Sitting of 26 March 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPERANNUATION ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Weather Forecasts
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to judge the standard of accuracy of the 30-day weather forecasts.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The forecast monthly mean temperature and rainfall are each compared with observed values in 10 districts of the British Isles. A separate assessment is made of the other information contained in the forecast. These criteria are then used to judge the overall standard of accuracy.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public do not share the complacency of the Ministry over the accuracy of these forecasts and are not very happy about them? Are the criteria too soft? In other words, if the forecast is a spell of cold weather and it lasts 21 days, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the criteria are too weak?
    Mr. Reynolds: No one in the Ministry is complacent about the Meteorological
    1598
    Office. It would be better if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman explaining the criteria, which are complicated. I would not like to try and explain them in answer to Questions.
    Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure the accuracy of one-day forecasts?
    Mr. Reynolds: They are measured on a completely different set of criteria, about which I will inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he so wishes. There is no complacency about this, but the situation is not as bad as some people try to make out.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he took into acount the existence of easily discernible short-term patterns of weather before deciding not to introduce a 14-day forecast in place of the 30-day forecast.
    Mr. Reynolds: Short-term weather patterns caused by the movement of depressions and anti-cyclones do not continue in any readily predictable manner over periods as long as 14 days. This was one of the factors taken into account in deciding not to introduce 14-day forecasts.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a 12-day pattern of weather precipitations whereby water is sucked up from the oceans and deposited again in a fairly regular pattern over 12 days? Is not this one reason for moving to 14-day long-range forecasting, which might be rather more successful than the present 30-day forecasting?
    Mr. Reynolds: I will look at this problem and will write to the hon. Gentleman about it as well.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will investigate the system of weather forecasting, of which details have been sent to him, devised by Mr. Arthur Phillips of Newton Abbot, and which has proved more accurate than the Meteorological Office forecasts.
    Mr. Reynolds: The accuracy claimed for these forecasts in comparison with those of the Meteorological Office appears to have been exaggerated. Better evidence

    1599
    would be needed to justify a special study of the system. My noble Friend will write to the hon. Member with further details.
    Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is unnecessary for him to write to me about it, because this man forecasts the weather for 12 months ahead and it is, therefore, quite possible for my right hon. Friend to check between now and 31st December whether his forecasts are good, bad or indifferent or at least better than the Meteorological Office forecasts?
    Mr. Reynolds: I do not know what method is used in this case, but this gentleman forecast a cold January which turned out to be mild; a wet February which, in the event, was rather dry over most of the country; a fine spell in mid-March which proved cold, unsettled and wet; and a wet third week in March which was dry.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had from the United States Defence Secretary on problems of the emplacement of nuclear weapons on the seabed, such as the installation of nuclear silos on the North Atlantic Ridge; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): None, Sir, but of course my Department is in close touch with the Department of Defence on all aspects of military use of the seabed.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect on the proposals of Senator Clairborne Pell, of Rhode Island, which have been sent to him? Is he in the process of drawing any conclusions?
    Mr. Healey: I think my hon. Friend has a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the disarmament aspect of the problem. The Government are as anxious as all hon. Members that the international efforts to prevent the emplacement of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction on the sea bed should be attended by success.

    Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations with other European partners for the building of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.
    Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence (Equipment) on 4th and 19th March 1969, in the course of the Defence and Air Estimates debates.—[Vol. 779, c. 357–8. Vol. 780, c. 682–4.]
    Mr. Howarth: In view of the importance of this aircraft to the R.A.F., to our defence effort and to our aircraft industry, what would be the time scale if we got a go-ahead within the next month or two?
    Mr. Healey: If we can get a go-ahead—that is, if the Governments concerned agree—we should be proceeding to the project definition stage of the programme, which would take about a year, in spring, 1969.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is progress, or lack of it, in the negotiations on a European airbus having an effect on the negotiations for this combat aircraft?
    Mr. Healey: I have no reason to believe that that is the case.

    United Nations Operations (Peacekeeping)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange jointly with the Governments of Eire and Yugoslavia simulated peacekeeping exercises by the forces of the three countries as a prototype for United Nations operations.
    Mr. Healey: The United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations is in the process of finalising a factual survey of U.N. observer missions authorised by the Security Council. The Committee intends to draw up recommendations based on this survey for the conduct of future operations of this kind. It will then go on to consider other aspects of peacekeeping. It would be premature to arrange exercises of the

    1601
    kind proposed by my hon. Friend in advance of the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Hooley: I welcome the interest of my right hon. Friend in the activities of the U.N. in this respect. However, does he not think that we might get rather further forward rather faster if some initiative were taken by a country like ours in conjunction with friendly Powers in a practical exercise to demonstrate what could be achieved?
    Mr. Healey: We have taken initiatives. Indeed, the progress already made by the Special Committee owes a good deal to British initiative. But my hon. Friend must recognise that neutral countries, in particular those like Eire and Yugoslavia, are very reluctant to engage in exercises of the type he suggests with non-neutral countries outside the ambit of the United Nations.
    Mr. Rippon: Remembering the declarations which the Government made when they took office, what British forces are now available for United Nations operations?
    Mr. Healey: In case of need, very large British forces. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have specially earmarked certain logistic units to be ready permanently for immediate support for United Nations operations of this kind, but this by no means comprehends the total forces which would be available, or those which we are making available at this moment in Cyprus.
    Captain W. Elliot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the effectiveness of joint peace-keeping operations is well illustrated by our forces and Commonwealth forces in Malaysia?
    Mr. Healey: I certainly agree that the confrontation exercise in which we and other Commonwealth countries took part was an immensely successful operation for stabilising South-East Asia. The operations in Cyprus under United Nations auspices in which we are co-operating with other countries are equally successful.

    Royal Dockyards
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has
    1602
    had with all levels of Staff in Her Majesty's naval dockyards following the decision to reduce manpower and to streamline management in the three southern yards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): Discussions were initiated on the Whitley Councils, and with the Whitley Committees of the four home dockyards on the day the Defence White Paper was published. On the same day each employee in the dockyards was given a pamphlet dealing with the future of his yard. In addition, a symposium about the details of the decisions concerning the dockyards has been given to members of the Whitley Councils and Committees, and to a number of district union officials.
    Mr. Judd: I commend my hon. Friend on the action already taken. However, would he not agree that the success of the new scheme depends on men at all levels directly understanding the rôle of the yards servicing the Navy and understanding the rôle of the Navy they are servicing? Will he assure the House that full consultations of the kind recently held with civic leaders will be held with the men themselves?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, I can give that assurance. I welcome the discussions already held on the initiative of the Commander in Chief, Portsmouth, with the Portsmouth civic leaders.
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he took into account industrial capacity in civil establishments outside the Royal Dockyards before arriving at the decisions on the Dockyard review.
    Dr. David Owen: This factor was taken fully into account in arriving at the decisions announced in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969.
    Mr. Ramsden: What is the estimated annual saving when the dockyard rundown is complete? Would the figure have been any greater if the alternative solution of a complete closure of one dockyard had been adopted?
    Dr. Owen: I cannot give the figure without notice, but I will consider that question if the right hon. Gentleman

    1603
    wishes to write to me. As for the comparative costs between putting it out to contract——
    Mr. Ramsden: No. The House has not been given the total annual saving as a result of the review when the rundown is complete.
    Dr. Owen: I will consider giving that, but I cannot do so without notice.

    Royal Dockyards (Chief Executive)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will appoint the Chief Executive for Her Majesty's naval dockyards.
    Mr. Reynolds: As soon as I am ready.
    Mr. Judd: While this is certainly a move in the right direction, some people feel that it will not be enough. Will my right hon. Friend take quick action to clarify the precise rôle of civil management within the individual yards themselves?
    Mr. Reynolds: While a decision in principle has been taken, as announced in the White Paper, there are still many aspects which I am considering. I should not like to go further than what I have said today. I want to make an announcement quickly and I will do so as quickly as possible.

    Shoeburyness Firing Range
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in finding an alternative to the Shoeburyness firing range.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): The subject is under active examination at the request of the Roskill Commission but no conclusions have yet been reached.
    Mr. Allason: A year ago the House was told that no siutable alternative site could be found. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made towards new methods which will obviate the necessity to go out on the dried out sands at low tide to recover shots made at high tide?
    Mr. Morris: I am not sure to which answer the hon. Gentleman refers, but we hope to submit to the Roskill Commission
    1604
    by mid-June an estimate of the cost and time scale of re-establishing the Shoeburyness facilities at any alternative location which may emerge, and this will take into account any alternative methods of carrying out the work which may prove to be feasible.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: When the Minister says that this matter is under active consideration, does he mean that he is taking into account the possibility of the third London Airport being based at Foulness?
    Mr. Morris: All these are matters under consideration. We hope to submit our report to the Roskill Commission by mid-June.

    Military Hospital, Millbank
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Military Hospital, Millbank.
    Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) on 20th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 759–62.]
    Mr. Allason: Will the Minister bear in mind that this hospital represents only 6 per cent. of the bed strength of military hospitals in the United Kingdom? While the Tate Gallery trustees are very patient, if they could be informed when the site of this hospital will be available to them—at least an approximation of the date—it would be of great help to them.
    Mr. Reynolds: It may be only 6 per cent.—and I have not checked that figure—but it is an important 6 per cent. for treatment, training and organisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps. I have considered this problem for 18 months. There are several possible solutions, some costing a considerable amount of money. I repeat the Prime Minister's reply to a supplementary question, namely, that it is better to find the right answer than an excessively quick answer. That is the main thing.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is the headquarters hospital of the Royal Army Medical Corps and that it has a worldwide reputation? Would it not be a reversal of all reasonable priorities to get rid of this

    1605
    hospital simply for the purpose of enlarging a gallery to show pictures?
    Mr. Reynolds: I will certainly bear that in mind. This hospital is an important cog in the Royal Army Medical Corps machine and to the medical corps of the other Services. We are considering alternatives, but a number of them are very expensive and must be looked at very carefully.

    Sandhurst (University Links)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now name the university with which he is hoping to establish links for Sandhurst.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 28th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 372–3.]
    Mr. Dalyell: I give my right hon. Friends full credit for the bold and imaginative link which they have created in the Defence Review between higher education and the Services. Are they aware, however, that some people are mildly bothered about those individuals who may legitimately change their minds about a Service career during the time that they are undertaking higher education?
    Mr. Boyden: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. If this negotiation is successful, it will help very much in that respect.
    Mr. Rippon: I welcome the concept of links with the universities in the way suggested. However, can the Minister give an assurance that the independent status of the Service colleges will still be maintained?
    Mr. Boyden: This will be a help towards that end.

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the blockade of Beira since its inception.
    Dr. David Owen: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 19th March to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison),—[Vol. 780, c. 114.]
    Mr. Wall: As the sum involved is a considerable amount of money, is it not a waste of time when oil reaches Rhodesia from other sources? If it is said that we must support the United Nations, why do not other nations share this futile task?
    Dr. Owen: We do not accept that it is a futile task. We feel that the patrol has been fully effective in cutting off the most direct route for the supply of oil to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Brooks: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that many of us feel that it is a little purposeless simply to redirect trade via Lorenzo Marques? Is it not time to make this policy effective?
    Dr. Owen: That is a question which should properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    Royal Air Force (Fleet Operations)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what additional training will be given to the Royal Air Force pilots who operate with the fleet once Royal Navy fixed-wing aircraft have been phased out.
    Mr. Reynolds: R.A.F. aircrew operating with the fleet will receive joint classroom training in maritime tactics, preoperational live training in the air defence, strike and reconnaissance rôles, and squadron training in the same rôles with units of the fleet.
    Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, approximately, what percentage of the R.A.F. will be devoted to this task and what is to happen to the Fleet Air Arm crews who are already fully trained? Will they be transferred to the R.A.F.?
    Mr. Reynolds: On the first part of the Question, I should like notice of it, but since the hon. Gentleman obviously wants an answer, I will write to him with what information I can let him have. On the second part, about the Fleet Air Arm crews, some have already been offered the option of transfer to the R.A.F. We are prepared to arrange that where necessary. Others might serve on a loan basis.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On the wider aspects of training, can we be assured

    1607
    that Her Majesty's Forces are being given adequate training in unarmed combat? Can we also be sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be available to give his advice and experience in this?
    Mr. Reynolds: If anything, the training in unarmed combat in the forces has improved since my right hon. Friend took his course many years ago.

    Destroyers and Frigates
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average mileage steamed by destroyers/frigates during the year 1967–68.
    Dr. David Owen: For security reasons, which have already been explained to the hon. and gallant Member, I am not prepared to quote these figures.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Why is the hon. Gentleman so cagey about the Soviet Fleet off our shores this morning? Or is this more malice than ignorance on the part of Mr. Chapman Pincher?
    Dr. Owen: It is not a question of malice or ignorance. We are not in any way cagey about the question of Russian ships being off our shores. Anyone need only read the Defence Estimates to see this.

