of a man who took 50 pheasants. If a man takes 50 pheasants and puts them in his deep freeze and feeds his family on them, or gives them to his friends, there is no theft. Why should that be so when the young man or woman who takes an apple off an apple tree will, under this Bill, be guilty of an offence? Again, if the requirement of motive has to be established, I do not see how, when a poacher is caught in possession of pheasants, you can possibly establish that he got them for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. I hope that the provisions in relation to wild animals and wild plants will be reconsidered. I think myself that perhaps they ought to be dropped entirely, but we can discuss that later.
256
I now come to Clause 6. This clause was not in the Bill as suggested by the Committee, and is quite new. If I understood him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in putting forward this clause said words to the effect that this will save a lot of trouble; that you will not have to look at the old cases to be able to understand the meaning of the words,
"having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
I would ask your Lordships to look at the words in subsection (1) and see whether it really does do that, and satisfies the test of simplicity and comprehensibility which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put forward. He said that it would be disgraceful to express parts of this Bill in language that members of the public, ordinary people, could not understand.
This is what Clause 6(1) says, and your Lordships will bear in mind what the purpose of it is:
"A person is to be regarded as permanently deprived of property belonging to him by any dealing with it that amounts (or substantially amounts) to a complete usurpation as against him of the property, and in those circumstances it is immaterial that he does not finally lose the actual property."
Let us suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was addressing, as I know he does, one of those juries in Cumberland who are as quick-witted as most juries are. After he has summed up to them, they come back with a question and say to him, "Would you explain to us what is meant by the words 'having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'?" The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, could not go wrong if he read out the words of that subsection to that jury. The Court of Appeal would say, "Well, that is what it is intended to do. This is the guidance which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said is so clear." But what would the members of the jury think or understand? I am not sure that I know what one is meant to understand by this clause. I recognise the purpose of it and what the noble Lord wants it to do, but I must say that I think it is extremely difficult to understand exactly what it does.
May I go a little further on in the Bill. I welcome the definition of "burglary". This is a considerable simplification of the law. But I do not think that paragraph (b) of Clause 9(1) should be left in the

257
Bill, and I see no need for it. Certainly, paragraph (a) of Clause 9(1) should stay in, but it is surely quite new to have an express provision about a trespasser making him guilty of burglary if he commits or attempts to commit any of the offences mentioned in subsection (2). It is necessary, because it sometimes occurs, to make it a criminal offence to break into a house with intent to commit rape or to do grievous bodily harm. That is now being converted, and quite rightly, to entering any building as a trespasser. So you get rid of all the technicalities of proving a breaking and entering; and you retain the breaking and entering with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or rape of women. It may seem odd to call that offence burglary. When there has been a rape committed, or when there has been an attempted rape in a house by a person who is a trespasser, why should he be charged with the offence of burglary? He would always be charged with the offence of rape or attempted rape. Paragraph (b) serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to cause some degree of confusion.
I come now to what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross touched upon, and what I think is the most important part of this Bill which we will have to consider in Committee. So far as theft is concerned, we do not have to prove any motive, but we have to prove an intent. The definition contains only the word "dishonestly". When you come to Clause 13, dealing with the abstracting of electricity, there again, for some reason which I simply do not understand, you are required to prove in addition to "dishonestly", which one interprets as "fraudulently", that it is done with the motive of causing loss to another. Bearing in mind that "loss" is interpreted to mean money or money's worth—that is, a financial loss—you will be liable to be convicted of an offence under Clause 13 only if it is proved not only that you abstracted electricity dishonestly but that you did it with the purpose of causing loss to another. My Lords, I should have suspected that in a great many cases where that kind of crime is committed it is done without any thought of whether or not it causes loss to another. But, there again, there is the addition of these words, introducing what
258
I think is an entirely novel concept into this branch of the criminal law.
I looked to see what the Committee had to say about this point, and all they said in their Report, in paragraph 85, was:
"It also seems right, and in accordance with the scheme of the Bill, to require an intention to cause loss to another".
No reasons are given; there is no explanation for the insertion of those words. I frankly say that it does not seem to me right. Nor, when you examine the rest of the Bill, do I think it clear that it is in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. Not only does the offence of theft import no such requirement of proof, but the offence described in subsection (1) of Clause 15—the offence of criminal deception, for which the maximum penalty is ten years—does not require it either.
In relation to that offence, paragraph 88 of the Report said that a person who dishonestly obtains by deception property to which he believes himself entitled will not be guilty of an offence under Clause 15(1) as—and this is the reason given—
"though the deception may be dishonest, the obtaining is not".
My Lords, I am by no means sure that that is right as a matter of reasoning, because I should have thought that the dishonest deception would have coloured the obtaining. But even if it is so, it seems to me anomalous that a person will still be guilty of a criminal offence if, by deception, by the use of a forged instrument, he obtains payment of a debt due to him; and that is clearly so, and is clearly recognised in paragraph 92 of the Report.
When we come to Clause 15(3)—the subsection to which my noble friend drew attention—I think we shall have to take a very careful look at that in Committee. But I come to Clause 15(2) first—I jumped ahead too much. Clause 15(2) extends the offence of obtaining credit, and, as it stands, anyone who goes to his bank manager to get an extension of time for the payment of his overdraft by telling him a lie, by telling him that something has happened or is about to happen which will enable him to pay soon, will be guilty of a criminal offence punishable with five years imprisonment. That is clearly intended, as

259
one sees from the Report of the Committee. If this Bill is passed in its present form, going to see one's bank manager will have additional terrors to those which such a visit now ordinarily has.
I now come to Clause 15(3). The Committee say that it does not correspond to any particular offence under the present law; and I am in agreement with paragraph 99(i) of the Report, where it says that the terms of the clause to which it refers
"are extremely general, whereas it is a principle of English law to give reasonably precise guidance as to what kinds of conduct are criminal. The expression 'dishonestly', 'gain' and 'deception' are not precise enough for so general a provision as"
this clause. I should make it clear that those were the views not of the Committee as a whole but of objectors; and I think that they were right.
Then in paragraph 99 they give instances of three cases which this wide clause will cover, so they say, provided that there is dishonesty. As the clause now stands, I do not think that in two of those cases that is a correct statement. For theft, as I have said, it has to be proved only that the accused has acted dishonestly, and the position is the same under Clause 15(1); but Clause 15(3) requires proof that he has acted dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or another and with intent to cause loss to another.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. With great respect to my noble friend, this is the very point. For some reason, the loss point is not brought in here.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I quite agree. I have muddled up my notes, and I have got on to the wrong subsection. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for one moment. It is Clause 13 which requires proof of an intention to cause loss to another; and that, again, is said to be in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. When one looks at Clause 15(3), one sees that the words are,
"with a view to gain for himself",
and in Clause 16(1) they are:
"Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another …".
260
That is in the case of false accounting. You find the same formula in Clause 19, dealing with the suppression of documents, and in Clause 20. They all start with those words. I come back to Clause 15(3) and to the examples given in the Report of what that subsection will now cover. That part of the Report is prefaced by the words,
"Provided that dishonesty is proved",
and there is nothing said there about the addition of the requirement to prove, "with a view to gain for himself". Nowhere in the Report is that dealt with.
It may be that it has just slipped through in the drafting, but it is extremely important. I personally believe that this Bill would be no worse, and would really be very much better, if those requirements to prove it was done with a view to gain or with a view to loss were completely omitted. I will deal with it more fully in Committee, but in some cases the insertion of the words "with a view to gain" narrow the clause beyond the point to which, in my belief, it should be narrowed.
My Lords, I have taken long enough, and I do not want to pursue this point at any undue length, but I think that is a very important matter with which we shall have to deal. I listened with attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said about Clause 20. That is prefaced by the same words. I must say that, on reading that clause, I thought? as he thought, that the interpretation to be given to it was that the test was subjective, about the belief of the person accused, and I doubted again whether it would ever be possible to prove that the lady (in his case) did not have the belief which she said she had. We shall have to look at that very closely indeed; but I am doubtful, too, with the noble Lord, as to what the meaning of that clause really is.
My doubts have been rather added to by the fact that in this Report, at paragraph 123, there is a discussion on the use of the word "proper", and it says:
"'Proper' directs the mind to consideration of what is morally and socially acceptable …"
That looks like applying the objective tests. But as the Bill is drawn the question, as I understand it, is not what was "morally and socially acceptable" in the

261
view of ordinary people, but whether the individual concerned believed that what she or he was doing exercised a proper means. If that be so, I think the difficulties of getting a conviction for blackmail in a case where most people think there ought to be a conviction would be very great indeed.
My Lords, I fear that from what I have said I may have given the impression that I am extremely critical of this Bill. I am very critical of certain aspects of it, but I am absolutely sincere in my congratulations to the Committee upon the work they have done. I do not believe that anyone has yet produced a perfect Bill or a perfect Act of Parliament, and I hope that in this House we shall be able to put a polish on, and improve in certain respects, the Bill which has come from this Committee and of which they have many reasons to feel proud.
6.11 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are having rather a lawyers' holiday this afternoon, which I think is unfortunate. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is the only non-lawyer taking part in this discussion. The noble and learned Viscount who has just resumed his seat has indicated that I am a justice of the peace and accustomed to working in that capacity, so perhaps I may regard myself as half a layman for the purpose of this afternoon's debate.
I am in entire agreement with the noble and learned Viscount when he says that this is much the most important Bill relating to criminal law which has been before Parliament for a very long time. Indeed, I would say that it is the most important Bill we have had to deal with in the present Session of Parliament. When one considers that the vast majority of the men and women who are sent to prison in this country—and tens of thousands of them are dealt with every year by the courts of criminal law—have been charged with stealing, then surely the vital importance of this Bill is only too clear.
I should like to join in all the gratitude that has been expressed in this House this afternoon to Sir Frederic Sellers and to his Committee—I do not know whether he is still here. When, a year
262
ago, we had before us the Criminal Law Bill—which also was founded on his Committee's work—I took the opportunity, when congratulating him and his Committee on that occasion, to mention that if you wanted to get a job done quickly the thing to do was to get a Chairman from the Northern Circuit, like Sir Fred Sellers. He is a very old pal of mine on the Circuit; I think we were called almost at the same time. His conduct of the chairmanship of this Committee has been quite remarkable; to get this Report out in such a short time, is a great achievement indeed. It almost sounded as if the Committee had been a long time over it. But consider what is in the Report. It really is an astonishing achievement that the Committee should have succeeded in getting it done in the short space of time that they took.
I remember an occasion when Lord Goddard, at that time Lord Chief Justice, made some tart remark about the time it was taking to get the law of larceny cleaned up. I think those were the words he used: that "It is time it was cleaned up." I am sorry he is not here to-day. It was that remark of his in the Court of Criminal Appeal that led to the reference to the Criminal Law Revision Committee—and they have waited no time over it. Undoubtedly, this area of criminal law is one of the worst of all Augean stables in the palace of the criminal law, where, incidentally, there are quite a number of Augean stables. There is no part of criminal law more in need of some cleaning up. A great deal more than just tidying up is needed; a really complete house-cleaning is required; and this, in fact, it is going to get. This has appeared from what everybody has said this afternoon.
No doubt before this Bill is through it will be amended in certain respects—and I am in sympathy with some of the criticisms that have been made this afternoon. But, even so, it will be a really astonishing achievement. It will clarify the position in this dim but very important area of our criminal law in a way that can only be described as dazzling. It has been received with considerable enthusiasm by the legal profession; or, at any rate, by those members of it who are concerned with working in criminal courts. On the other hand,