    Fleet Submarine
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he expects that Her Majesty's Government will place an order for an additional Fleet submarine.
    Mr. John Morris: Negotiations are taking place with Vickers, and we hope to place the order very soon.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister appreciate that these ships are extremely valuable and the main striking force of the Fleet? Is he aware that this sort of delay is one of the reasons why the Government's defence policy is just not catching on with the public?
    Mr. Morris: I am well aware of the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question—there is no delay.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May we have an idea of the cost of this submarine?
    Mr. Morris: No. It is not practice to give the cost of this submarine until the order has been completed.

    Service Pensions
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce the starting date of the increase of pensions; and if he will state the scales.
    Mr. Reynolds: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave him on 19th February, 1969.—[Vol. 778, c. 461–2.]
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely the Minister could be a little more forthcoming? Is he aware that a lot of retired officers and other ranks would like to know whether he intends to use the Royal Warrant procedure to increase Service pensions?
    Mr. Reynolds: There is no need for me to be more forthcoming. I told the hon. Gentleman in my earlier reply that they would take effect from 1st April, 1969.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the Minister look at the ridiculous anomaly whereby distinguished retired soldiers who hold the Long and Meritorious Service Medal annuity have their pensions reduced by almost the same amount as the annuity? Surely the new increase in pensions would give the Minister a chance to look at this rather barbarous anomaly once again?
    Mr. Reynolds: I will have a look at that anomaly. To be perfectly honest, my first reaction is that it was rather the other way round—there is a waiting list for the annuity. I will have a look at this.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman look sympathetically upon some of these pensioners living abroad, particularly as they have been so hard hit by devaluation? Will he press the Chancellor to do something to see that where possible they do not have to pay tax on the very small pensions they get when living abroad?
    Mr. Reynolds: I am not sure of the exact point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Perhaps he would write to me. Generally speaking, pension increases, both in the public and the military sectors in this country are designed to help people living here to offset increases in

    1609
    the cost of living in this country. Pensioners living abroad, under National Insurance and other pension schemes, do not normally acquire the benefit.

    Anguilla
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will send a detachment of Royal Engineers to Anguilla on a training exercise with the object of providing the islanders with roads, an airstrip, drainage, an electricity supply and other basic services.
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. Men of 33 Field Squadron, Royal Engineers, will be flying to Anguilla tomorrow to undertake a variety of tasks aimed at improving general living conditions on the island.
    Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a satisfactory Answer, but that he could make it much more satisfactory if he would say that there would be many more Royal Engineers going there? Does he not see a tremendous opportunity, both to give men of the Royal Engineers worth-while training, and to provide some worth-while amenities for the people of this unfortunate island?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend must recognise that we have had a reconnaissance group from the squadron concerned having a look at what needs to be done on the island. The 70 men now being flown out will be able to carry out that work. If there is a case thereafter for continuing it on a different basis we shall consider that. Men of the Royal Engineers, and other Army units are doing this type of work all over the world and it is a question of priorities.
    Mr. Luard: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the use being made of the Royal Engineers in this particular situation is an admirable justification of the emphasis that has recently been laid on civil support operation by the Forces?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is indeed the case, and hon. Members on both sides will recognise the political as well as military importance of winning the support of the local population in this type of situation by doing constructive work through Her Majesty's Forces.
    Sir C. Osborne: How much will this cost, roughly?
    Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I cannot say until we have a clearer idea of precisely what these men will be doing. The incremental cost, the cost of them doing work there rather than doing training work elsewhere, will not be large.
    Mr. Shinwell: While the decision to send a detachment of Royal Engineers to Anguilla is satisfactory, as far as it goes, can my right hon. Friend explain why this was not done before? Are we to understand that it is only when trouble occurs that we take action of this kind?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recognise that this is not the case. As I have announced on many occasions, men of the Royal Enginers and other Army units have done this type of work all over the world. There was a strikingly successful example in the Caribbean recently, in the Virgin Islands, with the construction of an air strip at Beef Island.
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) with what devices containing C.S. gas British troops in Anguilla are equipped; and in what quantities;
    (2) with what weapons for discharging devices containing C.S. gas British troops in Anguilla are equipped; and in what country these weapons were manufactured.
    Mr. Healey: Pistols, 1½ inch, which can fire a C.S. gas cartridge and C.S. grenades, form a normal part of the equipment of troops being sent abroad on internal security duties. Accordingly, some 25 pistols, 1,890 C.S. cartridges and 330 C.S. grenades were taken to Anguilla and could be issued to the troops should the need arise. The equipment is manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Macdonald: What instructions have been given to the troops about the circumstances in which these devices may be used, and in what respects do those instructions differ from the instructions given to the police in this country about the circumstances in which similar devices may be used here?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will not expect me to be familiar with the instructions given to the police in this country,

    1611
    but the instructions given to Her Majesty's Forces who are issued with these devices are not to use them except under extreme provocation in circumstances in which the only alternative is the use of other means of restraint which might cause more physical damage than the use of C.S. The reason why we were able to deal with extremely violent civil disturbances in Hong Kong and Cyprus in the past with so little loss of life was the ability to use this type of weapon rather than guns and machine guns, as were used in similar situations in the past.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not supplies of laughing gas have been more appropriate for this particular episode?
    Mr. Dalyell: Would my right hon. Friend, together with his senior scientific advisers, send for the results of experiments done at Innisfail, Queensland, in hot wet conditions under the quadrapartite agreement, study them, and then make a statement to the House on the toxicity of C.S. gas on isolated tropical peoples, the old and the sick who are not used to contamination?
    Mr. Healey: We study all the results we can make available to ourselves from experiments in the use of this gas. In the past I have given the House many details of the conclusions we have reached. Hon. Members are free to visit the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton on any of the open days which are now regularly arranged. This type of gas is used only as an alternative to methods which involve a very much greater risk to life and limb. We must welcome the fact that this much more humane alternative is available.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Albert Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what rôle Gibraltar plays in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy in the defence of Western Europe and the maintenance of free shipping lanes in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Mr. Healey: Gibraltar provides airfield, communications and naval dockyard facilities.
    Mr. Roberts: Is any consideration being given to some part of the cost being
    1612
    borne by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
    Mr. Healey: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation does not bear any costs in Gibraltar, other than some of the costs associated with the presence of a N.A.T.O. commander there. Costs of contributions to N.A.T.O. are borne by the Governments concerned.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Secretary of State undertake to keep the House informed about the Soviet Fleet that is being shadowed by N.A.T.O. forces at present, including British forces?
    Mr. Healey: This is a completely different question, and I will consider what information I give to the House. Her Majesty's forces, and N.A.T.O. forces, carry out a great deal of surveillance on the activities of other naval forces in the world and we do not always consider it desirable to keep the House continuously informed.

    Nuclear Submarines (Servicing)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the total labour force at Rosyth are engaged on the servicing of nuclear submarines; and to what extent this number is expected to increase in the next three years.
    Dr. David Owen: At Rosyth the average number of workmen directly engaged in servicing nuclear submarines is about 500 at the present time. It is expected that this will increase to over 800 during the next three years. Other staff who provide services in support of those directly engaged also contribute to this task.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is reasonable to assume that if the nuclear establishment in Scotland were withdrawn, this would result in the diminution, if not the elimination, of this labour force from Rosyth and other parts of Scotland? Can he give me any figures which would show how many employees in Rosyth are indirectly employed on the nuclear submarines?
    Dr. Owen: The important thing to recognise is that the Rosyth task is very much dependent on refitting the four Polaris submarines. The submarine base

    1613
    at Faslane used by Polaris submarines is a considerable employer of labour in Scotland, and it is largely welcome for that reason.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if, for any reason, the force was withdrawn, it would cause a great deal of concern locally? Is it not another further indictment of the S.N.P. policy?
    Dr. Owen: There is no question of it being withdrawn. It gives very valuable help to the economy of Scotland.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Potatoes
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider an amendment to the present potato marketing scheme in order to permit a rebate or relief of the levy in the circumstances of severe flood damage where a total acreage of potatoes has been lost.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, gives my right hon. Friend no power to initiate an amendment to the Potato Marketing Scheme: only the Board itself can do so.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling among growers, many of whom, particularly in my area, have suffered grievously as a result of last season's conditions? Would he have a look at this matter again, together with the Potato Marketing Board, and come up with some suggestion for an alteration to the Act to make it possible for relief from levy to be granted in cases of hardship such as those which so many growers suffered last year?
    Mr. Mackie: We farmers accept what happens to us when weather conditions go so much against us, as they did last year. This is a very difficult problem. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reflect on how he would deal with somebody who, because of bad weather, lost his potatoes in a clamp or store as against a person who did not get them lifted.
    Mr. Body: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a number of farmers have lost hundreds of acres of potatoes, with the result that they are making a loss on their farming operations this year? If the matter could be considered again, it would be a great help to them in trying to achieve the targets which the Government would like to see achieved.
    Mr. Mackie: If growers want this sort of thing, they must initiate it through the Potato Marketing Board. I appreciate the situation. I am a farmer. This is a weather risk. It has been worse this year than I have ever experienced it before. It is very difficult to legislate on these matters at short notice.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. Gentleman said that he has no power to deal with this matter. Is he not aware that very strong representations were made to him many weeks ago asking him to ensure that such powers were taken and to consider the matter much more carefully? What has he done about it?
    Mr. Mackie: I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should ask this Government to take powers. The usual complaint is that we take too many powers. The Board has the right to waive excess acreage levy payments for somebody who has lost his potatoes and to mitigate hardship as a result of crop failure by allowing the payment of the levy to be deferred for a year or two.

    Meat and Milk Products (Import from Republic of Ireland)
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his recent meetings in London with members of the Government of the Irish Republic on the export of meat and milk products from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Mackie: Discussions between British Ministers and Ministers of the Irish Republic in recent months have covered a wide field. During these discussions, agreement was reached on the quota for butter from the Irish Republic for 1969–70 and on participation by the Irish Republic in arrangements for voluntary restraint of exports to the British market of cheddar and cheddar-type cheese. It was agreed that there should

    1615
    be further talks at official level about the trade in cattle and beef.
    Mr. Clark: During his discussions, did the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that the means of payment of the agricultural subsidy under the Anglo-Irish trade agreement by the Southern Irish Government gives an edge to their meat factories and puts Northern Irish meat factories out of business? One out of four closed down just the other day.
    Mr. Mackie: The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement covered a broad front, including agricultural produce. We know the difficulty which has arisen because of the bias in favour of Irish meat producers. We are looking into that. Discussions took place yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is quick in getting the results of discussions, but it cannot be done today.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of the admitted dislocation which has taken place, particularly in the cheese market, caused by the Irish trade agreement, would the hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Irish trade agreement would in no way harm or prejudice the position of our farmers?
    Mr. Mackie: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that things have been as badly upset as he suggests. This is a voluntary agreement. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not a milk producer, but if he consults milk producers he will find that the effects of the cheddar cheese situation last summer have not been all that great on milk prices.

    Production Costs and Farm Incomes
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce the results of the recent survey of comparative production costs and farm incomes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
    Mr. John Mackie: Leaving aside Northern Ireland's higher feed prices, costs of production taken as a whole are much the same as those in Great Britain. Farm incomes are lower mainly as a result of the difference in farm structure. Comparable farms in Great Britain show similar income trends.
    Mr. Clark: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that when he leaves aside the
    1616
    higher feed costs he leaves aside the whole problem? Could he say what the increase in feed costs is to Northern Ireland farmers compared with the increase to equivalent farmers in this country?
    Mr. Mackie: I could not give the hon. Gentleman details about feed costs, but, as I said in my Answer, there has not been an appreciable difference overall. The income trend in the type of farming in which the hon. Gentleman is interested is the same as the income trend in the same type of farming in this country.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Northern Ireland has a particular problem in the production of eggs? Would he ensure that before the subsidy is taken away completely something is done to help Northern Ireland producers?
    Mr. Mackie: I will bear that in mind. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is taking an interest in another part of the world.

  SCOTLAND

    Uncertificated Teachers
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature of the work being carried out by uncertificated teachers whose appointments have been disapproved by reference panels but who are nevertheless retained in the employment of local education authorities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The majority are, I understand, engage in non-teaching duties as instructors, supervisors, librarians or teaching auxiliaries.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he agree that at this difficult time in Scottish education it would be a very bad thing, in gaining the confidence of the teachers, if those who were unregistered, uncertificated and not approved by reference panels were in charge of children in classrooms? Does that happen and, if so, can he give an idea of the extent?
    Mr. Millan: Those disqualified by reference panels are not permitted to take

    1617
    up teaching duties. Some complaint has been made about certain developments in Lanarkshire. I am looking into them very closely.
    Mr. Dalyell: May we know precisely the definition of an "instructor" in this context?
    Mr. Millan: It is difficult to give a brief definition, but perhaps I could define the word in this way. The work of an instructor must be regarded as supplementary or ancillary to the work of a registered teacher, and training for it must not be of the sort normally given in a college of education.