263
there are, as one would expect, some points on which there is far from complete agreement.
One of the criticisms which I think has not been made this afternoon is that there is possibly no really valid reason for retaining as a separate crime the offence of obtaining by false pretences, even under a changed name. But it seems to me that that offence would fit into the general category of theft which has been widened so much. When the possession concept is abolished from theft, as it will be under this Bill, and ownership is substituted for it, we get the same test as that applied in false pretences where we know it is the obtaining of the property rather than the possession which is the essential basis of that crime.
In the old days this distinction used to give rise to terrible trouble, and literally hundreds of offenders escaped prison because it was difficult to tell, until you tried the case, whether it was one of larceny or of obtaining by false pretences as under the present law. If you tried a man for the wrong offence he got away with it altogether, until a very sensible Statute was passed in that great era of criminal law, the mid-years of the Victorian period, when it was laid down that the jury should find him guilty of whatever crime the evidence showed he had committed. In this Bill, so far as I can see there is not this same sensible provision. In a number of cases it will still remain difficult to be sure whether the man was really guilty of theft or of obtaining by deception. Unless we put into this Bill a similar clause enabling the jury to find him guilty of whatever he did, we may find ourselves back in the situation which existed in the 1840s. It may be that I am wrong about this, but I think that it ought to be looked at very carefully.
There are a number of retentions of title and some new titles. In both cases, I am a little doubtful. Burglary is a crime which has a distinct connotation, not only to the lawyers but to the great mass of the people. I think it is really rather absurd to retain the expression "burglar" for a sneak-thief who goes into a cloakroom in a hotel, "pinches" an umbrella and runs off with it. So far as I can see, under this Bill he will, in fact, be a burglar. It is true that we are getting different gradations of
264
burglary, simple burglary and aggravated burglary; but surely it is using rather a heavy gun to shoot at a sneak-thief, to make him a burglar when he behaves like that just because he takes an umbrella out of a house. There is a trespass in the house, something is stolen; therefore it is burglary.
As I say, this is making rather heavy weather of it and it would be sensible to have something rather less serious in the Title. On the other hand, they introduce this extraordinary crime of handling, which I must say I do not like. I would rather have the current expression "receiving", which we are all accustomed to and which does describe what a man is doing. "Handling" is an expression which undoubtedly will puzzle the jury, because it is obvious that the common-sense meaning is not what is aimed at by the Bill; it sound like argot.
On the other hand, the provisions of this clause, as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, are very good indeed. The crime of receiving stolen goods well knowing them to be stolen is one of the most difficult crimes for any judge to handle. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but I am not going to tell him what I would say to the foreman of a jury if he came back with the question which the noble Viscount suggested the foreman might ask. But if he were to put to me some questions about receiving he would catch me out even more easily. Receiving is an extraordinarily difficult crime with which to deal, because of points of this sort which are now cleared up in the Bill. I think the new provision will make it much easier to get convictions in cases where undoubtedly people are guilty but find themselves able to escape from the clutches of the law because of the extreme technicality of the present law relating to receiving.
My Lords, I was very much in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he pointed out the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise out of the use of the words "gain" and "loss" in the clause to which he referred. He used the word "prejudice"—I am not sure whether he used it advisedly. No doubt he will know that in the case of Wenham, which is the most important case on forgery in recent years to come to your Lordships' House, the

265
word "prejudice" was in fact the word chosen, after a great deal of discussion, to describe the sort of loss which results in a forgery case. There had been an attempt to say that what happened was not forgery because there had not been any pecuniary loss, but as the words "pecuniary loss" are not used in the Forgery Act, or at any rate in the part which was relevant, your Lordships' House was able to come to the conclusion that the fact that prejudice had been suffered made out the case of forgery. I must say I thought a similar principle could be applied in this case and would meet the point which the noble Viscount was making. We might remember that when we look at these clauses in detail during the Committee stage.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said about the maximum sentences being increased. At first sight there seems to be a good deal to be said for that point of view, but those of us who are accustomed to dealing with these cases know quite well that if we started to send people to prison for too long sentences, the Court of Appeal would soon come down on us. The Court of Appeal exercises a very thorough control, not only over magistrates' courts and courts of quarter sessions but over the uniformity of the punishments meted out by judges on assize, and I think they can be relied on to see to it that sentences of anything in the neighbourhood of ten years are not imposed in the ordinary way for cases of theft.
What the Sellers Committee were trying to do, I think, was to keep the law fairly simple. There are a number of kinds of theft in which thefts are committed by people in responsible positions, such as people employed in the postal service, for which at present a man may, I think, be sent to prison for as long as 20 years. What the Sellers Committee were trying to do was to establish a maximum sentence which would cover all sorts of cases of that kind in order to get uniformity. It is quite possible to introduce aggravated larceny and ordinary larceny, with a shorter sentence for ordinary larceny and a longer one for aggravated larceny. But that would be a return to the rather complicated position that the Sellers Committee were so anxious to avoid. On the whole, I think it is more sensible and reasonable
266
to leave the matter to the courts who, as I say, are supervised by the Court of Appeal in regard to the sort of sentences which they impose.
When I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I was sorry to find that apparently he was aligning himself with those who feel that the guiltiness of a person's mind ought to be measured in objective terms. Surely it is one of the great prides of our law that a man cannot be found guilty of these serious offences unless he has a really guilty mind. There was the divergation in your Lordships' House in the famous case of Smith v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, where it was held that the unfortunate man who killed the policeman without ever intending to do so at all—he was just trying to shake the policeman off the running board of his car—was guilty of murder because an ordinary person looking at it would have said, "Well, if he hits something corning in the other direction the chances are that the man will be killed, or at any rate very seriously injured, and that provides the necessary guilty mind." We put that right only last year in the Criminal Justice Act, because that doctrine had repelled not only the mass of the legal profession but the country as a whole. The Law Commission reported very strongly against it, and that applies in exactly the same way to a case of this kind.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, quoted almost exactly the case of Bernhard, which was the case of a woman who had been living with a man who had promised to make a settlement on her and who paid it for some time and then just stopped. She said, "If you don't go on paying, I will show you up". That, said the man, was stealing money by menaces, and he complained to the police. The woman Bernhard was tried at the Old Bailey and convicted. The Court of Criminal Appeal said, "No, the woman had an innocent mind. She thought she was entitled to do this, and that is what you have to look at; whether in fact she thought she had the right to make this demand on the man and, when he did not pay, to make these threats for the purpose of inducing him to pay"—or, at any rate, that was how it should have been left to the jury.

267
I must say that I thought the view of the Court of Criminal Appeal in that case was the correct one, and not the view taken by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, when he directed the jury at the Old Bailey and told them it did not matter what was in the woman's mind, the point was that this was an unreasonable demand to make, unwarrantable in law, and if the jury felt it was an unreasonable demand they should find her guilty. Obviously, the Sellers Committee were following the law as laid down in the Bernhard case, and I think that most lawyers would feel that that was right, because this subjective test of the guilty mind is the correct one to apply in this sort of case. Those are points which we shall have to look at again as we come to deal with the clauses one by one.
Finally, I should like to say that I entirely disagree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who wanted to go back to the use of the word "fraudulently" in the definition of theft. The word "fraudulently" has given rise to quite a lot of trouble. It is my custom to tell the jury, if they cannot understand what "fraudulently" means, that it really means "dishonestly"; and I have the strong support of Lord Goddard in the case of Williams, in which he said that that was the right way of handling this matter. Both to lawyers and to lay people the word "fraudulently" has developed a very distinct meaning since it was used in the 17th and 18th centuries when the definition of theft began to be built up. It is used in a very different sense now. At that time it really meant "dishonestly", and I think it much more sensible to use the word "dishonestly" as the Sellers Committee have done; and they explain very clearly why they have done it. I think it would be a very substantial retrogression if we were to eliminate "dishonestly" and put back "fraudulently". I hope that we shall not do so. I hope that this Bill will, in the main, go through in the way it has come before us. Certainly I would agree that some of the points should be looked at when we come to the Committee stage.
6.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of the six noble Lords who have spoken in this debate five have been distinguished law-
268
yers. Therefore it is only common justice, even common sense, that the one layman, myself, should speak twice. I feel very much as I did when I had to go to France during the war as a civilian. Having the right papers, I could talk to officers of any rank and get what I wanted done. It had distinct advantages. I think I have an advantage now, even though I am completely outranked by the lawyers who have spoken. When I come back from my forthcoming visit to Canada to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, perhaps I shall have some shred of respectable standing in the distinguished company I shall have to meet in Committee. I must say that I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill, because I cannot imagine any discussions more valuable and rewarding than those we shall have in Committee on this Bill.
I think it is fair to say that every noble Lord has warmly welcomed the Bill. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill said that it had gone right back to first principles, that it was drafted in language that the ordinary man could understand, and that great pains had been taken to make the right decisions. With that I am in agreement. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, took me to task for using the term "monumental". I did not have gravestones in mind. While on that point, I think the noble Viscount made a mistake when he said that my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan had been chairman of this Committee at one time. He was a member, but I believe that Sir Frederic Sellers has been chairman throughout.
At the beginning of his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said something which has coloured my listening to every one of the learned speeches that followed. He said that he had been brought up to believe that the definitions in the Larceny Act were akin to Holy Writ. I think that every one of the criticisms made this afternoon was coloured by the training and the practice of the distinguished lawyers who have taken part in the debate. I think they find it difficult to come to this new way of thinking, to relinquish the old cases, mementi curiae. But we shall hammer these things out in Committee. It is worth spending a long time on them and getting them right.

269
Another point that occurs to me is that though the Bill has emerged from a Report produced by a Committee of distinguished lawyers, who have worked hard to the utmost of their abilities, not under conditions of stress but with time for full consideration, during this short debate there has been disagreement on different points.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know whether any noble Lord is necessarily saying that he disagrees with any point. One of the main points I was making was that on the loss and gain clauses of the Bill it has not been explained specifically why there is loss in one, gain in another, both gain and loss in a third, and neither gain nor loss in the fourth. I think that what we should all be grateful to hear is the reasoning, which I do not think appears in the Report.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I could not give all the reasons in a speech of reasonable length to all the many important points that have been raised, and to be honest I do not know the answers in every case. They are matters we shall have carefully to consider. I shall have to read and study them so that we can work them out in Committee. But I would refer to one or two of these points to give some idea of our thinking.
The noble Viscount had the theory that there is some kind of overriding principle that fraud should run through the Bill and that this included the idea of harming a person's rights. I regard that as a heresy which I cannot accept. The noble Viscount, in his interpretation of Clause 4(3), put forward the point that in his view trawlers would be committing an offence as soon as they caught some fish. They could not be caught—I mean, the trawlers—because the fish they trawl for is not other people's property. He also mentioned the word "reasonable". In our view this is subjective, because it depends on what a person believes to be reasonable. On the point of loss and gain, we have tried to see gain where the essence of the offence was gain and similarly with loss. With the Committee, we think that we have got them right.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that my point was not so much whether there
270
would be gain or loss, but rather the difficulty of proving motive, which is now placed on the prosecution.
LORD STONHAM: I appreciate that, and that is why we must consider these points so carefully. In Clause 13, we feel that it can only be loss to the electricity suppliers. Clause 16 replaces the present offence, of which the essence is falsifying the accounts as a preparatory offence to cheating an employer or owner of a business whose books are being kept.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised the question of penalties, which is exhaustively discussed in paragraphs 12, 27 and 59 of the Report. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, because his reactions were precisely the same as my own when I saw this in typescript almost three years ago. I thought that it was one of the best things I had ever read but, like the noble Lord, when I picked up "simple larceny, five years" I voiced my objections, just as he has done But I came to the conclusion that there are two points here. If we want different penalties, then we have to have different offences, with all the complications of the present law, the precise thing which this Bill is designed to avoid.
I am going to do to the noble Lord what I did to myself nearly three years ago. I got out Archbold and looked up larceny, the whole 20 varieties. I will not read them all; but larceny by a clerk or servant carries a penalty of fourteen years, or by a tenant or lodger, where the value is over £5, it is seven years; where the value is under £5, two years; larceny from the person, from ships or docks, in dwelling-houses, of cattle, all fourteen years. But larceny of deer only two years. Larceny of documents of title, five years; larceny of dogs, after a previous conviction, eighteen months. And we go down to larceny of goods in process of manufacture, fourteen years; larcency of postal packets, life imprisonment; larceny by officer of a post office, life imprisonment; and lower down, after previous conviction of felony, ten years. In fact, it has to be a very simple larceny to get only five years maximum. That is the conclusion I reached.
There are very great advantages in having this one penalty. But the other point is this, and my noble friend Lord

271
Chorley raised it. Because a maximum is fixed—and we have some of these offences with life imprisonment—no court would ever award a maximum penalty for a minor larceny such as stealing an apple or something of that kind. And I am satisfied that we have the maximum penalties right.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him this question? Would it be right—and I followed his arguments about this—that if you are going to have different maximum penalties for different offences you have to distinguish between the less serious offence and the more serious offence? Is that not exactly what this Bill does in the case of burglary? There is simple burglary, attracting a punishment of fourteen years, and aggravated burglary, attracting a penalty of life imprisonment.
LORD STONHAM: If a man goes to commit a burglary armed with a cosh or gun or knife, I think we must regard that as a different offence from that of a man who goes to commit a burglary unarmed. I think it is right that those offences should carry different maximum penalties, because the man who goes armed takes his arms in order that he may well use them; and it may well result not merely in grievous harm to some other person, but in death. Therefore I think it is right that we should have different maximum penalties for offences of different gravity.
But the point I was discussing with the noble Lord was that here we have one offence of theft, with one maximum penalty, which takes under its umbrella 20 existing offences of larceny, all fraudulent conversion, all embezzlement, and says—as indeed they are—that they are all theft and, whichever variety is being dealt with, it is possible to have ten years imprisonment for it. What I am saying is that I do not accept that it will create more anomalies than it abolishes.
The noble Lord mentioned the sentence of seven years for falsification of accounts. It may well be—and this is a matter to be considered in Committee—that that also ought to carry a maximum of ten years. I do not know. But I believe that when we have settled and agreed
272
this single maximum penalty for this family of offences (if I may call it that), it then becomes a matter for the courts. If there should be different sentences for similar offences between different courts—and we have that now, Heaven knows!—it will be a matter for the Lord Chief Justice and the conferences which he periodically holds on these different subjects.
My noble friend Lord Stow Hill, whose speech I so very much enjoyed and for which I am so grateful—as I am for everything he does—raised, in particular, blackmail, which is dealt with in Clause 20. As he knows, the question is discussed in paragraphs 114 and 121 of the Committee's Report. I would not venture to answer all the questions he put and which I wrote down, but it seems to me that in the case he suggested it would be right to point out that the girl could go to a solicitor and get him to put the demand in a way which would not lead I to any criminal proceedings. He asked what the girl should do; and that would be the answer, I think. As for a demand for £1 million, surely no jury would ever accept that she believed she had reasonable grounds for making such a demand. Of course it is hard to evolve a test as to exactly what should be covered, and this is another point on which I am sure we are going to have a very important and interesting debate.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, dealt—and I was glad he did—with the word "dishonestly". We do not at present consider that any further definition is necessary. We think that "fraudulently" is a more legalistic term; that people would better understand "dishonestly". Of course, there has always been a good deal of argument about the word "fraudulently" in existing Statutes. I took his point, which is a fair one, as he put it, that the definition may lead to widely differing application in different courts throughout the country. He asked whether magistrates and juries would know what the Committee mean by the words they use, and whether exactly what is meant would not have to be explained to the jury. I think that that is probably right, but I do not think it is much different from current practice. He may be right in thinking that a far wider interpretation will be put on "dishonestly" than the Committee or Parliament might

273
think. That is something we shall have to look at very carefully, and we shall study his speech and other speeches on the point.
With regard to Clause 2(2), which he mentioned, we think it is for the person who puts down the money and takes the property, even though he knows the owner is unwilling to sell; and it is that subsection which provides for that offence. The noble Viscount also spent some time on wild animals and wild birds. In our view, so far as the wild creatures are concerned, they are not at present "property", but Clause 4(4) makes them property. Even so, taking is not made theft, except in the cases mentioned in the clause; and, of course, it is the same with wild plants, except that wild plants are "property" now if they are growing on somebody's land. As for tearing them up by the roots, this is ordinary malicious damage now, under the present law, and under the Bill it will be theft if the conditions of Clause 4(3) are satisfield. But, naturally, we shall have a look at this question, particularly if Amendments on this subject are put down, even if they are put down as points for discussion.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the trouble with Clause 4(3), regarding the picking of wild flowers—and this subject seems to have given rise to more dispute than anything else this afternoon—is that this subsection departs from the essence of theft, which surely is deprivation of another of his property. Taking some wild flowers from somebody else's property is depriving the person of the wild flowers. If you go on to say that that will be theft if the person who takes the flowers is going to sell them, but not if he is not going to sell them, it undermines the principle. The person who is deprived of his wild flowers does not care tuppence what the thief will do with them. That, surely, is the trouble we are in with this subsection.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I quite agree with that, though I regret to announce that the odds on lawyer versus lay have now gone up to six to one. I was about to say that in the case of the taking of heather, mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, it would not be theft unless it was done dishonestly. This is one of the misfortunes of having to deal with these points in this way. It will be much better if we can deal with them in Committee and consider them properly, so that we can cover the whole ground.
On the point about pheasants—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if it will help the noble Lord may I say straight away that I was not expecting answers to all these points? I was giving him advance notice and hoping to give him an opportunity of considering them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for that, and if your Lordships feel, as I am sure you do, that I have said enough I will not say any more. The noble and learned Viscount is always helpful in these matters, but never so helpful as now.
I therefore conclude by thanking all the noble Lords who have spoken for the general welcome they have given to the Bill and for the valuable suggestions which have been made on matters which we shall certainly discuss in Committee, and I would only add that I now look forward to the next round.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MAURITIUS INDEPENDENCE BILL
6.53 p.m.
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.

GIBRALTAR
6.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the rejection by Spain of the offer to take the legal issues concerning Gibraltar to the International Court of Justice, and of the result of the Referendum held on September 10, 1967, and in view of our rejection of the United Nations resolution of December 19, 1967, and the assurance that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is not something which we can allow to be at issue,

(a) whether they are prepared to offer a final constitution and status to Gibraltar which would give it full internal self-government and in addition make its situation no longer debatable by the United Nations under Art. 73(e) of the Charter; and

(b) whether they will consider taking some initiative calculated to achieve an improvement in the Spanish restrictions on the frontier and in the air.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my reasons for asking this Question are twofold. First, because the situation of Gibraltar has been discussed within the United Nations for nearly five years now—that is, since September 11, 1963—with the result that on December 19 last the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, before the General Assembly of the United Nations, had rightly to emphasise—and I quote his words:
"There are two basic principles which we cannot betray. First, the principle that the interest of the people must be paramount, and, second, that the people have the right freely to express their own wishes as to their future."
Last September, the people of Gibraltar overwhelmingly voted for a free and voluntary relationship with Britain. They also voted for discussions by their representatives on appropriate constitutional changes that might be desired. Surely they are now entitled to expect that Her Majesty's Government will no longer be called upon to submit political and constitutional information about Gibraltar to the United Nations.
My second reason for putting down this Question is that it is nearly five years—since October 17, 1963—that the people of Gibraltar have had to put up with increasing restrictions imposed by
276
the Spanish Government. Surely the time has now come for Her Majesty's Government to take some positive action, calculated to diminish these restrictions. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just returned from a six-day visit to the Rock, for he will have learned at first hand of the constitutional changes which are desired by the people there in order to achieve full internal self-government. Also, he has been able to appreciate for himself what an inhuman strain has been placed upon the Gibraltarians by the Spanish Government.
As a result of the 1964 Constitutional Conference a significant advance was made, in order to achieve full internal self-government, by the inclusion of measures to accelerate the complete devolution of internal power. As Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, told the Fourth Committee of the United Nations on December 17, 1966, the process of decolonisation started in 1950 by the setting up of the first Legislative Council, with the people now enjoying a great measure of self-government. In view of the Minister's recent talks in Gibraltar I sincerely hope that this evening he will give the House information as to the Government's proposals regarding the forthcoming constitutional changes. I trust that he will not just suggest, as has been suggested in the past in another place, a merger of the Legislative Council and of the City Council, which would be purely an administrative measure and, by itself, would not constitute decolonisation; nor would it alter in any way the status of the Gibraltarians.
Going back to September 19, 1963, within the Committee of Twenty-four Sir Joshua Hassan said that Gibraltar could not emerge as an independent sovereign State but that under Principle VI of the Annex to Resolution 1514 she could achieve a full measure of self-government by "free association with an independent State". Bearing in mind that this type of relationship, extending as it does from almost integration to near-independence, permits a certain liberality of interpretation, this, in effect, is what the people of Gibraltar voted for on September 10 last. But what are these links to be at the outcome of the constitutional discussions? And would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, consider holding these discussions in London, so