    Passenger Transport Authorities
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has to establish passenger transport authorities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has not yet concluded the discussions referred to in his reply to the hon. Gentleman on 27th November.—[Vol. 774, c. 126.]
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the establishment of a passenger transport authority in the Glasgow area would inevitably mean a substantial increase in the rates, which are already causing great hardship? Will he give a specific pledge that the Government will not insist on the establishment of a P.T.A. in Glasgow if Glasgow Corporation and the people of Glasgow do not want it?
    Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been having discussions with all the interests concerned within the last two months. These discussions have taken in the local authority associations, the Scottish Transport Group, some of the trade unions concerned, and, particularly, the local authorities comprising the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee; so there are extensive consultations now going on.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Minister give an assurance that, for Scotland as a whole, the Government will not establish P.T.A.s against the wishes of the local authorities and the public in the areas concerned, and will he thus enable this part of the Transport Act to be delayed in the sensible way in which the
    1618
    Minister of Transport decided to delay the egregious quantity licensing sections?
    Mr. Millan: The only area which is under active consideration at the moment is the Glasgow area, and, as I say, extensive consultations are taking place.

  BOARD OF TRADE

    Docks (Cube-cutting)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on his investigations concerning the trading operations connected with the practice known as cube-cutting and its effects upon costs of exports.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): We are not in a position to make a statement. The investigation which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to arrange is not yet completed.
    Mr. Lewis: This has been going on for weeks! Cannot we have some productivity from the Minister's Department, or will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
    Mr. Dell: The productivity which my hon. Friend is calling for is productivity in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I obviously cannot make any statement on an investigation which is in progress.

    "Security Advice About Visits to Communist Countries" (Leaflet)
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade how many businessmen have now obtained copies of the leaflet issued by his Department entitled, Security Advice About Visits to Communist Countries.
    Mr. Dell: I have nothing to add to the answer to my hon. Friend's Question on 20th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 147.]
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade on how many cases he based the leaflet, Security Advice About Visits to Communist Countries.
    Mr. Dell: I understand the leaflet is based on a considerable number of cases spread over a period of years.
    Mr. Barnett: Has not there been over-dramatisation of the danger of real spying by businessmen? Is not the only effective way to export to these countries by personal visits, and is not the leaflet more likely to act as a deterrent than as an incentive? Will my hon. Friend therefore consider withdrawing it?
    Mr. Dell: I do not think that there has been over-dramatisation. It is sensible to advise people who visit Eastern Europe of the hazards that are involved, and this is exactly what the leaflet does. If my hon. Friend were to study it, he would no doubt form a better impression of it.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the most important thing to warn businessmen that if they find they have been compromised or approached in any way they should at once report the matter to the security authorities in this country? Will the Minister consider amending the leaflet by adding that advice to it?
    Mr. Dell: I should have thought that the leaflet gave precisely that advice, that if a person finds himself compromised he should get in touch with the authorities.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did not this country send an alleged businessman to Russia, and was there not a great deal of indignation by hon. Members when he was arrested, although he subsequently wrote a book in which he admitted that he was a spy?
    Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is asking me something which is not within the responsibility of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister aware that if all the advice offered by Her Majesty's Government were as expert, as well-founded and as reasonable as this, they should be congratulated? It is a great exception!
    Mr. Dell: But all the advice offered by Her Majesty's Government is expert and is appreciated.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my hon. Friend what happens to businessmen who come to this country?
    Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend is extending the Question far too wide.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Trent River Authority (Discharge of Effluent)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will hold a local inquiry into the River Trent Authority's consent under the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960 to the discharge of effluent by the River Trent Authority into the River Humber at Stallingborough, near Immingham, which is opposed by the Grimsby Rural District Council and the Lincolnshire River Authorities; and if he will withhold his consent to this scheme until a decision is reached by the local authority.
    The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): On the information at present available to me, it appears that the Trent River Authority gave the consent in accordance with the appropriate statutes. My right hon. Friend therefore sees no case on the face of it for him to hold a local inquiry. The effluent will not be discharged by the River Trent Authority but by the Appleby Froddingham Steel Company and others; and no further consents are required from him. However, I welcome the hon. Member's suggestion that we should meet, and I have replied to his letter accordingly.
    Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged for the Answer, but will the Minister bear in mind that the two local authorities which are most affected by this proposal are bitterly opposed to it and would be very grateful to him if he would hear their objections before he makes a final decision?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of this. I think the hon. Gentleman and I might discuss this matter first.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prison Inmates (Costs)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the average annual cost per prison inmate in 1967 was lower than the comparable figure in 1966; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Mainly because, although the relevant total expenditure in England and Wales rose in 1966–67 compared with the previous year, the increase in the size of the prison population was proportionately greater, thus producing a lower per capita cost figure. Other factors were that receipts were greater in 1966–67 and some charges relating to welfare and after-care, previously charged to the prisons vote, were transferred to other votes.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the overcrowding to which he refers in his Answer as being the main reason is a serious problem now for our prison staff, and what estimate does his Department seek to make for how many years ahead of the amount by which this will either increase or decrease?
    Mr. Rees: In reply to the first part of the question, I said that there was an increase in the size of the prison population, and I should be the last to deny the problems of overcrowding. A great deal of thought is being given to the provision of places in prisons over the years. This is an extremely complicated matter and if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I should be prepared to discuss the figures with him.
    Mr. Carlisle: The Minister referred to receipts of money, presumably partly from the output of prison workshops. Will he tell the House what efforts are being made to expand the profitability of prison workshops, as a means both of increasing receipts by the Treasury and of finding full-time work for those in prison?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot give a snap answer, but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Ineducable Children
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of children aged below 10 years who have been assessed as ineducable in each of the last five years in each of the boroughs and urban districts
    1622
    of Wirral; and what were the numbers of these children still living at home at the last convenient date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures of children unsuitable for education at school.
    The numbers of these children still living at home are not available.
    Mr. Brooks: Will not the Under-Secretary agree that the vast majority of children are educable but at widely differing rates of progress, and is not it important, in view of the impending reorganisation of departmental responsibility, that every effort should be made to avoid the institutional or domestic isolation of slow learners?
    Mr. Pentland: I agree, and if my hon. Friend, once he has examined the figures, wishes to follow this matter up, I shall be prepared for a further Question from him.
    Following are the figures:

    Birkenhead County Borough

    1964

    6

    1965

    7

    1966

    10

    1967

    13

    1968

    14

    Wallasey County Borough

    1964

    3

    1965

    8

    1966

    6

    1967

    8

    1968

    6

    Cheshire County Council

    1964

    12

    1965

    12

    1966

    14

    1967

    19

    1968

    15

    Subnormal Children (Diagnosis and Treatment)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities exist for parents living in the Wirral peninsula to have their pre-school children diagnosed and treated for severe mental subnormality; and how many such children were so diagnosed in the area in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Pentland: In addition to the services of general practitioners and child

    1623
    health and child guidance clinics, the services are available of five consultant paediatricians and four consultants in subnormality, with paediatric hospital facilities for diagnosis in Chester, Bebington, Birkenhead and Wallasey. There is no specific treatment for sub-normality, but care and training is arranged by the local health authorities, and hospital in-patient accommodation is provided at Newchurch Hospital, near Warrington, Greaves Hall Hospital, near Southport, and at certain other hospital units in the region. No figures are readily available of the total number of pre-school children in the Wirral peninsula classified as severely mentally subnormal.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but will not he agree that there is an urgent need for quick and effective diagnosis of childhood disorders such as autism, dyslexia and childhood schizophrenia which, if not handled very early on, can later cause severe difficulties? Is he entirely satisfied that health visitors and general practitioners are fully up to date and conversant with modern medical research?
    Mr. Pentland: Yes, again I agree with my hon. Friend on his earlier remarks. In reply to his second point, yes, but there is, as he is fully aware, no inpatient subnormality provision for children in the Wirral peninsula; however, I am advised that the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board has this point very much in mind.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    National Board for Prices and Incomes (Report No. 108)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has given to the National Board for Prices and Incomes' Report No. 108; and whether, in view of the Board's recommendation that the 3½ per cent. ceiling should not apply to salary increases for senior executives in the nationalised industries on grounds of comparability, she will reject the Board's conclusions in the report and authorise the enactment of the agreement
    1624
    between the Electrical Contractors Association of Scotland and the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunications Union-Plumbing Trades Union dated 18th December, 1968.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): My right hon. Friend is considering the conclusions of N.B.P.I. Report No. 108 on Pay and Conditions in the Electrical Contracting Industry in Scotland. No final decision will be taken until the parties concerned have been consulted.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While one recognises that top executives in the public sector ought to be paid the market rate for the job which they do and that the National Board for Prices and Incomes is more interested in them than in the salary structure of the electrical contracting industry in Scotland, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would cast a curious light on the Government's prices and incomes policy if comparability were regarded as justifying a 60 per cent. increase on a salary of £15,000 a year, but not——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —but not more than 3½ per cent. on a salary of £15 a week?
    Mr. Walker: I have explained repeatedly the criteria set out in the Government's policy. The matters arising from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on top salaries will be the subject of a statement in the House by my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say whether any chairman of a nationalised board has threatened to strike or get out of the industry if he and his colleagues do not get this increase? Will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that this House will be allowed to debate the report before the Minister come to a decision, and will the Government allow a free vote—in which case these proposed salary increases will never be accepted?
    Mr. Walker: I understand that the Question before the House refers to approval or disapproval of an agreement

    1625
    entered into between the Electrical Contractors Association of Scotland and the E.T.U. I do not think, therefore, that the subject of top salaries arises.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Surely the Question refers to comparability between two reports. Therefore, is it not in order for the Minister to answer the question which has been put to him by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?
    Mr. Speaker: It is always in order for a Minister to answer in the way in which he wishes to answer.
    Mr. Younger: How can the hon. Gentleman defend the idea that the Government's prices and incomes policy is intended to favour lower-paid workers when agricultural workers get less than the Ford workers and when the whole lot get less than the heads of the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Walker: It is not a primary function of the Government's prices and incomes policy to redistribute incomes. Social and fiscal policies have their rôle to play in this, and they are doing it.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend agree that the comparability referred to between Scotland and England is not comparable and that, on the basis of what we have heard about the proposed increases for the chairmen of the nationalised boards, it makes the prices and incomes policy a nonsense and totally unacceptable to the lower-paid worker?
    Mr. Walker: On the point about the report on top salaries, I have said that we are studying carefully the recommendations, and that my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House as soon as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as possible. I do not think that the House would want me to try to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.
    On the point about comparability between England and Scotland, the report on the workers in the electrical contracting industry in Scotland points out that the board is not dealing with comparable situations. The two agreements—that applicable to England and that applicable to Scotland—are not comparable.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has been asked a simple question. Can we have an assurance that, before any recommendation by the National Board for Prices and Incomes concerning those at the higher level is implemented by the Government, the House will have an opportunity to express its opinions about it? Is not that the important issue? Can we have a satisfactory answer from my hon. Friend, for a change?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend knows as well as any hon. Member that that is not a question for me.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware——
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. If it is not a Question for my hon. Friend, why was he answering it at all? My hon. Friend may not be aware of it, but when a Minister is unable to reply because he believes that the Question does not apply to his Department it is customary to indicate to which Department it applies.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister answers in his own way.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second time in two years that we have seen this shameful discrimination against Scottish electricians, who signed an agreement freely with their employers to have equal pay with electricians in England and Wales? Why cannot we have a display of urgency from the Minister? Is he saying that, as in the case of almost every other major dispute in Britain, until the men go on strike we shall not have a statement or any action from the Government?
    Mr. Walker: I made it clear that my reference to a statement was in relation to and arose from Report No. 107 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on top salaries. I am answering and have answered questions about the electrical contracting industry employees in Scotland.
    The hon. Gentleman refers to discrimination. If he reads the report, he will learn, as I said, that the board found that the two situations and the two agreements are not comparable. It is a matter of fact that the average earnings of the workers affected by the agreements