277
that if they are to permit full internal self-government they may receive wide publicity, through Government statements in the Press and on the radio, so that full decolonisation may be seen to have been achieved, and that it may be seen throughout the world? Also, could the noble Lord say, when he comes to reply, who will be attending this conference?
In my humble opinion, to achieve this complete de-colonisation—the Treaty of Utrecht placing certain obligations on Her Majesty's Government which make it indispensable to retain certain reserve powers—those reserve powers should not go beyond those required to comply with the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht. That is on the one hand. And on the other hand, I feel they should permit intervention by Her Majesty's Government, the British Parliament, if any act of the Gibraltar Government or any amendment to the internal constitution should appear inconsistent with the obligations imposed on the United Kingdom Government by the Treaty. I believe that in this final Constitution—I hope it will be a final Constitution—the British Parliament should not have power to amend or suspend the internal Constitution except at the specific request of the people of Gibraltar.
Last Thursday in Gibraltar, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned that nothing was irrevocable, not even your Lordships' House, which was likely to be reformed. But does the noble Lord not feel that the people of Gibraltar are entitled now—and would the Minister consider this—to some form of agreement or convention which would make Gibralta's future immune, though it may be quite irrelevant at the present time, to any political expedient in the future, such as changes in defence policy or changes in strategic concept in the Mediterranean, so as to remove, as the noble Lord said in Gibraltar, the worry of the Constitution from people's minds so that they can get on with the essential development of their economy?
I for one warmly welcome the fact that in Gibraltar last week the Minister stressed the need for giving political and economic stability to that small area. Would the noble Lord now be willing to agree that Gibraltar's definite link with this country must primarily be established
278
through the status of the citizen? As I mentioned in this House on March 21 last year, the people of Gibraltar are technically British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but in practice they are not. They come under the provisions of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. This must surely be changed in any future Constitution in view of their very special situation—even unique I would say. Owing to the Treaty of Utrecht and the impossible situation in which they find themselves of being unable to remain a colony or to become an independent sovereign State, surely with this combination of such a complex national and international situation their case deserves special consideration. I would add that they are not responsible for defence, and there is no question that they should be in the future, nor for international affairs. In other words, there is no question of any break in British sovereignty. It seems to me that if we are to achieve this process of decolonisation, then the people of Gibraltar should be granted a status equal to that of the citizens of the Channel Islands, for instance, and thereby come under the Home Office rather than the Commonwealth Office.
Turning to the importance of the Rock from a defence or strategic point of view, I should like to recall a statement contained in Document 431 of the Assembly of the Western European Union, which came out on November 16 last year and which says:
"Gibraltar holds a key position of strategic importance, dominating as it does the Western entry to the Mediterranean. It is essential for Western security that Gibraltar, with its fortress, airport and harbour facilities, remain under the control of a friendly Power. With the rundown of Malta as a British naval base it is all the more important that the Allies can count on Gibraltar remaining British."
In the context of a strong British presence in Gibraltar, and in the context, too, of the Government's planned withdrawal of our forces from East of Suez, would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, consider approaching his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to seeing whether it would be feasible and possible to reinforce our garrison in Gibraltar? This could alleviate the problem of accommodation for some of our troops returning from the Far East. Also, would his right

279
honourable friend consider the Royal Navy making more frequent calls at Gibraltar; and also, finally, with regard to the Royal Air Force, would he consider sending a squadron from time to time to Gibraltar for the purpose of undertaking training flights from that airport?
This brings me to the increasing activity of Spanish warships in the Bay of Gibraltar; three of them anchored in British territorial waters whilst the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was in Gibraltar, and which were, I understand, duly boarded by the Queen's harbourmaster. The noble Lord will certainly be aware that last month two notes were handed to our Embassy in Madrid by the Spanish Foreign Ministry, in which the Spanish Government say that such boardings, coupled with our insistence on territorial waters, could give rise to an increase in restrictions against the Rock and to the obstruction of maritime traffic. How much longer are we to appear to be one jump behind the Spanish? As I asked on January 23 last, could not a White Paper, for instance, or a document, be produced to expose and confound these Spanish tactics and statements? This document should be given the widest possible circulation so as to influence world public opinion.
I turn now to the Algeciras prohibited area. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. George Thomson, said on January 31 last in another place that this country had filed on September 6 last year—that is over five months ago—with the I.C.A.O. in Montreal a Memorial stating our case and setting in motion the appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention. May I ask the Minister whether Spain has filed a counter-Memorial, the deadline being February 1 this year, and has the disagreement yet been decided by the Council, or will it be necessary to invoke Article 85, that is, arbitration procedure?
I feel that Her Majesty's Government should take firm action in this matter, as the prohibited area has certainly interfered with flying. The present interference with access is intolerable, for Gibraltar is certainly not the only airport which is situated close to international
280
frontiers. As a C.O.I. document points out—I am quite sure the noble Lord has seen Gibraltar Airport—The Facts—Detroit, Copenhagen, Geneva and Singapore, which the noble Lord knows well, are in a similar position. As to restrictions on the frontier, will Her Majesty's Government step up diplomatic pressure and influence, with a view to causing Spain to have a "re-think" on this matter, in the same way that Spanish diplomacy exerted considerable diplomatic pressure last December at the United Nations?
In conclusion, I would ask the noble Lord when he comes to reply to please bear in mind that the people of Gibraltar are relying entirely on this country, and that it is imperative that these 24,000 British people, all on a small area of two and a quarter square miles, should no longer have this strong feeling of isolation. I would plead with him, as the Minister responsible, to do everything in his power to allay this fear.
7.12 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, the hour is considerably later than I had expected it to be owing to the extremely interesting debate which we have just heard, and I would prefer to try to cut my arguments short and concentrate on the points of the actual Unstarred Question. I should have liked to go over the whole of this enormous problem of Gibraltar, a problem which I think is taking on some of the characteristics of the Rock itself. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do this on another occasion.
Before I start my speech I should like to say that anything I say is a personal opinion. I have been instructed most clearly by my political Party to say that I am not speaking for them in any shape or form. In fact, I believe that in so far as there is a definite opinion in my Party it is much against me. But I am perhaps speaking for a younger generation, a generation of Englishmen for whom the Rock is not quite so symbolic as it is for many of your Lordships. My love and admiration for the apes on the Rock is that of an animal lover, rather than of somebody who believes that the British Empire will fall if ever they should die. The British Empire has, to all intents and purposes, disappeared. The idea of an Empire is one with which

281
many of your Lordships would not really wish to be associated in 1968.
Before coming to the actual points of the Unstarred Question I should like to look at one matter which never really seems to be looked at, and that is the situation and circumstances surrounding the capture of Gibraltar. I assure your Lordships that I shall do it quite briefly. At the time Great Britain was not at war with Spain but was merely supporting one of the Pretenders' claim to the Spanish throne. In the words of the Spanish Foreign Minister
"Great Britain usurped from the Prince whose cause she had adopted a stronghold which she had conquered in his name."
I think that this is historically a fact and is not really subject to argument.
I should like briefly to quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1879, volume 10, page 586. This, I think, is hardly the mouthpiece basically of Spanish propaganda. It says:
"The captors had ostensibly fought in the interests of Charles, Archduke of Austria (later Charles III), but, though his sovereignty over the Rock was proclaimed on July 24, 1704, Sir George Rooke on his own responsibility caused the English flag to be hoisted and took possession in the name of Queen Anne. It is hardly to the honour of England that it was both unprincipled enough to sanction and ratify the occupation, and ungrateful enough to leave unrewarded the General to whose unscrupulous patriotism the acquisition was due. The Spaniards keenly felt the injustice done to them, and the inhabitants of the town of Gibraltar in great numbers abandoned their homes rather than recognise the authority of the invaders."
Those are not my words; those are the words of the Enclopædia Britannica. That was how Gibraltar was taken.
We have always quoted Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht as the legal grounds for our presence in the Colony. But I wonder how many of your Lordships here have actually read Article 10 of the Treaty, or, at least, how many have read beyond the first paragraph. Perhaps I may quote the first paragraph, which says:
"The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and intire propriety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever."
282
That is quite clear. There is no problem arising from that. But, unfortunately, that is not the whole of Article 10 of the Treaty; and I feel that many British politicians have put down the Treaty of Utrecht when they reached this point and have not read any further. Noble Lords will have noticed that no reference is made there to the peninsula adjoining Gibraltar. The Article says, if I may repeat it:
"… the Town and Castle of Gibraltar together with the port, fortifications and forts thereunto belonging."
There is no mention whatsoever of the peninsula adjoining Gibraltar to what is now La Linea. It is on this peninsula that the airport is situated.
It seems that, judging by the Treaty of Utrecht, and that Treaty alone, we have a very poor claim indeed to the piece of land on which the airport is situated. This, I think, answers a part of the noble Lord's Question. The argument that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is hardly a principle that the British would want to put forward in 1968. It smacks rather of Stamford Raffles and "Bloody" Morgan, who conducted admirably the British policy of the years in which they lived. But I am grateful to see that British policy since then has changed.
Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht goes on:
"But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about."
I put it to your Lordships that this is equally clear, and I think it answers another part of the noble Lord's Question, paragraph (b), which asks the Government:
"whether they will consider taking some initiative calculated to achieve an improvement in the Spanish restrictions on the frontier …".
According to the Treaty of Utrecht, there is legally no frontier there at all. If anybody has ever been allowed to pass over it, or if any trade has been allowed to be conducted there, it is because the Spanish have been kind enough to allow us to do it, completely contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty of Utrecht which I have just read to your Lordships.

283
The Treaty of Utrecht further says, in Article 10:
"And Her Britannic Majesty at the request of the Catholic King does consent and agree that no leave shall be given, under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar."
This, in 1968, smacks of racialism and is something which I could not possibly accept or support in any way at all. If noble Lords agree with me on this, surely it is quite impossible to throw away one part of Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht and not in fact dispense with the whole thing, which means that we should be in Gibraltar illegally.
The final paragraph of Article 10 is perhaps the most important. It says:
"And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said Town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others."
I am not a lawyer, my Lords, but I think that an argument can be made out that that sentence of the Treaty of Utrecht is a complete answer to the part of the noble Lord's Question which comes under paragraph (a). In other words it seems to me doubtful that we have any legal right whatsoever to grant independence to the people of Gibraltar unless we first offer the territory to Spain. It can thence be seen that decolonisation is impossible without offering first to give it back to Spain. So much for the Treaty of Utrecht.
I will not go into the details of the ways we have used over the years to increase the territorial restrictions placed on Gibraltar. Suffice it to say that during the great yellow fever plague in 1815 the Governor, General Don, asked a favour of the Spanish authorities temporarily to billet those who had not had fever on neutral ground outside the walls of Gibraltar. This permission was granted by the Spanish, but we never returned. It is on that very ground which we were allowed to use by the Spanish that the airport is now situated.
The problem of Gibraltar is an extremely difficult one, but it is not one that will be solved by jingoism; nor will it be solved bilaterally between Great Britain and the people of Gibraltar, as
284
the Treaty of Utrecht cannot be overlooked and the Spanish have definite legal claims. What is needed is a three-way agreement, acceptable totally to Great Britain and Spain and as acceptable as possible to the present inhabitants.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would deny to the people of Gibraltar the basic rights of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights, which I believe we shall be celebrating this year?
LORD MOYNIHAN: No, my Lords, I certainly would not; and if the noble Lord will bear with me I will try to make my points and put forward some form of suggestion. My next words were to be that I agree that it is out of the question to hand over the people of Gibraltar to a Spain which is undemocratic; and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will give the people of Gibraltar a definite reassurance that there is no question of that happening. I wish that the noble Lord had given me a chance to say that before the interruption, but we must all hope and assume that in the near future a more liberal Government will emerge in Spain.
Geographically, Gibraltar is as much a part of Spain as Hong Kong is a part of China, and in my opinion there can be no long-term solution—I repeat, no long-term solution—to the problems of either place without bearing in mind that these geographical ties are at least as strong as those of Romney Marsh to England.
There seems to me to be a possible solution along the lines of returning Gibraltar to Spain in exchange for a very lengthy lease, perhaps 99 years; or, for that matter, 999 years. For what the Spanish are upset about, basically, is the fact that the present situation is a thorn in their side; it upsets their pride, a perfectly justifiable national pride, in a country which is not whole in any shape or form while Gibraltar is not a part of it. I suggest that this solution would be totally acceptable to the Spanish. I could be wrong, but I should be very interested to hear the Spanish turn down such a proposition. I suggest that it would equally be totally acceptable to Great Britain, and I suggest that it might well be very nearly acceptable, in some shape or form, to the people of Gibraltar.

285
The ultimate solution is, of course, a unification of Europe that would make us all—whether we be English, Gibraltarians or Spanish—simply Europeans. I look forward to seeing that day, which I am sure will arrive long before the end of any 99-year lease which we might create. However, in the meanwhile, let us put aside all jingoistic thoughts and let us try to work out a solution with the Spanish, who are, after all, a great, proud and dignified nation with whom I, for one, am proud to reassert my friendship.
7.27 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Merrivale for raising this very important subject, which is of great concern to the 24,000 inhabitants of the Rock. If in my speech I appear to be going over a somewhat wider field, I ask your Lordships to forgive me, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I think that we have to look at this matter from a slightly wider angle. Both the Spanish and the British Governments and peoples—and this is a question of peoples more than Governments—are bogged down in emotion coupled with legalism; we are getting down to legalistic details. To the British in the past, Gibraltar has been one of the brightest jewels in the Crown. This is partly because of the emotion which was evoked by the great defence of Gibraltar by General Elliott, which lasted some three years and seven months. It was a great feat. After something like that has happened, as it happened in Malta in the last war, we have a great feeling of emotion. But we must not let this worry us too much in looking at it from the Spanish point of view. Dover, for instance, was occupied in the 11th or 12th century by the Count of Boulogne. He might have got a treaty from the then King of England to enjoy it in perpetuity. If he, or his successors, had been able to hold on to it until to-day, I do not believe that any of us sitting here would be pleased by this circumstance. He would now no doubt have populated the area around Dover with various people from the area adjacent in France. It would not make it any the less objectionable to us and to our national pride. Similarly, had we held on to our completely legally owned base at Calais and the land adjacent
286
there, I am sure that every French citizen, from its great President downwards, would feel very strongly indeed.
We should remember these facts as a background. We are arguing both legalism and expansionism. We expand, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, by creeping trading, and we then justify it by occupation. On the other hand, we have undoubtedly annoyed the Spanish in the past, not only by occupying Gibraltar, but by allowing smuggling to go on, which has cost them an enormous amount. I would quote what Mr. Frederick Harrison wrote in 1917:
"In the 200 years we have held this town, we have made it a resort of smugglers, gypsies, vagabonds, African rogues, Spanish rebels…. As a systematic emporium for the smuggling of Spanish products into Britain, and of British goods into Spain, for generations Gibraltar was notorious."
This has not been true recently of the inhabitants. Obviously, we shall all accept that.
Just to give the background again, another encyclopædia, Chambers, which was published exactly 100 years ago in London and Edinburgh, said at the end of the article:
"Gibraltar is a free port and is a resort in consequence of Spanish smugglers who drive an amazing trade by introducing contraband goods into Spain. The British Government is not altogether free from a charge of breach of faith in the toleration it has given to these dishonest men for it is bound by many engagements to use its best exertions to prevent any fraud on the Spanish revenues."
I think we should all agree that this is true, and we must accept that the Spanish traditional background has made the position worse. We have angered the Spanish population by this behaviour.
Don Angel Ganivet, writing at the end of the last century, expressed what Señor de Madariaga has strongly endorsed. He said:
"Gibraltar is a force for England so long as Spain is weak; but if Spain were strong it would become a vulnerable point and would lose its raison d'être."
How true this is. It would then become a rather unpalatable nut, which was very indigestible.
How do we get round this? We must do something. The Spanish Government has made various suggestions. In May, 1966, the Spanish Foreign Minister suggested that if we were willing to give up our sovereignty they would be willing

287
to grant some long lease or something of that kind. They would be willing to negotiate a convention for the base. They also offered to protect the citizens' interests and British nationality and to register all these points with the United Nations as a protecting Power, so to speak.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another small pimple, one which exists on the French coast—Monaco. It is only a small place, even tinier than Gibraltar, with 2,000 citizens. But France has come to an agreement with the reigning Prince. The reigning Prince is a Sovereign Prince only in so far as he is under the protection of France. He has to accept one of three Ministers suggested as a Minister of State, and they are suggested to him by the French State. So the Minister of State of Monaco is a French citizen. Its Sovereign is its own Sovereign, Prince Rainier. They elect every five years by universal suffrage 18 members of their Council. However, they are bound to keep Monaco's guiding rules and laws on the same parallel course as those of France, who in return guards it from outside aggression and such like. It is only just a thought thrown out, but if one were able to get talking with the Spaniards on this matter again, without bias and without jingoism, I am sure there must be room for a possibility of peace.
If we could see the Union Jack flying beside the gold and red flag of Spain this would probably go halfway towards solving all the problems. If we could allow the Spanish Air Force and the Spanish civilian lines to share the airport; if we could allow the Spanish Navy to share our base, this would go a long way. We could probably extend the runways, and have new ones, and have them running diagonally. This would improve the airport enormously. I see the noble Lord shaking his head. Anyhow, conditions are now intolerable to both sides.
While I am on this point, I should like to pay tribute to the British forces who are in Gibraltar, the troops and the Navy, who, under extremely trying conditions, are a wonderful example of the best type of Briton abroad. With their patience and tolerance and good morale they help to keep up the example of what the people expect the British to do, and make the population of Gibraltar even more
288
loyal to us than we know they are already. It is the people of Gibraltar that we have to consider. It is no good their being loyal to us if we cannot protect them. The Spanish Government regard us somewhat as we regard Rhodesia, as being in an illegal state. I think we all accept that negotiations should take place with Rhodesia, but it is said by most people in this country, so far as I can see, that we should keep sanctions going while we negotiate. Similarly, Spain regards us as being illegal here and say, "We will keep up what we regard as rightful restrictions on you until you negotiate something with us." It is a rather similar parallel. If we can get agreement, all these problems will drop overnight, I am sure.
Finally, just to sum up, I should like to say that you must either accept the inconveniences imposed by the Spaniards, or come to terms. If you have complete independence and isolation from Spain, you do not really have much choice at all, because in that case you are going to continue having air restrictions. You will still not have a Spanish Consulate in Gibraltar. You will have Spaniards prevented from visiting Gibraltar. You will still have the Spanish Government refusing to recognise certain types of passports issued in Gibraltar. You will still have the withdrawal of certain residence permits in Spain. You will still have the withdrawal of most of the passes of the workers of Gibraltar. You will still have the imposition of delays at the frontier.
Equally, if you are going to have complete independence from Spain, you will have to recognise that they have had just grievances in Gibraltar's having made goods available to smugglers from its bonded stores; having allowed smugglers to pay for their goods in pesetas; having allowed pesetas to be freely transferred abroad, particularly to Tangier; and, also, having allowed tourists to finance their holidays in Spain by means of black market pesetas issued in Gibraltar. If this is the way Gibraltarians are going to react, relations with Spain will continue to be strained. Gibraltarians will have to keep away from Spain, and the Press and radio will persist with a provocative policy against Spain.
Let us look at the consequences of such a policy. Gibraltar's value as a fortress will cease, because it will be absolutely