    1627
    are higher in Scotland than they are in England.
    Mr. Burnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report on top salaries exposes the impossibility of legally enforcing a wage scale, no matter how fair, when it is coupled with a basic wage scale which is totally unfair?
    Mr. Walker: I must say again that we are studying the report with great care and that my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House as soon as possible. The question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels, and not for me.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Government ensure that their prices and incomes policy will not discriminate again against Scotland, as happened two years ago in the case of the Scottish local government officers as well as the electricians to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred?
    Mr. Walker: The prices and incomes policy has not discriminated against Scotland, and so far as I have any responsibility for it, I will ensure that it will not in the future.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are fascinated by the double standards adopted by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in that it rejected the bank employees' increase and asked for its restriction and is now recommending an increase along these lines, using the word "comparability" which the Minister previously said must not be used in relation to the prices and incomes policy?
    Mr. Walker: I can only hope that my hon. Friend will read the report on top salaries with care. He will find that the argument is not about comparability but about the salary structure within the nationalised industries.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, compared with what the National Board for Prices and Incomes has said in this case, the claim by B.O.A.C. pilots is a modest one based entirely on productivity?
    Mr. Walker: I understand that the Question before the House is about electrical contracting workers in Scotland.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: First, if my right hon. Friend is to make a statement in the House, can we have an assurance that it will come before the Easter Recess, in time for us to have a debate on it? Second, will all other workers be treated in the same way and given a 60 per cent. increase if they can produce the same sort of arguments?
    Mr. Walker: I have said that I cannot and will not try to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. But I can assure the House that she will make her statement before the House rises for the Easter Recess.
    Sir C. Osborne: When the Minister makes her statement giving all the particulars, will the hon. Gentleman ask her to tell us how far the increase in salaries which is proposed, whatever it may be, affects the pensions of the recipients, so that they get a double increase? I think that the House should know how much the pension increase will be as well?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the recommendation about pensions in the report, presumably my right hon. Friend will deal with that point in her statement.
    Mr. Dalyell: While I explicitly support the view that the leaders of publicly-owned industries must have comparaability of pay with leaders of privately-owned industry, can my hon. Friend say whether any calculations have been made about the post-tax situation of the leaders of publicly-owned industry should they get the proposed increase? If calculations have been made, what do they reveal?
    Mr. Walker: I can only advise my hon. Friend to study the report, as we are doing.
    Mr. Ogden: I must first declare my interest in this wider question as a member of the National Union of Mine-workers and a sponsored hon. Member. Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be wholehearted support in the industry for an increase in the salary of its chairman, which is richly deserved, since this will make it possible for 60 per cent. increases all down the line in the industry?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to consult the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland for its opinion before any statement is made?
    Mr. Walker: From the evidence of this morning's Press, people are not hesitating to express opinions up and down the country.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

PAKISTAN (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that all necessary measures have been taken for securing the safety of British subjects in Pakistan.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Yes, Sir. As in most other countries, Her Majesty's representatives have plans for the assistance and protection of British communities. We have followed our usual practice in keeping these plans under constant review both in Whitehall and overseas. In both wings of Pakistan the British High Commissioner and the Deputy High Commissioners are in constant touch with the British Communities through community organisations.
Mr. Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for those assurances. Can he give an estimate of the number of British subjects involved, how significant a number are in remote areas and, therefore, not in contact with British consular officials, and whether there have already been acts of violence against foreigners in Pakistan?
Mr. Whitlock: There are three protection plans for West Pakistan covering the communities in the Rawalpindi, Karachi and Lahore districts, and there are four protection plans covering the communities in the Dacca, Chittagong, Sylhet and Barisal districts. The numbers involved are approximately as follows: Karachi 1,350, Lahore 800, Rawalpindi 500, Dacca 630, Chittagong 275, Sylhet
1630
90, and Barisal 70. We are making every possible endeavour to keep in touch with people in remote areas. We have no information about injury or harm coming to any member of the British community at the moment.
Mr. Braine: I am sure that the whole House feels deep regret that a great Commonwealth country, our friend and ally is going through a period of acute difficulty. We must hope that there will be a swift return to normalcy.
May I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that our High Commissioner knows where these British subjects are in the worst affected areas, whether he is satisfied about the facilities that exist for rescuing them if the worst happens, and whether he will undertake to keep the House informed of developments over the next few days?
Mr. Whitlock: Yes. All the plans in this matter depend on the organisation of a system of self-help by the community. A system has been established whereby messages of advice appropriate to the situation emanating from our High Commissioner and Deputy High Commissioners are disseminated through appropriate wardens and, vice versa, the information is passed on through the wardens to our High Commissioners. Plans also exist for concentrating people who have not left in case an organised evacuation is necessary.
All these plans depend in part on the ability of the local government to maintain law and order and on the cooperation of that local government.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Minister consider paying a brief visit to East Pakistan?

MEMBERS (OUTSIDE INTERESTS)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House will recall that on 4th March I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)
"whether, in view of the increasing number of hon. Members being remunerated by outside bodies, he will re-examine the desirability of legislation to establish a public register of such interests."—[Vol. 779, c. 209.]

1631
I said that the Government were continuing to watch the position, and in answers to Questions by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to the disparity between the treatment, so far as this House is concerned, of hon. Members who are required by long established practice to declare their interest, and others who are not so required.
I should now like to tell the House the results of the Government's examination of the issues raised.
As I have more than once suggested, there are two separate issues here.
The first is the position of Members of Parliament who, by virtue of some paid connection with an outside interest, be it domestic or overseas, are involved in matters which are the concern of Parliament and of Government. As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend, it is important that the position of such Members should be made clear in all matters which affect their responsibilities to the House and to their Parliamentary colleagues.
This is an issue for Parliament. After consultations with the opposition parties, the Government have therefore decided to recommend to the House to set up a Select Committee to consider the rules and practices of the House in relation to the declaration of Members' interests and to report. The form of the Select Committee will be discussed through the usual channels. This relates only to the House of Commons, but I understand that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be having discussions on parallel action that might be taken in another place.
There is, however, a second issue about which there is considerable public concern, and concern in this House. This relates to the operation of public relations and other organisations holding an account or a commission on behalf of an overseas Government, or an overseas political interest. The activities of some of these organisations have been mentioned in this House on a number of occasions and there is concern about their activities, whether or not they employ on any basis individual Members of this House. What is important is that Parliament, and the public, should know when activities of this kind are being conducted. Many of these
1632
organisations do valuable work in informing Parliament and the public: the danger occurs when it is not done in an open way. There is increasing evidence that some of these organisations are concerned with operating outside Parliament as well as on Parliament and on the Government. Again the public has a right to know.
Equally, it is right that the House should be aware of the problems associated with the administration of any scheme designed to bring these activities into the open. The House will be concerned to ensure that whatever is finally decided reflects a fair balance between protection of Parliament and the public on the one hand and free and legitimate expression of opinion on the other.
The Government have given urgent consideration to this question, including the possibility of legislation requiring registration. I now propose to initiate discussions with the opposition parties to see how far agreement can be reached on the best way of proceeding.
Mr. Heath: I assure the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House will discuss with him, through the usual channels, the form of the Select Committee, and also the second point mentioned in his statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the purpose of the Select Committee is to consider whether the present arrangements for the declaration of interests by Members are satisfactory and that there is nothing improper about any Member having outside interests as such?
The Prime Minister: That is exactly the position as I see it. The rules in Erskine May and the rules and practices of this House about declarations of interest are very narrow and relate to particular forms of interest. Indeed, sometimes it seems almost unfair that there should be a declaration in some cases. The new development, from all the information known to hon. Members, is the employment of hon. Members whether as so-called Parliamentary consultants or in any other capacity for public relations and similar organisations. It is right that the House should have a fresh look at the question of the definition of the issues in which a declaration of interest should be made.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House will be grateful to him for the speedy action that he now proposes to take? But may I ask whether he will give an assurance that nothing he has said this afternoon will rule out the bringing together of a compulsory public register of paid outside interests of Members?
Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that there will be a debate on the Report from the Committee of Privileges, for which we have been waiting for a very long time, in which this and related matters can be discussed by the whole House instead of discussions taking place through the usual channels between the two Front Benches?
The Prime Minister: The proposal to have a Select Committee on the question of Member's interests means that nothing is ruled out that is consonant with the terms of reference which have been laid down. It will be for the Select Committee, however it is set up, to consider the practice which should be followed in the matter of declarations of interests, to decide how it can best be operated, and what is the most convenient thing for the House. The convenience of the House is important in connection with the Ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, gave, which I think most hon. Members feel reasonable, that we should not have Question Time delayed by a whole series of individual declarations. The point raised by my hon. Friend will be looked into.
On the question of a register of outside interests as opposed to hon. Members, that is raised in the second part of my statement dealing with firms operating on behalf of foreign Governments or foreign interests. Registration is one way of doing it, though it is not as easy as it looks at first sight.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is welcome even though it is rather belated? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Lawrence Committee found it necessary to make inquiries of hon. Members about the extent to which they found it necessary to supplement their incomes by obtaining outside remuneration? In view of that, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very difficult to separate the question of hon. Members' outside
1634
interests from the level of remuneration and the facilities provided in connection with their work in this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider widening the terms of the proposed Select Committee accordingly?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking this wider than is necessary. What I think we are concerned with, for the good government of this House itself, and for public life generally, is that if an hon. Member has an an interest, and in the course of his Parliamentary duties he approaches other hon. Members, or puts Questions in the House, the House has a right to know whether that interest affects his dealings with the House as a whole or with individual Members of Parliament.
Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend be careful about making an agreement with the Opposition Front Bench? Will he bear in mind that the last time there was a consensus agreement between the two Front Benches, on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, the Opposition completely failed to deliver their share of the goods?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's question goes wider than my statement. What is proposed is in accordance with our practice in relation to the establishment of Select Committees. There could be discussions through the usual channels about the exact form it should take. The terms of reference are included in my statement.
Mr. Doughty: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the terms of reference of the Select Committee are carefully drawn to ensure that the interests of hon. Members, because they are hon. Members of this House and may be employed by some outside interest for that purpose, are regarded as ordinary outside interests which hon. Members may have, be they employed as trade union secretaries or as members of stockbroking firms?
The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that there is no suggestion that it is in any way improper for hon. Members to have outside employment, and many inquiries in the past into the functions of Parliament have said that this very often helps to bring outside knowledge and experience into the House. What is at issue is

1635
whether any of these interests, if not declared, could impede fair work and fair dealing within Parliament between one hon. Member and another.
When I was on the Opposition Front Bench I raised the matter when one hon. Member, not now a Member of this House, invited a number of his colleagues to have lunch downstairs and it was found that it was for the purpose of promoting on behalf of a particular vested interest an Amendment to the Finance Bill, and forms for that purpose were on the lunch table. Anyone who might be tempted to do that ought to have his position known to all those whom he might approach.
Mr. C. Pannell: I am rather fond of Select Committees, but will my right hon. Friend reflect on the thought that a Select Committee is rather ponderous to decide what should be a matter for intelligent conversation between the usual channels? Is it not a fact that the appointment of a Select Committee will carry the assumption outside that generally speaking there is an abuse in this place, and that we are less honourable Members than we should be? Is it not a fact that most of these ideas are completely misplaced? This is not a squalid place full of squalid people, rather the reverse.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend's concluding words. The appointment of a Select Committee does not mean that there is an abuse to be looked into. We have a Select Committee on Procedure. It does not mean that our procedure is an abuse, even though it is sometimes abused.
This is a matter for Parliament. I do not believe that talks between the two Front Benches, or between the two Front Benches and the Leader of the Liberal Party, could deal with all the problems that might come up for the protection of Parliament. It is simply a question of considering whether the declaration of an interest should apply in different circumstances from those laid down by hallowed Parliamentary practice.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is not there nevertheless a danger in all this that we will seem to be apologising to the public for the fact that we have outside interests?
1636
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise—I am sure he does—that we are part-time Members, and are paid as such, although we may work longer hours than some? If the present part-time Chairman of B.O.A.C. can have three outside jobs, and is now to get a rise equivalent to our salaries when we have taken off our expenses, this clearly establishes that we should have outside interests.
The Prime Minister: That is rather a wider question. There was no note of apology in my statement, nor in the question by the Leader of the Opposition, nor in the comment that I made on his question. The fact that the hon. Gentleman can quote the existence of three other jobs done by the Chairman of a public body means that those three jobs are known to his colleagues on that Board. One of the problems that we have to consider is whether the functioning of Parliament is affected by hon. Members, or the House as a whole, not knowing about particular interests of hon. Members.
Mr. J. T. Price: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, from the exchanges so far, that his statement is welcome to most of us. Is he aware that one of the matters which some of us want to put into the terms of reference of the Select Committee is the relationship between this House and many ex-Ministers of the Crown who, on leaving office, have found highly paid posts open to them in the outside world because of their past experience? Another question is whether the Official Secrets Act should be taken into consideration in these matters.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the special relationship, on a commercial basis, of hon. Members of this House with the Press is a very important matter which I should like to see included in the terms of reference?
The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any ex-Ministers of any party who, having accepted appointments of that kind, have failed to make them known publicly. I think that this is one of the great safeguards. I cannot accept the innuendo—perhaps my hon. Friend did not intend it, but it might be read into his remarks—that the kind of appointments that he has mentioned result from the performance of previous Ministerial

1637
duties. My hon. Friend went so far as to mention the Official Secrets Act. I know of no case of any ex-Minister of any party that would justify that.
Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since there has been registration of interests in the United States public relations activities have escalated? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I make that statement as one who has a pharmaceutical and general industrial interest to declare, but not a public relations one?
The Prime Minister: Public relations activities have escalated in every country, whether or not there was registration in Parliament, on a very much larger scale outside the Government than inside it.
We have studied the working of the United States procedure. It is very thorough-going, but I am not certain that it would be right to have it in this country. There are difficulties about it. That is why I should like to have discussions with the other parties to see how we should proceed in this matter. We do not rule out having a register of this kind. It is a fact that in this country where there is no register it is possible for a public relations firm not merely to bombard hon. Members with literature—the waste paper baskets of the House have traditionally been filled with this material—but also to approach hon. Members who very often do not know the nature of the approach, or who is paying for it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the enthusiasm of the Opposition Front Bench for the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, however disguised, may arise from an undeclared collective interest in the matter?
The Prime Minister: It seems to me, on reading that Bill, that they do not have much to hope for from it.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Would not it be advantageous if the second matter as well as the first could be referred to the Select Committee, rather than being left to discussions between the two Front Benches? Are not there problems with public relations
1638
companies which not merely represent foreign Governments, but are themselves wholly situate outside this country so that they present a problem in the matter of control?
The Prime Minister: That is not ruled out. As the first matter is specifically a matter for the House, namely, a consideration of the phraseology of Erskine May, and our practice, it is a matter for a Select Committee. It may be—this has been considered—that as a result of the inter-party discussions we shall decide that the second problem should be referred to that same Select Committee when it has completed Stage 1 of its work, or it may be found, for example—I am not trying to indicate any favoured solution—that there could be an alternative pre-legislation committee to which a group of hon. Members could be appointed to draw up legislation if it were needed. Or it may be done in yet another way. That is not ruled out, but I think that there should be inter-party discussions before even deciding to refer it to a Select Committee.
Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reject completely the suggestion by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that hon. Members are part-time? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every elector in the country expects his representative in Parliament to be full-time? Will he also confirm that members of the Select Committee will not be chosen from those who have outside interests?
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I did not say that I was part-time. I said that I was paid part-time and worked full-time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Very good—but not a point of order.
The Prime Minister: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's own experience, I got the impression from what he said that he thought that all Members are or should be part-time. This is certainly not the case. Some are part-time while others have no other outside employment. One of the problems we have in manning Select and Standing Committees arises from the fact that some hon. Members have outside duties and therefore many,

1639
but not all, of those who man these Committees are what would be called full-time Members. But, as I have said, not all of them.
Mr. Crowder: While I welcome the Prime Minister's statement, in view of recent events, does not he think it better that these discussions should not take place through the usual channels between the Front Benches but through the liaison which has now arisen between the back benchers?
The Prime Minister: I am very conservative in this, as in most other questions, and I think that the official usual channels are the best ones for this purpose, and, of course, it must be the duty of those who conduct the usual channels to maintain their usual standards of effective liaison with back benchers.

AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT
3.53 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent employers from refusing employment to persons on the sole ground that they are aged 45 years or over.
Last year, when a similar Bill was brought before the House, it received a sympathetic response to its proposals, but unfortunately the Government Department concerned and what are described as the "usual channels" failed to take note of that. In a rapidly changing world, when mergers, take-overs and modern technologies increasingly make it necessary for people to prepare themselves for two or three changes in the main direction of their job or career, a Bill of this kind becomes an essential part of legislation.
Few if any young people now entering employment will be able to regard their first job as sufficient to last them throughout their working lives. Between 1st January, 1967, and the end of September, 1968, a total of 435,000 redundancy payments were made, and the main percentage was in the higher age group covering those over 40. People over 45 have much more difficulty in finding another job in the circumstances, and I think that most if not all of us know that reasons for refusal of jobs rarely have anything to do with fitness for the job but have very much to do with the question of age.
We have had numerous letters on this subject since raising the matter in the past, and I want to quote the heartcry of one sufferer, who wrote:
"Ours is a sick society and the discarding of able men merely because they are 50 is a distressing symptom of this sickness."
A lifetime colleague of mine in the trade union and co-operative movement, Mr. Cyril Hamnett, once said that many people die when they are 25 but we do not bury them until they are 70. If we want to look for examples of lively veterans here, we need look no further than at my right hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), to see what can be done in the more mature age groups.

1641
The National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, which was set up in the mid-1950s, declared that the older worker should be given a fair chance on his own merits when competing for available jobs, and that the test for engagement should be capacity and not age. The National Joint Advisory Committee as recently as 1966 advised a strengthening of the employment services and the training facilities available, and obviously, from that background, the next step in Government action is the question of legislation.
As we know, Government Departments themselves are not entirely exempt from discrimination. It would be impossible, within the time allowed for this Motion, to give the details, but I am certain that hon. Members are familiar with them. The various redundancy measures—in particular the legislation dealing with coal mining redundancies—make this a problem of even greater importance than hitherto. Under the Coal Mining Redundancy Act payments are made for three years after retirement from the age of 55, but a considerable number of men, despite the fact that the payments are reasonably generous, will find themselves by the age of 58 seeking jobs without an adequate income of almost any description.
This again makes the point that we are raising here a long-term problem. We ourselves complain, and employers are continually complaining to us, about the brain drain, but what can one expect from young people of about 30 years of age in firms which adopt the attitude of age discrimination? When those younger people see older colleagues turned out or applicants for jobs aged 45 or 50 being turned down, who can blame them if they say, "I had better get out of here before it happens to me". This is the type of climate we are operating in, and it is a climate which needs legislation of this kind.
We hear even in development districts and many areas of under-employment talk about shortage of labour in many industries, of how the effect on families and the cry of, "to old at 45" prevents many people from changing their jobs or training for other jobs which would make them beneficial to the community
1642
and the country as a whole as well as being beneficial to the individual himself.
After my last attempt at bringing in a Bill of this nature, some well-intentioned colleagues and others not so helpful said that such legislation would not help, that it could not be implemented and was not something that ought to be placed on the Statute Book. I want to give the example of the United States in this respect. On 23rd January, 1967, President Johnson, in a message to Congress on Older Americans, said:
"In our nation there are thousands of people who possess skills which the country badly needs. Hundreds of thousands not yet old, not yet voluntarily retired, find themselves jobless because of arbitrary age discrimination."
When President Johnson was speaking, some 23 American States had already enacted laws to prohibit discriminatory practice, but, as he said, the problem was of national concern and magnitude. He made recommendations for the implementation of legislation somewhat similar to what we propose. By 6th November, 1967, legislation had been passed by the American Senate to give every American the opportunity and right to be equally considered for employment and promotion, but without preference being given to the older worker.
The Bill would cover workers between 45 and 65, although the Americans went five years lower and decided on the age of 40 as the starting age. It would bar employers and employment agencies from indicating in their advertisements for jobs a preference based on age. The Bill is urgent, necessary and long overdue, and I am sure that it will commend itself to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Adam Hunter, Sir Myer Galpern, Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. Roy Roebuck, Mr. E. Rowlands, Mr. David Watkins, and Mr. David Winnick.

AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT
Bill to prevent employers from refusing employment to persons on the sole ground that they are aged 45 years or over; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  POST OFFICE
  Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that we discuss together the two Motions on the Post Office and I will put them separately at the end of the debate.
  4.4 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move,
  That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March 1970.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for ruling that we shall be discussing at the same time the Motion,
  That the limit of the Postmaster General's indebtedness to the National Loans Fund under section 10(2) of the Post Office Act 1961, as amended by section 1(1) of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Act 1967, be increased from one thousand seven hundred and fifty million pounds to two thousand two hundred million pounds.
  If the Post Office Bill which is now before the House is enacted, this will be the last time that a Postmaster-General will stand at the Dispatch Box moving such a Motion which, since the passing of the Post Office Act, 1961, has been an annual event. The Post Office is a vast concern. We employ 420,000 staff and we are the largest industry in Britain in that respect. It is impossible in the time available to deal with all its activities, and I therefore intend to concentrate on the telephone business, particularly as it is that which will absorb the major part of the development programme which I hope the House will approve today. If there are questions on other aspects of the Post Office, I shall do my best to
  1644
  reply to them if I am allowed leave to speak again.
  May I deal first with the second Motion? Section 10(2) of the Post Office Act, 1961, as amended by Section 1(1) of the Post Office Borrowing Powers Act, 1967, fixes an upper limit on my borrowing powers of £1,750 million, with provision for increasing this limit to £2,200 million by a Resolution of the House. However, as the House knows, Clause 36 of the Post Office Bill provides initially for an upper limit on the borrowing powers of the new Post Office Corporation of £2,300 million. Hon. Members may wonder why we need a borrowing powers Motion.
  The situation is that our total indebtedness will amount to about £1,680 million at the end of this month. Provided that there is no undue delay in the passage of the Bill, vesting day for the new Post Office Corporation will be 1st October, 1969. Certainly we shall have reached our upper limit of £1,750 million before 1st October and we shall need some additional provision if the necessary expansion and refurbishing of the telephone system network is not to be set back. We have therefore brought forward this Motion now, at the same time as the annual Motion on the Post Office, to tide us over until vesting day. When the Post Office Bill becomes law and assuming that Clause 36 is enacted in its present form, the borrowing powers set out in the Motion will be superseded on vesting day by the borrowing powers of the new Corporation as laid down in the Bill.
  Before I discuss the future development plans, may I give a progress report on what has been achieved so far? The House may know that our 'phone network is the largest in Europe and the third in size in the world. Our customers make 21 million phone calls a day and we expect them in the next year to make nearly 9,000 million phone calls in the year as a whole. They pay us £450 million for their calls. In 1960, there were 8 million 'phones in Britain; today there are nearly 13 million. There has been a tremendous expansion.
  But not only has the expansion been considerable; the rate of expansion has increased. On 13th March, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) asked me how many new 'phones

  1645
  had been installed in each year since 1946. From the details which I gave in the OFFICIAL REPORT it is clear that this year we will be installing 820,000 new phone connections. This is double what was being achieved in each of the years in the early 1960s. It is an achievement of which we can be extremely proud. We foresee a dramatic improvement in performance compared with the last five years.
  I will, if the House will bear with me, give some figures of new exchange connections installed. For the five years ended March, 1959, there were 1,892,000; in the five years ended March, 1964, there were 2,255,000; in the five-year period ending this March the figure has risen to 3,262,000. The increase in 1963–64 over the previous five years was 19 per cent. but the figure for 1965–69 over the previous five years is no less than 71 per cent. This demonstrates the tremendous expansion programme in which we have been engaged, and I think it is to the credit of the Post Office and of its engineers and also of the suppliers of the Post Office that we have been able to achieve these results.
  As the House knows from the White Paper on Post Office prospects, we shall spend £357 million next year on new equipment and buildings. This is part of our Post Office five-year plan to meet the truly stupendous growth in current demand. For the next five years we shall spend £1 million a day or roughly £42,000 an hour day and night. We shall be financing this massive £2,000 million budget half from our own resources. This tremendous expansion programme will help us to make up for the underinvestment in the Post Office in the 1950s. About one-third of our £2,000 million investment will be used to improve services for existing customers and most of the remaining £1,400 million will provide services for new customers. Despite delays in exchange equipment installations manufacturers are managing to speed up work in progress. New exchanges or extensions to existing installations will be opened at a rate of almost three a day in 1969 and £112 million will be spent next year in the purchase and installation of exchange equipment.
  Most of this money is needed to meet the steady growth in demand for domestic 'phones. About 750,000 lines
  1646
  will be put on the network to connect subscribers with the 'phone exchanges and about 1,350,000 connections with the 'phone system will be made during 1969–70. To ease the pressure on the trunk network about 12,000 circuits will be put into the system and this represents an increase of 16 per cent.
  The House has been concerned in past years with the waiting list and I know that this has been a great embarrassment to many of our constituents, but between April, 1968, and the end of February, 1969, the waiting list was reduced by 48,000, and it should fall by another 6,000 by the end of this month to 84,000. This compares with a peak figure of 138,000 in March, 1968. We are, therefore, making considerable progress in eliminating this list, and this will be considerably reduced during the next 12 months. We plan to meet 95 per cent. of all 'phone applications on demand in about 12 months' time. Currently there is no waiting list at 4,000 out of 6,000 exchanges, and we are now meeting over eight out of ten orders for 'phones on demand. This is a very fine achievement and I am delighted by the progress which has been made in this respect. We do need, of course, co-operation with industry to provide the exchange equipment and the plant which is required, but if we have this co-operation and if we can meet 95 per cent. of orders on demand we shall be very near the maximum possible achievement, because there will always be approximately 5 per cent. of orders which cannot be met on demand because houses are in situations where lines cannot be put up very quickly.
  So, with the virtual elimination of the waiting list, the Post Office will be able to go all out to promote the most efficient use of the system as a whole. We have already begun a campaign to promote the use of the system in off-peak hours, and we are spending this year £300,000 on the "The best time to 'phone your friends? After six and at weekends" campaign. This may sound a lot of money but if it produces marginal increases in off-peak usage we will make a net profit of £1·3 million on this improvement.
  As to the future. The House knows that the Post Office is already engaged in Washington New Town in a new development for installing TV. links