289
worthless if all the territory around it is hostile. You are going to have to give expensive, artificial injections of help into the Gibraltar economy, some of which will mean making more ships visit it, having air squadrons staying there, using the Gibraltar dockyards for repairing ships—even though that is probably not the most economic way of doing it. Of course, the United Kingdom taxpayers will have to pay for this difference in what is essential and what is not.
The land communications between Gibraltar and Spain will still be virtually cut, because we know they have the right to dig up the road if they wish. You will then not get tourists using Gibraltar, and the children of Gibraltar and their children's children for generations will be confined to the Rock. The end result of this will be that the Gibraltarians will be in a similar position to that of employees in a firm which is rapidly going bankrupt in economic terms, and who have no hopes of alternative employment.
Just look at the other alternative of friendship. Then you will have to try to modify popular reactions to the restrictions and inconveniences in a manner which will make a policy of friendship attainable. In other words, the tail must not be allowed to wag the dog. It is only necessary to think back to the conditions which existed between Gibraltar and Spain before the war to see clearly that if friendly relations can be reestablished the Gibraltarians will gain in comfort, happiness and prosperity, and so will all the Spaniards in the neighbourhood.
Persons who believe in this should play their part in trying to attain it by ceasing to be provocative, by showing tolerance, by being patient and by, whenever we visit these places and other countries, trying to get the other side of the view looked at reasonably. It is no good working up feelings, whether it is in the United Nations or in Parliament, on matters like this. That is not the right way. The Spanish Government, as we know, is ready to talk to Britain about Gibraltar. Let us hope that the British Government, and all Parties, will take a broad view of the problem, unbiased by Party politics of any sort, and that they will try to re-establish friendly relations.
7.41 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I must apologise—and I have, indeed, already apologised to both Front Benches—for speaking without having put my name down on the list, but I was not certain that I should be here this afternoon. It was not until after lunch that I had put in my hand this letter from Gibraltar, from Mrs. Angela Smith. I feel that it would be wrong if I did not say a few words on behalf of the women of Gibraltar—and I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will join with me—and to sympathise with the predicament in which they find themselves and about which they feel very strongly. I therefore hope that I have your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes.
As your Lordships know, Mrs. Smith organised a petition in 1966, and I believe that 7,499 women signed it in four days. This number represented 96½ per cent. of the women on the Rock. The petition was sent to Her Majesty, and I am sure it must have created a very great impression. Quoting from Mrs. Smith's letter, this is really her main theme:
"As a mother of three children, I cannot allow the present opportunity to escape without a real attempt at getting our national status recognised and guaranteed by Britain. Our children cannot grow up to face the same situation without any security for the future".
I shall not go into the Treaty of Utrecht, into historical background or into anything else. All I know—and this is what I really want to say—is that the people of Gibraltar want to stay with Britain. That is what interests me; and it is in that way that we have to find our solution. I hope this will be said very strongly by the Minister, who has just been to Gibraltar, and who I feel sure is full of sympathy. But children grow up—they grow up too fast—and it must be an agonising state for fathers and mothers of families to be in, wondering what their children's future is going to be unless some decision is taken in the near future.
I think it is a great pity that we seem to be so obsessed with geographical tidiness when we look at a map, and this is really what has happened in the case of the Iberian Peninsula. If one were logical, the whole of the Iberian Peninsula

291
ought to be one country. It is two or three, with Gibraltar at the bottom. There are many other anomalies of this sort which do not seem to give the same kind of trouble. We have the Republic of San Marino, in Italy. We also have the Republic of Andorra, between Spain and France, which has a most interesting Constitution from which one might perhaps derive some benefit. It has two Princes, and no law can be passed without both Princes underwriting the law. One Prince is President of France, and the other is an eminent Bishop in the North of Spain. I think Andorra is a wonderful place, because there is such difficulty in underwriting any legislation that legislation is hardly ever passed—and I cannot think of any better heaven than that! However, there you have an interesting possibility.
When you come to think of it, there are other anomalies. Our Channel Islands are an anomaly; so is the Isle of Man; so are the Falkland Islands; so are all the Middle Eastern countries at the present moment. They are all anomalies. If we are going to stake the world out on a map in order that it should look nice and tidy, we are going to get involved in the most extraordinary predicament. So far as smuggling is concerned, smuggling has gone on all round the Mediterranean ever since man started to enforce borders. Smuggling is one of Andorra's biggest incomes. These are matters which can be adjusted, and which are not really all that important.
My Lords, we have been to the United Nations and we have done everything we can to meet Spain openly, but we have really had no response at all, except increased impediment. If I may quote from Lord Caradon's speech at the United Nations on December 19 of this year, he recalled the fact that there is not another case in the history of the United Nations in which a territory has been decolonised in defiance of the freely expressed will of the people. He also said that this was the first time that the Fourth Committee had opposed the opportunity of a free expression of opinion of a people. That was the referendum. So that was another first time.
If one looks at the votes of the nations who took this line at the United Nations, one can see the demarcation very clearly. The South American nations, in a body
292
practically, voted against Gibraltar because of their connection with Spain. The U.S.S.R. bloc and the satellites all voted against Gibraltar for very obvious reasons. Italy voted against it because Italy took part in the Civil War in Spain some years ago. It is difficult to explain the attitude of Greece; but when one looks at the votes one sees that there was a reason for those countries voting the way in which they did which had nothing to do with Gibraltar at all; and that is why the United Nations has not helped us. I said that I would speak for only a very few minutes. I have made the one or two points that I wanted to make, and I hope that we shall have a sympathetic reaction from the Minister, after his recent visit there.
7.48 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, to-day, as over the recent months, I join in any discussion on this subject with acute discomfort, since every time we touch upon it the state of affairs looks worse and the prospect for the Gibraltarians looks bleaker than the time before. All the same, it would strike me as somewhat cowardly on my part not to join in since, unlike other noble Lords, I have watched and worried over this situation sometimes at close quarters and over fairly long periods for the last 20 years—although I have to admit that I cannot remember as luridly as some the outbreak of yellow fever in 1815 or the taking of Gibraltar in 1704.
I hope devoutly that I shall not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, by saying that I feel the greatest sympathy for him in this task among the many that face him in his present Office. I know most of the obstacles which confront him and something of the narrow, the crampingly narrow, compass in which at present he has to operate and seek a solution. I know that he will do his best, and a very capable best—indeed, the whole House relies upon him to do so—but he is continually being urged with the best will in the world to achieve the desirable by impossible means; means which simply are not open to him. In my view, that is the case to-day.
I also have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Merrivale in his efforts to help the Gibraltarians, but I say to him, in all friendliness, that his questions to-day, to my mind, will not have that

293
effect. A population of 18,000 people, 2,000 miles away from Britain cannot feasibly take on the responsibilities of internal self-government, even with its foreign affairs and defence being handled by Britain. Nothing which my noble friend proposes would prevent the United Nations from continuing to debate this matter, and indeed the sort of unilateral action which he, I gather, favours would be taken as a defiance of United Nations' rulings and would antagonise that body even more than is the case to-day. There can be no doubt that this would be turned to account by Spain; indeed, it would be a "gift" to the more belligerent element within Spain. It would be regarded as further justification for isolating Gibraltar from the mainland, and it is utterly preposterous—and I say this with confidence—to suppose that the Gibraltarians can afford to be isolated from the mainland and yet live, and continue to live, satisfying, still less prosperous, lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has recently been to Gibraltar, and therefore we value his participation and his winding-up of this debate. He has been in Gibraltar where, I know, he was warmly welcomed, as he deserved and as he always will deserve. It is rumoured that he has some plan to alter the form of the Legislature in Gibraltar, in particular to streamline it; and I am sure that this makes sense, the sort of sense I know that many leading Gibraltarians are ready to accept. I should like to think that this might take the form of a purely Civic Authority with wide responsibilities, responsibilities which can be most ably discharged—as some of us know they will be—by some of those whom we also personally know in Gibraltar. If this should be in the noble Lord's mind I should like to be among the first to support and applaud him. I am certain that this would be more beneficial to the Gibraltarians than what has been proposed by my noble friend.
My noble friend also referred to the Spanish rejection of the offer to take the legal issues concerning Gibraltar to the International Court of Justice. But apart from the aerodrome and its location, there are no legal issues over Gibraltar. This is a cardinal mistake, it seems to me, which my noble friend and other well-wishers continually make. The Spanish
294
Government have not, in fact, questioned our legal right to be in Gibraltar under the Treaty of Utrecht. What they have said, as I understand it, is that this is a situation which is no longer politically tolerable; and the Court at The Hague cannot take up political issues. Moreover, as Her Majesty's Government know, the Spanish Government put forward the argument—and I think it is a fairly difficult argument to refute—that the issue is now in the hands of the United Nations Organisation itself and this Organisation is superior to any of its own Agencies.
But, having said this, it would be absurd to suggest that this is an issue which can be decided, can possibly be decided, by a resolution of the United Nations alone. What we must hope is that it will be decided by moderates, by moderate opinion and moderate influence in particular in Spain and in Gibraltar. Impossible demands must not be made by either side because this will continue to end in deadlock and the duty of us all who take an interest in this is to break that deadlock.
The second of my noble friend's questions, or requests, to Her Majesty's Government, is, it seems to me, as impractical as the first, and, I should think, very difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to accept or even to encourage. What sort of initiative can Her Majesty's Government take regarding the over-flight restrictions? The Spaniards have made it abundantly and forcibly plain that they will not consider the matter of the air traffic restrictions in isolation from the dispute as a whole, and I frankly do not see how any British Government could expect to persuade them to do so.
I am deeply convinced that the solution of every individual problem and the relief of every individual hardship at present burdening the Gibraltarians lies in a wide agreement, between the Governments, on the status of Gibraltar as a whole. I can see that this achievement becomes more difficult as time goes by, but I believe, from what knowledge I have, that agreement can still be obtained short of—and well short of—handing over Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians immediately to Spain—a course which none of us contemplates. There is room—and I insist that there is room—for compromise, and it is only the opponents of any