  1647
  along with 'phone links, and eventually we shall be able to develop a system which will meet all the householders' communication needs—including facilities for facsimile printing. The first homes to have the development which I have described at Washington should have them this summer, and eventually we plan to install the scheme in about 1,000 homes on that particular estate.
  As for 'phoning abroad, we have had interesting developments in international subscriber dialling, and already six of the United Kingdom's largest cities can dial numbers in Belgium, France, West Germany, Holland, Norway and Switzerland, and during 1969–70 it is planned that London customers can dial to parts of North America, including New York. The Post Office is developing new kinds of exchanges using the most up-to-date electronic devices. Microelectronic devices in these exchanges promise to increase the reliability of the service at no extra cost, and save much space. For example, a single device the size of a pinhead used in micro-circuitry contains the equivalent of 600 separate components. The use of micro-circuitry in conventional exchanges will reduce the risks of a customer obtaining the wrong number.
  The Post Office, we believe, is the first public service in Europe to use these devices, and largely as a result of the Post Office interest in the development of electronic exchanges British manufacturers are well to the fore in the commercial development of this equipment. We also have a very well developed data transmission service. We have seized the opportunity of pioneering a service which will give British industry invaluable assistance in the future. Our Datel 2400 Service already enables a computer to send and receive information over a private wire network. Computer talks to computer. Exciting developments are planned for Datel in the next year. The "Midnight Line" will allow Datel subscribers unrestricted access to the whole United Kingdom STD system between midnight and 6 a.m. at only rental charge with no charge for calls. Data communication services will be extended to Australia and parts of North America, and services already exist to the United States and many European States.
  1648
  There are also very exciting developments in space communications. We recognise the importance of these. We have a very substantial investment in COMSAT which is providing increasingly important means of communication. Within the next two years, more than half the telephone communications between Britain and countries outside Europe will be relayed through space.
  But although we are concerned about space communications, we are also concerned to provide up-to-date equipment for the ordinary subscriber. We are new developing a push-button dialler which, with a number of buttons, enables the customer to call most of the numbers he uses simply by pressing one button and allowing the instrument to dial it for him. This dialler can be used equally effectively for local, trunk and international calls where subscribers can dial direct. If it is connected to a loudspeaker phone, a customer will have a very efficient communication system which will save him much time, and will also save him overhead costs by allowing the machine to do most of the phone work done on P.B.X. exchanges. The most important feature of this device is that misdialling is abolished.
  I should like to refer to some of the wonderful experimental work being done at the Post Office Research Station in co-operation with some of our suppliers. The year 1972, just three years off, will see a momentous advance in the transmission of phone messages and T.V. programmes. Using microwave devices, we will be able to convey, through a pipe no more than two inches in diameter, one-third of a million phone circuits or 300 two-way T.V. channels. Initially, development will be over a distance of 20 miles, but it is hoped that the system will be sufficiently proven to meet the expected dynamic increase in demand for the services on the network in the next ten years. Currently, we have in service cables which can handle only 10,000 telephone circuits or a single T.V. link, so this new microwave 2 in. pipe will increase productivity by a quite extraordinary amount.
  Looking further ahead, I can tell the House that Post Office research experts are now working on the use of hair-thin glass fibres, and laser beams, for the

  1649
  transmission of phone and T.V. messages. A single glass fibre will carry 1,000 phone circuits or a single colour T.V. programme, but if a glass fibre cable the thickness of a pencil is used, it can convey 100,000 phone circuits or 100 colour T.V. programmes. We have in hand in this respect some of the most advanced experiments in the world.
  I believe that I have said enough to convince the House that the Post Office development programme is well justified. It is geared to commercial ends, and will meet a known demand. It is a programme of which I think the whole community can be proud. I therefore commend the Motion to the House.
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: These Motions usually provide a fairly routine annual occasion on which we can conduct a wide ranging debate on Post Office matters. The Postmaster-General has chosen to use this occasion to give us an account of the telephone and telecommunications programme. He is perfectly justified in doing so. Telecommunications are, after all, our biggest money spender, and most of the money about which we are now talking will go into telecommunications.
  In passing, I would pay a tribute to the very original research going on at Dollis Hill and other places, which we have had the privilege of seeing. What our people are doing in that sphere is quite remarkable considering the resources they have at their disposal as compared with the Americans. However, this afternoon I shall ask questions on the postal side, because it seems to me that in the short term it is on that side that most questions need answering, especially in relation to the recently published White Paper "Post Office Prospects 1969–70".
  Quite clearly, every hon. Member wants to see an improvement in the Post Office, but no one can deny that we have had a bad year, and a year to forget. We have had this unnecessary and unprecedented strife, we have had the two-tier snarl-up, and we have had the London Directory fiasco. All three Postmasters-General in the last years appear to have been accident-prone, and we want to get out of this rut. All hon. Members present—although there are not many
  1650
  present on the other side—are biased in favour of the Post Office.
  What we want to see is the turn of the tide, and the first and obvious sign of the turn of the tide would be some indication that the Postmaster-General was getting a grip on events. No better sign could emerge than the fact, if it is a fact, that the accounts are coming out as budgeted, especially in this year, when we have had not only major tariff changes but a major restructuring of tariff has been born with all the birth pangs of a 90-page P.I.B. Report.
  This chapter of Post Office history started with two reassurances. First, we had the reassurance of the P.I.B. Report, which stated:
  "To the best of our judgment the increases which we have recommended should be adequate until further changes become inevitable on the introduction of decimal currency in 1971."
  We then had the Postmaster-General's own reassurance in this House on 27th February, when he said
  "… there will be no increase in postage rates during the next financial year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1908.]
  So far, so good. But then it seems to me that the red lights started appearing.
  First of all, the sheer organisational shambles of the early days of the two-tier system would appear to any businessman to knock any sane budget out of shape. One wonders to what extent it has been possible to estimate, in terms of overtime and every other disorganisation, what has been the effect on the accounts. I do not think that it can be measured until the final accounts are published. In the longer term, the damage we have seen in the form of a reduction in postal traffic has been twice as much as was expected. It would be as well if the Postmaster-General could enlarge somewhat on paragraphs 49 and 50 of the White Paper, which deals with the losses in this respect.
  The second red light appeared on 13th January, when we read in the newspaper that Mr. Wolstencroft had given instructions to regional directors that cuts to the tune of £4 million should be made in this financial year. I do not say that this was a panic measure, but it seemed an exceptional order to give only four months after a tariff increase and it made

  1651
  one wonder whether the postal services would reach their financial targets.
  The third red light appeared 2½ weeks later, when we had the strike. Again, I expect that the financial results of that strike must at present be incalculable. We are told in a vague way in paragraph 49 of the White Paper that the strike, plus the reduction in postal traffic, means a loss of £5 million, but this is very roughly put, and we shall not know the full scale of the damage until the final accounts come out.
  Then all our fears appeared to be confirmed—and I wait to hear from the Postmaster-General whether or not this is so—when we saw in the Press accounts of the Press meeting which the Postmaster-General had to usher in "Post Office Prospects 1969–70". Here is what was said in the Financial Times:
  "Dearer parcels and money orders warning by P.M.G.:
  A clear warning that Post Office charges for parcels, postal orders, money orders and some other loss-making services may have to be raised before the end of the year was issued by the Postmaster-General"—
  and so it goes on. In the same report, it is said:
  "Mr. Stonehouse told me that despite a drop in traffic the two-tier letter service has made a good contribution to postal finances, and there is no question of these charges being raised again this year."
  I cannot imagine how the two-tier system can have made a good contribution, when the drop in traffic was twice as great as was expected. I should have thought that the contribution was as bad as the right hon. Gentleman could have feared—though, perhaps, this is another of his well known successes.
  In the same piece in the Financial Times we had the first news, as far as I was aware, that the overhead expenses incurred in the setting up of the new Post Office Corporation would be £9 million. The House should have an explanation of that. Having debated the matter for 24 sittings in Standing Committee on the Post Office Bill, we know that this operation will involve a major reshuffle of personnel, but we did not gain the impression that an enormous Post Office palace was to be built to go with the Post Office Tower. Where will the £9 million be spent? Was it budgeted for originally, and how has it been taken
  1652
  into account in the subsequent calculations?
  The document finally published following that Press conference is very informative, but there are some questions to be asked. The first general question is, To what extent has the rise in the tariff been effective? For about six months of the past year, these prices have been in force, but, when one comes to the details, one cannot identify the good results. I take page 99 of the Post Office Report and Accounts for 1967–68 and compare the figures there with the estimated results for 1968–69 given in paragraph 50 of the Prospects White Paper. In the Report and Accounts, the figure for inland parcels is plus £2·4 million. In the prospects for 1968–69, it is minus £3·5 million. If parcel rates have risen, why should the loss rise as well? For postal and money orders, the figure is minus £1·6 million in the Report and Accounts, and it stays at about the same figure in 1968–69, presumably on higher charges. For overseas services the figure is plus £2·7 million in the Report and Accounts, but it is only plus £1 million in the 1968–69 figures. All that needs explaining in relation to what one had thought were rises in charges across the board.
  Nothing that the Postmaster-General has said today or at any time—he did not refer to it in terms today—has led us to believe that all the warning lights constitute only a false alarm. Until he gave his explanation, I wondered whether the increase in borrowing powers up to £2,300 million to be available in the autumn meant that there would be delay in the vesting date. I take it from what he says that the vesting date is still timed for 1st October and we can expect it then.
  Mr. Stonehouse Mr. Stonehouse indicated assent.
  Mr. Bryan: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on the question of the extent to which we are financing resources from current earnings? In the Standing Committee, he said that he expected during the next five years to finance to the extent of about 50 per cent., but in the year 1968–69, so far as I can see, juggling with the figures as best I can, it is a much lower figure. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, with the computerised resources at his command, to give us the figure for that actual year.

  1653
  We have welcomed the reassurances which the Postmaster-General has given us in the past, but I want him to reinforce them today by an assurance that the Chancellor will not raise the tariff for him. At first sight, this may seem a rather far-fetched and ridiculous apprehension, but one does not have to go far to fetch it—only so far as the autumn Budget of July, 1966. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a puzzled nation not yet used to Socialist thinking was told that if laundries put up their prices this would wreck the economy but that a healthy rise in Post Office charges would be for the general benefit, and there was at that time, in what one can call a Budget, a rise in Post Office charges.
  Being a suspicious man, I suspect that the PostOffice is wide open to another dose of the same thing. We are now approaching a Budget in the normal crisis situation which has obtained every year since 1965. All the standard brakes have long ceased to work and nothing is more possible, it seems to me, than that that brake may be tried again. I ask the Postmaster-General, therefore, to let it be known that this is one part of the Chancellor's Budget Statement which he feels it his duty to anticipate.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: The occasion of these Motions gives us an opportunity to have a wide debate over a broad range of activities and services conducted by the Post Office, and I have one or two questions to put to my right hon. Friend on certain aspects of his Department's work.
  My right hon. Friend has said that there are areas where there is no longer a waiting list for telephone installations. However, I often wonder whether, in making these calculations, he takes into account the number of shared service lines operating within areas where there is supposed to be no waiting list. Although the Post Office authorities do their utmost to ensure that the shared service is reasonably satisfactory, it is no alternative to an exclusive line. All of us realise that.
  I am sure that many hon. Members received representations from irritated subscribers asking to be spared the ordeal of a shared service line. I frequently have to make representations to the West of Scotland telephone manager asking him
  1654
  sympathetically to consider such requests. I am glad to say that our telephone manager, Mr. Warnock, has been a thorough gentleman in considering these representations and he does his best to provide an excellent service. Where shared service lines are unavoidable, he does his utmost to ensure that they are introduced without embarrassment to any subscriber.
  Nevertheless, time after time one receives complaints from subscribers who do not wish to share a service with others, in many cases for good and valid reasons. This sort of situation undoubtedly results in some of our technical staff having to come into unpleasant contact with irritated subscribers in many parts of the country.
  In my view, my right hon. Friend should, when stating that there are no waiting lists in some areas, take account of the number of shared services and the fact that there are people still waiting for an exclusive line. It is a misnomer to say that there is no waiting list, giving facts and figures in such circumstances which do not take account of shared lines. It is a misleading statement if one does not take into account that most, if not all, subscribers insist unequivocally on an exclusive telephone service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take account of this matter.
  I also hope that he will take into account that in those areas, and no doubt in others, we still tragically suffer from the lack of public telephone kiosks. There has been some regrettable, if not shocking, vandalism in certain parts of the country. Kiosks have had to be improved and repaired time after time at the expense of the telephone service. No sooner is this done than the midnight marauders yank the telephone receiver from its hooks, pull out the flex, smash up the coin box and complete the job by desecrating the windows. This has come to be accepted in certain parts of the country.
  What surprises me is that the Post Office telephones department has not tried an alternative system of providing the essential public telephone service. If there is an accident and one wants to call the police, send for an ambulance or seek medical help the situation is extremely hazardous when there is no public service telephone. As a consequence, some private telephones have to be used

  1655
  in such emergencies. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider installing the public telephones in the homes of residents willing to undertake the responsibility of having them in return for a payment. I remember one public-spirited individual who was willing to have a kiosk in his garden, adjoining his house, so that it could be supervised and protected against damage. But for some inexplicable reason this magnanimous gesture was pooh-poohed by the Post Office I shall never know why.
  Public telephones are indispensable to a community, and if we cannot provide them on a public highway we should consider providing them inside the homes of public-spirited individuals who are willing to have them, and we should pay them something for the trouble and bother of providing the service at irregular hours through the night. I do not believe that people would even object to paying more, if need be, to have such a desirable service provided for the community. I ask my right hon. Friend to examine that suggestion and consult his managers and other staff officers throughout the country. If he is not wholeheartedly behind the idea, I hope that he will at least conduct an experiment to see what can be accomplished by such a system in providing a service that we know will involve no maintenance costs, since it cannot be ravaged by vandals.
  Another matter which I have raised over the years, is the provision of a 24-hour radio service. Our service usually finishes at 2 a.m., but there are very strong requests for a continuation through the night, not necessarily with jazz or pop music, but with light, entertaining music, to give the old, the weak, the disabled, and the sick, who cannot enjoy a night's sleep, the comfort of appropriate radio music. I do not think that it would cause any irritation to the neighbours, because if it is light, attractive, soothing music it can be regulated, and the categories I have mentioned could use it to the best possible advantage. The worst companions of the elderly are fear and loneliness. One of the most effective ways to counter those notorious neighbours would be to give them a reasonable degree of light music throughout the night. The cost would
  1656
  appear to be infinitesimal, and I am convinced that the benefit of such a service to the sections of our community that I have mentioned would outweigh the cost. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion.
  I should also like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the problem of costs generally and to the fact that large numbers of people are escaping their obligation to the Post Office. We know that many defaulters do not pay their television licences, and we appreciate the efforts of the Post Office to bring them to book, and ensure that they meet their due share of the cost of providing the television service to the country as a whole. But I believe that some officers are over-zealous in their activities. One evening I had the experience of sitting in a pensioner's home when the television detector Z-car, as I call it, arrived in the area, with all its detectors and aerials, plotting who had televisions and checking those who were not paying their licence fees. Two gentlemen strode into the old soul's home, and I had a job convincing them that she had never had a television set in her life. After some discussion they left.
  Mr. Bryan: On a point of order. Would not this matter come under the B.B.C. Vote rather than the Post Office vote, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman may be right, but the debate is very wide.
  Mr. Dempsey: I feel that as we are spending money on the Post Office, and as this is a Post Office responsibility, I am entitled to spotlight the attitude being adopted towards pensioners. Two weeks after the incident I mentioned, the same Z-car came back when I was not there. The same crew again strode into the old lady's house, and ranged over the place looking for an undisclosed television set. That is enough to unnerve an old body. This old lady was 70, and she was immobilised with arthritis. While my right hon. Friend is quite entitled to ensure that the greatest zeal and vigour are applied in bringing to book those culprits who are defaulting on the payment of their licence fees, he should instruct such officers that they should

  1657
  have sufficient common sense to know that it would be very difficult to find any old body of that age on £4 10s. a week with a television set under the bed.
  Those are some of the aspects of the Post Office services to which I wished to draw my right hon. Friend's attention. I hope that he will realise that they are all extremely important. They are topical, and many of them involve cost to the Post Office, subscribers and consumers, and all who use the services under his jurisdiction. I hope that he will give practical consideration to those points, and that as a result we can look forward to seeing in future statements that our deliberations have influenced his thinking.
  4.49 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a characteristically valuable contribution to our debate. It was particularly valuable today, because I think I am right in saying that he is the only hon. Member opposite who is not paid to attend. The Government's lack of interest in the matter is pathetic.
  Over the years I have in some respects spent too long in the Post Office. I think that I was the only member of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries that studied the Post Office also to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Post Office Bill, and therefore it is rather difficult for me not to repeat myself. However, there are one or two new points I want to make.
  We all of us regret the absence of the Assistant Postmaster-General. We know what a very valuable and stalwart part he plays, and we regret the reason for his absence. I hope that the views of those who sat on the Committee with him may be conveyed to him in due course.
  The Postmaster-General left himself wide open when he referred to the "virtual elimination" of the waiting list for telephones. Naturally I have almost continuous communication with the telephone manager for the West Midlands, and I must say how admirably courteous and useful I have always found him to be. But I had a case in my postbox of
  1658
  a constituent who applied more than a year ago for a telephone and has now been informed that he will not receive service for yet another year. In other words, he will be two years on the waiting list.
  I was rather surprised by what my constituent wrote and took it up at once with the telephone manager. I told him that my constituent had stated that, having applied for a telephone more than a year ago, he had been promised installation in October 1968 and then subsequently very early in 1969, but was now told that it will be early next year before the Post Office has any new equipment. I asked the telephone manager whether this was correct. In his usual courteous way, he replied,
  "It is true that in all probability we shall not be able to provide service for your constituent until early in 1970."
  It is no good telling my constituent that the Postmaster-General says that the waiting list is virtually eliminated. He is not to be consoled by that. Having applied a year ago, he must now wait another year.
  Instead of making rather vainglorious remarks about the waiting list in parts of the country where the service is complete, it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman turned his attention more to the black sheep. I shall not take up with him the question of shared lines, because if I did my correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman would never end. I am simply trying to get service, and there is no doubt that there are great deficiencies due to the failure of the Post Office in planning and making provision. It would be much more sensible—and better for public relations—if the right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that there had been a miscalculation, and instead of telling us about pie in the sky tomorrow when the waiting list will be eliminated—when, presumably, 95,000 new customers will receive immediate service—if the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "Yes. We have a backlog to get through. We are doing as much as we can and are concentrating our attention on the most seriously hit areas."
  I want to make my speech mainly in connection with the National Giro. When we discussed this in Committee before Christmas the position was wide open. That is not so today. The information one has comes basically from the right

  1659
  hon. Gentleman's interview with the Press, and also from an article in the Financial Times of 19th March by Mr. Colin Jones. The heading of the article was: "Executives keep their fingers crossed". It would have been very much better if those in charge of the Giro had kept their fingers crossed about six months ago when they were making some vainglorious statements which have since had to be taken back. We were told in a statement—and the right hon. Gentleman will remember this, although it was not made on his authority—that the Giro was going to take over the London money market. It is, therefore, pathetic to learn from the Bank of England that the total deposits in the name of the Giro are about £10 million.
  We were also told that the unfortunate officer in charge of the Giro activity was setting his sights for between 300,000 to 400,000 up to one million accounts by the end of the year. Even by Post Office budgeting this is pretty wide. How can the poor man really set his sights at anything between 300,000 and a million? He must have some idea of where he is going. We are told that he is keeping his fingers crossed. It would be much better if he uncrossed them and got on with the job of getting subscribers.
  The success of the Giro has not been startling so far, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. The Giro hoped to sell its services to about 200,000 business accounts and about one million private accounts. That was the target. Instead of 200,000 business accounts, there are about 30,000. That is about 15 per cent. of the target. The obvious reason is that businessmen find it easier for people owing them money to make their payments.
  But the earnings of the Giro depend not on business accounts but on private accounts, because it is there that the money will stay. However, while the target was one million private accounts, only 70,000 have been achieved—7 per cent. I suspect that further penetration is going to be increasingly hard. The Financial Times article refers to people called "the great unbanked", consisting of two-thirds of the population. These are the people for whom the Giro system is going to provide a service. But it takes more than an optimist
  1660
  sitting on the benches opposite to get one million people to change their habits in a year. These people are not suddenly going to decide, "We shall not have bank accounts but Giro accounts". I want to make my position and that of the Opposition clear. We welcomed the Giro.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I did not.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not, but he did not register his objection in the Lobby. But the Conservative Party officially welcomes the Giro, since anything which makes for convenient circulation of money without bank notes having always to be bandied about is an advantage.
  Equally, as the Financial Times article says:
  "The planner's original projection"
  was obtaining
  "… a target of 1·2 million accounts within five years."
  I should have thought that was a reasonable target. I do not know how the poor man in charge is expected to reach the target of one million within a year. The Postmaster-General should "pipe down" on this. Let the Giro earn its way. He should not spend another £500,000, as he intends to, on Giro publicity. Let him prove that the services it offers are wanted.
  He will do very much better by being rather less effusive in his publicity. I refer to his speech today. We are very impressed by the work of the Post Office. No one who has seen the Post Office organisation fairly close at hand, either as a member of the Select Committee, or even on the Standing Committee considering the Post Office Bill, can but be impressed by the vast amount of services carried on in an efficient fashion. At the same time the Postmaster-General addresses the House as if we were to be sent out as salesmen, engaged on a "hard sell", selling some special type of remedial drug.
  This was the tone of his address to us. It did not attract much support from his own benches—even the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has deserted him. The right hon. Gentleman is under pressure, and he has an awful lot of things on his plate.

  1661
  I hope that he will take an afternoon off and ask himself whether the explosively exuberant terms in which the Giro was heralded have been justified and whether it would not be more sensible to let it find its way into the various banking devices which are used in this country. We appreciate the work of the Post Office, and the burden falling on the right hon. Gentleman. We wish that he was just that degree more capable of dealing with it.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has much more experience than I have about the Giro. I am very concerned about this, and am on record as having said that I do not believe that we should have a Giro system here. When I was Minister I turned the thing down, on very good grounds, and I still believe that we are really throwing good money after bad by continuing to support this system. A longer time, however, must be allowed to elapse before we can make an independent assessment as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or whether I am right. I will, therefore, say no more about that now.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised two points. One was about telephone kiosks. It is fair to say that the Post Office has tremendous difficulty over this. While they fulfil a social need, they cost the Post Office a considerable amount of money per annum, even without vandalism. This money has to come from other services, and we must remember that, when we are for ever asking the Postmaster-General to increase the number of kiosks, we are putting an additional burden on other Post Office services.
  The hon. Member's second point was about shared telephone lines. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the waiting list will be virtually eliminated over a short period of time. We all know of constituents who have had an exclusive line, and then suddenly have been told that they must have a shared line, and if they do not accept that they will be disconnected. This is one of the powers which the G.P.O. has, which no other organisation has. It has these dictatorial powers, whereby it can say, "You have
  1662
  had an exclusive line for a number of years, but you must now accept a shared line or we will reserve the right to cut you off." I have been treated courteously by local telephone managers, who have told me that they have this power, but that they prefer to do these things by agreement, and do not want to exercise such dictatorial powers. Nevertheless, they are there and are used from time to time.
  Can the right hon. Gentleman say by how much the waiting list for telephones has been reduced as the result of increasing the service, and by how much it has been reduced as a result of the service being priced beyond the reach of those who want a telephone? How many people have now fallen out of the waiting list because of the various charges now made, which are at such a level that they cannot afford it?
  The Postmaster-General told us about the marvellous new technological advances being made at Dollis Hill. No one who has visited Dollis Hill would question this. We have all been impressed by the great inventive genius, but all the new ideas put forward continue to remain ideas. They are not put into practice. The push-button dialler was developed many years ago, but it is still as far away as ever for the ordinary subscriber. The development of the laser beam into a positive process has still to come. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was very much a promise of jam tomorrow rather than anything today.
  The Postmaster-General referred to developments in Washington new town. From the answers to questions in the House and from statements by the right hon. Gentleman and the discussions in Committee it has become obvious that the Post Office is interested in providing a service which will enable householders in future to be supplied through one conduit with a complete service in which he will receive television and have his meters read and so on. This is something which we all dream about and it will obviously reduce costs all round.
  But my information is that in Washington new town the Post Office has simply gone into competition with existing relay services. The existing relay services, which have been established for many years, obtained their franchises by tendering for

  1663
  supplying wire services to the area. These services operate in many parts of the country. Householders pay a rental and no longer have "Christmas trees" on the tops of their chimneys making them worry when the wind blows that the structure may fall down, break the slates and come through the roof. That is one of the reasons why people are happy to pay rental for wire services.
  My latest information is that the Post Office has merely provided a service similar to that which the commercial companies provide. The difficulty is that the Post Office is in a much superior position to the private enterprise company which has to ask the Post Office for a licence to continue its services. The private enterprise companies, therefore, have to ask their main competitor for a licence to continue in business. That is not in line with the normal standards of British justice. I will not develop this further, because, although you have allowed wide latitude, Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong for me to do so. Nevertheless, this is a consideration in deciding whether to agree to a Motion seeking to increase the borrowing powers of the Post Office by no less than £450 million.
  That brings me to my second point, which is that we have to ask ourselves from where this money will come. Now and again it is important for hon. Members to ask themselves this simple question. This will increase the Post Office's indebtedness to the National Loans Fund. Where does the Fund obtain the money which it is to make available to the Postmaster-General? We know full well that it will come from increased taxation. The only other way would be for the Treasury to be able to convince foreign investors that it was such a solid organisation that people should lend it money, and under the present Government we have worn out our welcome in that respect and I doubt whether a penny of this money could be borrowed from hard-headed foreign investors. The additional £450 million will therefore come mainly from increased taxation.
  In this country we have always operated on the basis that no one should be called upon to pay for something until he receives it. If somebody wants to buy a new refrigerator, he does not pay the company the price of the refrigerator and
  1664
  then wait until the company has built its factory, installed its machinery and made and supplied the refrigerator. We would expect risk capital to be used to build the factory and machinery and to produce the article, and to pay only when the article had been made available. This is true of services, too. We expect to pay only when the services are made available. However, as most of this money is to come from the taxpayers, there is a great danger that we shall be paying for services which we shall not be enjoying at that moment, that we shall be providing capital investment for services which we or our children may enjoy only in future.
  There is no reason why we should be called upon to do so. If the Post Office, certainly when it becomes the Post Office Corporation, put its house in order, there would be no reason to use these extra borrowing powers. The sum involved could easily be covered if the Post Office accepted the simple facts of life. It ought to concentrate on the job it should be doing. For instance, it ought not to be spending £35 million on data processing. Certainly it should concentrate on data transmission and it should produce the equipment necessary to do so, so that it can transmit data from A to B as fast as possible. The British Post Office probably leads the world in the methods of data transmission, but it is not its job to indulge in data processing. It is not part of its job to install computers in which to process data for outside customers. The Post Office has lost its sense of priority in this respect. It should concentrate on data transmission and leave data processing to those who understand it better and who would be prepared to use their risk capital.
  Secondly, with the tremendous increased demand in trunk services, the Post Office could reduce its capital indebtedness and continue to provide a service if it were prepared to accept the facts of life. People in many large blocks of offices with over 50 telephone extensions would be happy to go to a telephone rental system and say, "Will you install a modern, internal system? We shall call upon the Post Office to connect only 6, 8 or 10 trunk lines at the portals and as long as the Post Office is satisfied that the system conforms to its very high standards it will accept it". A large amount