295
compromise who argue that Spain will accept nothing less than immediate possession.
There is no reason and no excuse for believing or arguing this or for believing that the Spanish Government are not open to negotiations. For what it is worth, it is my conviction that there can still be a fruitful and honourable outcome to talks so long as those talks are set in the wider context and not in the narrow context. We must all appreciate that Spain has as much to lose from aggravation of this dispute as we have, and that Spain has as much to gain by its solution. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that no happy, acceptable outcome can be found by Jingoists, British or Spanish. That is one of the reasons why I am so happy that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has this in his hands today.
My Lords, I have not stood up to-day to attack the Government, and certainly not to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself. But I have to say that I think it was a great error of judgment and a strategic error in May, 1965, to ignore the Castiella proposals without at the same time offering something in their place. Those proposals were seriously intended. Unacceptable they may have been to the Ministers concerned; but we should, to my mind, have specified what was indigestible in them. I believe they could have been taken as a basis for negotiations or alternatively—and perhaps better—British proposals could have been put on the table and something worked out between the two sets of proposals.
As it was, and as it remains, no serious British proposals have been provided and Spain as a consequence has had, and continues to have, the initiative ever since. I sincerely believe that it would help greatly to clear the air and to clear the minds of those who are interested in, concerned with and influential in this problem, both in Britain and in Spain, if the noble Lord could this evening identify and describe the objections to the proposals of May 18, 1965.
It was said in The Times on Monday:
"Madrid wants to discuss ways and means of returning Gibraltar to Spain while Whitehall is interested merely in ending the Spanish harassment of Gibraltar.'
296
My Lords, in this way, never the twain shall meet. Of course, we can go on making no concessions whatever, and the Rock will remain British. The Spaniards will not invade, as the Indians invaded Goa without any great fuss on our part. They will not employ the methods of violence and infiltration so lately employed by the Chinese in Hong Kong. But if we persist in refusing any concessions, life on the Rock will become increasingly intolerable: the Gibraltarians, I believe, will begin to leave it, and it will become rapidly depopulated. I hope this is not the solution that we seek for the Gibraltarians, and particularly for the children on whose behalf the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, spoke.
I am sure, on the other hand, that it would not help for me to-day to refer to any one possible formula among the many formulae mooted at one time, or another. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would not thank me for asking him to name his favourite among them. But I offer this thought, as one who knows the Gibraltarians well over many years, and feels the respect and affection for them which anyone so placed is bound to feel. With this in mind, I suggest, putting it very allegorically, that three-quarters of a Rock is better than an uninhabited rock with the present inhabitants demoralised and scattered to strange places far from the homes and occupations in which they take a rightful pride to-day. No one can sensibly doubt that there are still a great many measures which the Spanish Government, the Spanish authorities, can take within their own borders which would make life tougher, less profitable and less bearable for the Gibraltarians almost immediately, and which, if extended in time and scope, would break, I believe, the morale and undermine the will of these people to remain where they were born and where they belong. We must do better for them than that, a great deal better.
My Lords, in closing I want to emphasise what I regard as the overriding factor which has bedevilled almost every negotiation on the Gibraltar question between the British and Spanish Governments over many years and through the periods of many Governments, and perhaps most

297
critically to-day. We have continually underrated, undervalued and underestimated the depth and sensitivity of Spanish feeling about Gibraltar. The greatest disservice that anyone can do to the interests of British Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians is to suppose or pretend, as it is often supposed and pretended, that this is no more than a political strategem by an ephemeral régime. There is nothing ephemeral about it. The present form of British possession of Gibraltar is a wound in the pride of every Spaniard under whatever Government or régime he lives. This fact has been consistently ignored, and we can continue to ignore it to-day only at the direct cost of the Gibraltarians.
My Lords, I doubt whether the reason for this feeling is often appreciated, even by those who are aware of it by their contact with Spaniards. Spain is a Mediterranean power and on the Mediterranean coast of the Spanish mainland Gibraltar is the key strategic point. If we are trying to imagine ourselves with a similar problem and similar indignation, it is not enough to imagine that the Lizard or Cape Wrath were military bases of Soviet Russia. We must imagine that Dover was in the hands of a foreign Power which had expressed some antagonism towards us in this immediate period of history. My noble friend dwelt on the impression created among Spaniards by this, and we ignore it, as I say, at the cost of the Gibraltarians.
Spain, my Lords, is not antagonistic towards Britain and is quite prepared for the continuance of the British base and for Britain to insist upon safeguards for the Gibraltarians. But antagonism will, I sincerely believe, be created by any continued failure seriously to seek a solution. We have to face the fact that a solution must include concessions and must provide safeguards. Some of the concessions must come from us and some must be made by the Spaniards on their own demands. Given the safeguards, I believe that concessions will pay off to the benefit of the Gibraltarians. The Spaniards also have to think and act in terms of moderation.
If the Government do not consider that the Castiella proposals provide such safeguards they are entitled so to argue.
298
Let them say so, and let them say also what they would regard as proper safeguards. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I should ask this question to-day. I do not think that it is an abuse of the substantive Question set down by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, because I believe that only by broadening the approach can we have any hope of achieving what he hopes to achieve and ensuring a secure, satisfying and prosperous future for the Gibraltarians.
8.5 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I shall speak for only a very short time, but I felt it might be appropriate if a few words were said from these Back Benches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on raising this question once again and also on his tenacity in ploughing a lonely furrow on this, subject, about which he rightly feels so strongly, over such a long period. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. I also listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am not surprised that the noble Lord said that he was not speaking for the Liberal Party, because, my Lords, I have rarely heard such an illiberal speech coming from those Benches. Listening to the noble Lord one would have thought that, at best, one was dealing with a bare rock, or with a piece of desert, or at worst with a population of serfs who were to be bought and sold by one owner to another.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what it was I said which led him to that conclusion?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is not what the noble Lord said, it is what the noble Lord did not say that led me to that conclusion.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Then tell us what he did not say.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord took us all through the Treaty of Utrecht. He also quoted from certain ancient out-of-print and out-of-date encyclopædias about law, and leasehold, and so on; but there was very little about people, my Lords, and this is a question of people. This is a question of the people of Gibraltar and what they want—
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for a moment, may I say that I think that on the points that I made about the Treaty of Utrecht it is only fair to say that at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht—by which we are legally bound, whether we like it or not—there were precious few inhabitants of Gibraltar. This is an enormous problem and I am not for one moment overlooking the future of those people in Gibraltar. I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or anyone else, to be under the illusion that I am. What I was dealing with was the Treaty of Utrecht as it stands, and, of course, that Treaty was signed when the present inhabitants of Gibraltar were not there.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, but they are there now, and that is the point. It is the people who are living there now and what they want which is the point.
I listened also with great interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald; and to their constructive proposals for a solution. I agree that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue; there must be some form of compromise. But whatever the compromise is, we must take into account the fact that there are people living in Gibraltar and it is the human aspirations of those people and what they want that we must consider. For those reasons, my Lords, I hope that in any consideration the Government are giving to this problem they will never forget that they are dealing with human people. It is not a question of just a bare rock. Whether it is of strategic importance any longer or not does not matter a bit. It is the fact of the people living there, and what they desire; and, by a very large majority, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, they have opted to stay with this country. That is what they want, and whatever we do, my Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not let them down.
8.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is becoming what would have been in the old days a rather late hour, but I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for raising this
300
subject which is of importance to the people of Gibraltar. I am personally appreciative of the opportunity to say a few words after my very recent visit to Gibraltar; although I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, regarding some of the very detailed questions which he put to me about what decisions one may have arrived at following that visit, that I shall not be able to answer, for reasons which I shall give him in the course of my speech.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that any praise for me, coming from him, seems to have a rather damning effect for me, at least among my friends, but I am grateful that for once he sought to praise me and not to abuse me. To my noble friend Lord Strabolgi may I say that I agree entirely with what he said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I can well understand that though our Benches are not very full, the Benches of Lord Moynihan's Party should be completely empty. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is not quite in the same class as the other noble Lords, although he was very close to it. My entire sympathies are with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, who spoke on the basic problem of Gibraltar—not the Treaty of Utrecht but the Declaration of Human Rights and the people of Gibraltar.
I spent six days in Gibraltar and made a special effort to see as many people and organisations as possible. The most dominating impression of my visit was of the will and spirit of the people, which were firm and strong. It might be said that when one speaks with the leaders of a people one meets with cold logic, but the warmth and emotion of Miss Angela Smith, the leader of the Housewives' League, soon dispelled that, and the visit I paid to the ordinary people in the Laguna Bay Housing Estate confirmed my dominating impression that the people of Gibraltar wish to continue their abiding link with the United Kingdom. In representing Her Majesty's Government I felt proud and terribly humble about the obligation which the faith of these people placed on the British Parliament and the British people. I would say to the noble Baroness and to the lady who wrote to her that I do not believe, as I said many times when

301
in Gibraltar, that any word written on any piece of paper in the form of a treaty could make the relationship between this country and the people of Gibraltar any stronger than it is. I hope that the people of Gibraltar will accept this and cast aside the doubts that I know exist.
I should like to deal with the problem that is before us. First comes the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, about which we have heard so much. I suppose that few other Treaties of that time cause more difficulty in our affairs to-day. Article X of that Treaty provides for the Crown of Great Britain acquiring
"… the full and intire propriety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications and forts thereunto belonging … to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever".
It goes on:
"… in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to sell or by any means alienate therefrom the propriety of the said Town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded, that the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others."
The implication of this Treaty is that the idea of independence for Gibraltar, even if other considerations made it realistic, is meaningless. Another implication, which is perhaps less obvious, is that the status known as free association is similarly ruled out, since an integral factor in it is the right to pass to independence at the unilateral choice of the territory.
The next important document is a Statement made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, Mrs. Judith Hart, in another place on June 14, 1967, in which she announced the holding of the Referendum. In that Statement she said that the people of Gibraltar were being invited to say which of two courses would best serve their interests. The second of two courses was:
"Voluntarily to retain their link with Britain, with democratic local institutions and with Britain retaining its present responsibilities."
The statement went on to say that if the majority vote went in favour of the second course,
"we will regard this choice as constituting in the circumstances of Gibraltar a free and voluntary relationship of the people of Gibraltar with Britain We will thereafter discuss with representatives of the people of Gibraltar appropriate constitutional changes which may be desired."
302
Finally, the Statement said that if the majority voted for the second course,
"provision will also be made for the people of Gibraltar to retain the right at any future time to express by free and democratic choice the desire to modify their status by joining with Spain, in which event we would be ready to approach the Spanish Government accordingly."
As the House knows, the result of the Referendum was a decisive vote in favour of the second course. In my view, that vote constitutes the reality of decolonisation.
The third factor in the situation, however much we may deplore it, is the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 19, 1967. This resolution condemned the holding of the Referendum as contravening the provisions of the earlier General Assembly resolution and called upon the Spanish Government and ourselves to resume negotiations, with a view
"to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguard the interests of the population upon the termination of that situation."
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cara-don at the United Nations left no one in any doubt as to the attitude of the United Kingdom Government—and, I believe, of Parliament—to this resolution, which he described as disgraceful because, among other things, it flouted the Charter of the United Nations. My noble friend stated our position in the following words:
"There are two basic principles which we cannot betray: first, the principle that the interests of the people must be paramount; and second, that the people have the right freely to express their own wishes as to their future. These principles have guided us and will continue to guide us in our task of carrying out our responsibilities to the peoples of the dependent territories for which we are responsible."
May I break off for a moment to say that we are not thinking in terms just of Gibraltar but of how it is going to affect all the other people who are now living under colonial rule. My noble friend Lord Caradon continued:
"In the whole process of decolonisation we have adopted the methods of consultation and consent.
"We shall not abandon those principles in the few Dependent Territories for which we are still responsible. We have consequently maintained and constantly stated that to hand over this small, proud, united community of free men against their will, bound for ever

303
to a régime which has done so much in an endeavour to harm them, would be an intolerable injustice."
My Lords, those are the views of Her Majesty's Government expressed by my noble friend Lord Caradon. For these reasons my noble friend made clear at the United Nations that we reject the resolution as partial and misguided and contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter. I feel bound to say that what I found so distressing about this vote was the attitude of so many countries who place so great a store on their own independence, their own freedom, yet were prepared to close their eyes on this small community of people. However, I am also pleased to say that there were a number of Commonwealth countries who consistently, despite very great difficulties, helped us in this matter at the United Nations. We have made clear, moreover, that while we remain ready as ever to hold discussions with Spain about Gibraltar, we could not do so solely upon the basis of this General Assembly resolution. As I have said, in our view this resolution is contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights.
The purpose of my visiting Gibraltar was not just to let me see the people of Gibraltar face to face, and to see their city and to see their difficulties. The main purpose of my visit was to prepare the way for formal constitutional talks of the kind envisaged in the statement I quoted earlier in regard to the referendum. The circumstances of Gibraltar are so unusual that we believed that the best way of ensuring that these talks should be fruitful was for me to hold preliminary, informal and confidential talks with a wide range of Gibraltarian citizens and representatives. In this way, it would be possible for our thinking to develop on the same lines, and eventually the talks of a formal nature, when we call them, are more likely to produce full results. I am glad to say that for my part, at least, that visit was successful.
I was able to exchange views with a wide cross-section of opinion and to hold talks, very detailed talks, with the various political groups. I believe that those talks were constructive and productive. As I said, our talks were confidential, and, therefore, if I were to reply to the
304
first question, I should in fact be rejecting the views of some of the political organisations who approached me in Gibraltar; and therefore the noble Lord, I am sure, will understand that I cannot reply to that directly. I found a very realistic attitude among the elected representatives and others, and I think I was able to make my own contribution on this very difficult problem, and all these matters are now being carefully considered in my office.
Without wishing to prejudice the course of the forthcoming discussions, I think there can be no harm if I indicate what I believe are the limits of our final discussions. Our aim in Gibraltar would naturally be to provide the Gibraltarians with the maximum control over their internal domestic affairs. Nobody could possibly question the capacity of the Gibraltarians to manage their own affairs, and I am bound to say that if Gibraltar were in a different position on the globe, and perhaps if it were a little larger, certainly they would well have achieved full internal self-government by now. But while this may be common ground between us, we all know that the circumstances of Gibraltar are different. While we should wish to see a development of domestic control, there must be a dividing line between what are purely domestic matters and those which affect Her Majesty's Government's interests, particularly as a military base. Therefore, for that reason, there must be some retention in the Governor's powers.
At the outset of my speech I quoted from the Treaty of Utrecht. It must be clear that no constitutional changes must conflict with that Treaty or our obligations that flow from it. I also quoted from the Referendum statement of June 14, 1967, which indicated that Britain would retain her responsibilities. Clearly these must continue under any revised Constitution, in that an effective British presence and an intimate relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Gibraltarians is provided. I think I should stress that the present machinery of the Gibraltar Council has worked most effectively, and there has been no stress or strain between the Ministers and the Governor. None of this, in my view, should mean closing the door to the possibility of a better relationship with Spain at some time in the future, which

305
I am sure the House would agree is the real interest not only of ourselves and Spain but, not least, of the people of Gibraltar. But, my Lords, I wish to repeat this—and this I said on television: that does not mean capitulation. That is a very important fact.
I hope that noble Lords will not think I have spoken too long in an introduction to this matter before I answer two specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and the various questions that he and other noble Lords have raised, but I thought it right to put these words on record, particularly in the interests of those in Gibraltar. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, in his first question raised the matter of the final Constitution. I think I should say quite bluntly that I do not believe any Constitution in itself is final. In many respects, I think it would be presumptuous of us to suggest that whatever may be agreed with the leaders in Gibraltar is ever final. This is a matter which we should need to watch and to see how it developed, according to the situation in Gibraltar. The noble Lord also asked us about the final status of Gibraltar. Here I must make it absolutely clear that the constitutional changes which are envisaged will not result in any alteration in the present international status of Gibraltar. In the Referendum, on which the Gibraltarians themselves voted so unanimously, there were very clear words that Gibraltar, by remaining with the United Kingdom, did not itself envisage any change in its international status.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am grateful to him for giving way. When he mentions this question of status, does he mean the status of the territory or does he mean the status of the citizen of Gibraltar?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have very much in mind the status of the Colony, and I should suspect that that very much means the status of the people who live in that territory.
The noble Lord also asked me about the transmission of information to the United Nations under Article 73(E) of the Charter. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter of detail. In fact, whatever may be the decision on this point, I suggest it would be optimistic to
306
suppose that the Committee of 24, or any other committee, would feel precluded from debating the problem of Gibraltar, whatever view we were to take on it. However, the noble Lord will be aware of the attitude expressed quite recently, in the last few days, at the Committee of 24 and at the United Nations, as to our general attitude towards the activities of that Commitee.
In regard to the restrictions in the airfield, I think I should say this: it is an irritant. It has had but small effect upon flights into Gibraltar. I see that a Spanish newspaper referred to it as
"a grievous and mortifying blow".
I saw some statistics the other day; and, fortunately, they are very small indeed. In regard to the tourist season, the latest information I have is that the hotels expect a very good season, and we have no reason to believe that the restrictions which have been placed by Spain, and which in our view are completely illegal, will have any effect on tourism in Gibraltar.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I am sure he will be aware that this over-flying ban has had the effect that on a number of occasions aircraft which were due to land had, because of atmospheric conditions, to land either at Tangier or at Malaga, and it was rather a grave inconvenience for persons proceeding to Gibraltar.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I speak merely from memory (and it is a fairly good memory), but I believe that of the 450 flights the number of aircraft which were diverted on account of weather conditions was 15. I speak subject to correction, but the number is fairly close to that figure. Therefore the noble Lord will accept the point that I made: that these restrictions have in fact had only a marginal effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, then spoke about whether we should not have these more formal talks in London The noble Lord will remember that he questioned me some weeks ago, when he wanted a wider opinion to be available, and I pointed out to him then that to make that opinion available it would be best to have the talks in Gibraltar. If we were to have them in London, then,

307
by custom, those talks would be limited merely to the elected members of the Legislative Council. One thing I can say: I discussed this with the members of the Legislative Council, and they agreed that it would be infinitely better for all concerned if these discussions were held in Gibraltar.
The noble Lord spoke about the Governor's powers in relation to domestic affairs. This is a matter which we are looking at and I believe a settlement can be reached. The noble Lord also drew attention to an issue which confronted me every day when I was in Gibraltar (and, if I may say so, it was not only in Gibraltar), the question of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and how it affects the people. I was very firm in Gibraltar. I pointed out that I personally, like many of my noble friends on this side of the House, dislike the Act. We recognise the necessity for it, but we can accept that Act only on the basis that it applies to all, and there should be no possible exceptions. The noble Lord shakes his head.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it is hardly surprising.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was quite blunt in regard to this. I dealt with it on the Gibraltar television, and I have received no reaction to it. I think the people of Gibraltar understand this point of view.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I only wish to make the point that, as the noble Lord knows, there is an exception for the Maltese, and I am sure the Gibraltarians have this in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no exception in the case of Malta; all that has been done is to give them a special voucher issue. This is quite different from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, of free entry into the United Kingdom.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I quite agree.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, also asked whether we should not reinforce the Gibraltar garrison. I do not need to see my right honourable friend the Minister
308
of Defence because I have already asked the specific question. The answer is that there is no barrack accommodation available, and if we were to put in troops on a permanent basis they would have to be under canvas. With regard to the Navy, I am pleased to say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that there were four or five frigates there during my visit.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, were they Spanish or British?
LORD SHEPHERD: They were British, my Lords. The others are "Smokey Joes" I believe. I do not believe that the Gibraltarians feel isolated. I believe this is far from being the case. They are conscious of the restrictions upon them, but they feel so close to us that I do not believe the word "isolation" applies to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked whether we could not offer Spain the use of the airfield and the harbour. May I refer the noble Lord to the British proposals put to Spain in July, 1966, details of which are in the "Blue Book" at page 43 (Cmnd. 3131)? He will find the answer there, and as it is getting late I shall not read it.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, spoke about the need for compromise, and that we should be open to negotiation. We have always made our view clear in this matter. We should wish to discuss the problem of Gibraltar and Spanish-United Kingdom relations, but we are unwilling—determined in this view—that it should be related purely and simply to the United Nations resolution. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, asked me whether we had reacted to the Spanish Government's proposals of May 18. Here again I will not go into detail owing to the lateness of the hour, but I would refer him to pages 42 to 44 and 121 and 122 of that same document (Cmnd. 3131) where we in fact made our counter proposals.
My Lords, I have been speaking at considerable length, and I apologise to this House. There may be some questions that I have not answered, although I think I have dealt with most of them. Perhaps, therefore, in closing I could express a word of deep appreciation to

309
the Governor, to the Chief Minister, and all those in Gibraltar who did so much to help me to see and to understand the problem of Gibraltar. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, mentioned the Forces. I was particularly impressed with the Army—the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Warwickshire Regiment—who have done a really magnificent job, not just to avoid friction with the civilians, but really to make an effort to be partners in their troubles. I am looking forward to May, when the Royal Ulster Rifles will be there and also the Royal Highland Fusiliers. I am sure this will be a notable occasion.
310
Perhaps I may close by saying this. I have an abiding sense of a warm affection to ourselves, loyalty to the Crown and the people of this country, and I would only say to those in Gibraltar that if there are difficult days ahead (and it has been suggested that there may be) we shall stand by them and we shall sustain them despite all the difficulties.

SALVATION ARMY BILL [H.L.]
The Order of yesterday discharged, and Bill referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.