  1665
  of capital can be tied up in this sort of installation. There is no reason why it should happen, because if the Post Office concentrated on trunk lines and main switchgear, it could concentrate its capital where it mattered. It would also give people who wanted to provide a service and to invest money the opportunity to do so.
  The Postmaster-General has referred to international dialling and micro-circuitry. He said that in these respects British manufacturers were in the forefront. They are. But I do not think that there is one British manufacturer of telephone equipment who is completely happy with the present set up. How many manufacturers in this country have been called upon by the Post Office to produce a complete telephone? Many manufacturers are running virtually two entirely different manufacturing and assembly lines—one for export and one for the home market. A great deal can be done here, and I have high hopes of the Corporation because it will look at the matter more on a commercial basis.
  The points which I have made are designed to show that the Post Office could, if it looked at the picture properly, ensure that it would not need to put this additional £450 million burden on the taxpayer. With readjustment, most of it could be laid in a different place. A great deal of risk capital would be happy to come into this field if it had the opportunity to do so. The Post Office should not enter fields which are nothing to do with it and in which other people can do much better. I mention the Giro system and data processing. It is wrong for the Post Office to insist that the consumer, whether he wants one telephone or 100 telephones, must conform to the Post Office pattern. He should have some say in the service that he wants. Obviously, the contractors supplying him would have to meet the requirements of the Post Office; that goes without saying. But that does not happen. Even if the invention meets all the specifications of the Post Office, something may happen and it is not developed. There was reference in Committee—and I do not know how far this matter has gone since we discussed it here—to the G.L.C. tendering for its automatic equipment. British manufacturers still say that the Post Office would not allow the Swedish company to install
  1666
  the type of equipment which it wishes to install. I am going only by what people tell me. This is one respect in which we should make matters clear.
  A great deal of rethinking must be done. If it is done, it can only result in a much more efficient system at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I welcome this opportunity of having a wide-ranging discussion of the general financial policy of the Post Office. Normally debates on the Post Office take place on Supply days and are in the nature of censures on the Postmaster-General, admittedly well deserved in most cases. But this limits the discussion, and we have an opportunity only about once every two years to discuss the general financial policy when we consider the borrowing powers. We are being asked today—and it is regrettable that so few hon. Members are present—to increase Government expenditure and to give them the right to spend another £450 million, which is an enormous sum of money. As the Postmaster-General said, we shall not be discussing the general policy of the Post Office probably for another two years. We look forward to the contribution which he will then make to the debate, although we appreciate that it will be made from these benches.
  We have had very interesting debates on the Post Office Bill in Committee. We have found out a great deal more about the investment intentions of the Post Office. Some of them have been published in the White Paper "Post Office Prospects 1969–70". I find this an appallingly depressing document. It reveals that over the last three years the profits of the Post Office have declined. In the year before last the profits were £44 million; last year they were £39 million; in this current year they will be £32 million. Only next year shall we get back to a reasonable rate of profit. As is so often the case with this Government, the improvement lies in the future. I am not at all confident that next year the Post Office will make the profit of £60 million forecast in the White Paper.
  In the Post Office accounts presented to the House last summer, the Postmaster-General, under the heading

  1667
  of "Outlook", said that 1968 was to be a momentous year for the Post Office. We would all say "Hear, hear" to that. But the only momentous thing about the Post Office in 1968 has been the loss on the postal side. In the current year the loss will amount to £7 million. Only two years ago the services on the postal side made a profit of £7 million. There has, therefore, been a complete transformation from a profit of £7 million to a loss of £7 million.
  What does the Postmaster-General propose to do about that matter? The root trouble was the inept way in which the 4d. and 5d. posts were introduced. But, apart from that, I am not sure that the system of 4d. and 5d. posts is right because it divides post on a time basis and it means that there must be a lot of people employed in the Post Office either pushing through the 5d. post or holding back the 4d. post. If the Postmaster-General denies this, there is no purpose in anyone buying a 5d. stamp. This cannot be the right system, and any businessman knows that it is not the right system.
  There are three services on the postal side on which I hope the Postmaster-General will tell us what is the policy; they are inland parcels, the transfer of money, and telegrams. This year the inland parcels service will lose £3½ million; next year it will lose £5 million. Is the transmission of parcel traffic such a social service that the British taxpayers should subsidise it to the extent of £3 million to £5 million a year? The White Paper "Post Office Prospects" boasts proudly that the inland parcels traffic has maintained its share of the market; but by maintaining its share of the market it is losing £3½ million a year. There is a prima facie case for suspecting that it is maintaining its share of the market only by not charging enough. Will the Postmaster-General go on allowing inland parcels to lose this amount of money every year?
  The services for the transfer of money lost £5 million a year. By the transfer of money I mean Giro, postal orders and money orders. Next year the service will lose £7 million. Are these services of such an important social nature that the British taxpayer should subsidise them to the extent of £5 million or £7 million a
  1668
  year, or should people who buy postal orders for pools or whatever it may be pay more for their postal orders? Should people pay more for money orders? This year the Giro will lose £2 million, next year £4 million. We must have a clear statement of policy from the Postmaster-General as to how long will be the trial period of the Giro. My own feeling on the Giro is a not proven verdict and we should give it a little longer. But we cannot write a blank cheque, and if the Post Office is losing as much as this, we have a right to know when it is likely to stop losing this amount of money on the Giro.
  The telegram service is a dying one. After the war there were about 60 million telegrams a year, and now we are down to about nine million a year. The loss on the telegram service is between £2 million and £3 million a year. The average cost of each telegram is 13s. 8d., the average income is 8s.; so on every telegram that is sent the Post Office loses 5s. 8d. The crucial question is: to what extent is the telegram service a social service? I do not believe, for example, that greetings telegrams and business telegrams are a social service, nor bookmakers' telegrams, although they have to get there on time. But I do believe that the life and death messages which constitute about 100,000 a year are a social service, and if such messages cannot be delivered by telephone some other way has to be found. This service loses £3 million a year.
  If all these services could be made profitable, or at least could be made not to run at a loss, the Post Office would be about £14 million a year better off. This would be a substantial saving, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will make a clear statement of policy.
  Earlier today the Postmaster-General and I were guests at a lunch at which he made a stirring speech, his usual "box of tricks" speech. All these clever inventions we shall have in the next few years were dangled before us, in spite of these enormous losses. He said, and I took down his words, "This is not a time for speculation; it is a time for action."
  Mr. Stonehouse: My actual words were, "This is a time not for exhortation, a time for action."
  Mr. Baker: That is even better. I hope we shall not be exhorted by the Postmaster-General. We do not want any of this "Dunkirk" stuff such as we had today. We should like to know from the Postmaster-General what he intends to do about these loss-making services of the Post Office. I said that there might be a social case, but if there is one, let us have it argued. I have concentrated upon this aspect because it is crucial to the Post Office that it should improve its profitability.
  I paid generous tribute to the investment programme of the Post Office during the passage of the Post Office Bill in Committee. I accept that it has been increased substantially. About £1 million a day is now spent by the Post Office on capital expenditure. With a programme like this a larger proportion of that capital expenditure must come from the Post Office itself. How would a large company faced with such a capital programme finance it? To begin with, it would look at its overheads and costs. On the last page of the recent White Paper there is a list of the staff which shows an increase of 8,000 during the present year. In a year when the Post Office will lose an extra £7 million, there is to be an increase of staff of 8,000. It is not the operatives who are being increased, it is the administrative staff, and the biggest increase comes under the heading "Cleaners, etc". There are to be an extra 1,500 cleaners and etceteras. Can this be the heading under which appear the great army of public relations officers which has been taken on by the Post Office?
  A private company would consider where staff can be saved. A private company would also try to make its assets spin a little more quickly. The Post Office is a major landlord. It owns magnificent sites in the high streets of every town and village in this country. Would it be possible to approach some pension funds on a sale-and-lease-back operation. In this way one could generate hundreds of millions of £s.
  What are the other assets of the Post Office? I read in a newspaper during the weekend that the Post Office had a magnificent collection of old stamps. There is one coming up for sale tomorrow at Stanley Gibbons, an Edward VII 2d. Tyrian blue, which is expected to be sold
  1670
  for over £2,000. This stamp was to be issued on the day on which Edward VII died, but was never issued. I understand that the Post Office owns 239 of these stamps. It will not take hon. Members long to work out that 239 valued at £2,000 each comes to £½ million. The Postmaster-General could not sell these stamps immediately, as by doing so he would ruin the market, but he could do a phased marketing. It is no purpose of the Post Office to be the proud collector of valuable old stamps which it could be turning into money. This is just one small way in which the Post Office could be helped.
  The capital programme of the Post Office is £1 million a day for the next five years. I pay generous tribute to the fact that that is a good capital programme, but I have argued before and I will argue again today that it is not enough. It is one-tenth of what is being spent in America. I am sure the Postmaster-General would be only too eager to spend even more if he could lay his hands on more money, but how is this capital programme, or a bigger capital programme, to be financed?
  The Post Office proposes to finance half from internal sources, profit and depreciation, and half from borrowing. This balance, in my opinion, is wrong. The 50 per cent. from borrowing is far too high a proportion. When the Post Office Bill went into Committee the interest rate in the London gilt-edged market was about 8 per cent.; when it came out of Committee it was 9 per cent.; I dare say that when on 1st October the Post Office Corporation becomes a nationalised industry the interest rate will be 10 per cent. One does not know what will happen to the interest rates next year. Interest rates are important. If the interest charges for this vast amount of money which is to be borrowed go up and up and up, the capital programme will have to be cut and cut and cut. There are no two ways about that. The Post Office must tap new sources of capital. What are these new sources of capital? I believe that it has to tackle the private market more effectively.
  I have argued in Committee that I would favour a system whereby the British public has a chance to make a direct investment in the telecommunications side of the Post Office. I believe

  1671
  that a B.P.-type arrangement would be very attractive. The one matter on which both sides of the House join is our desire for the Post Office to invest more and more. We are on the verge of a magnificent technological break-through, and the Postmaster-General touched upon it in his speech when he spoke of the possibility of computerised terminals in every home. However, the Post Office will not be able to do it without the necessary money, and no Postmaster-General of any party could come to the House and ask for these vast sums.
  We are asked to vote a large sum today but, even when it is spent, only about 30 per cent. of homes in this country will have telephones. In America, 85 per cent. of homes have them. Even after ten years, only 60 per cent. of the homes in this country will have them.
  This is the scale of the problem. It will not and cannot be met by Government borrowing in the gilt-edged market. One has to tap private capital. One has to go to the private investor and ask if he has the necessary confidence to invest in the British Post Office.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I want to support my right hon. Friend in what he has said this afternoon.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) made some very useful points. As he knows, hon. Members on this side of the House do not agree with his suggestion about raising capital in the private market. Although many of us have looked at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion since he first advanced it in Committee, I for one still think that it would be dangerous if the Post Office adopted it.
  I think that it is important to know occasionally from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite what they have in mind for the future of the telephone service. We have never had a clear answer from the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). He wriggled in Committee, and I am sure that he will wriggle again if we press him.
  The current account prospects given on page 9 of the White Paper are extremely interesting, and the hon. Member for Acton touched upon them. However, he made no reference to the most significant
  1672
  figure, which is that the two-tier postal service is expected to make a substantial profit this year and next year. He levelled a number of criticisms at my right hon. Friend and protested about the two-tier letter service. I would have expected some rather more generous comments from him because the service is an extremely good one. It is understood that 94 per cent. of letters posted are delivered the following day. But the majority of the remaining 6 per cent. are physically and geographically impossible to deliver. In addition, second-class mail reaches its destination in very good time.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are quick to criticise, but we have not heard a word of praise today for the way in which the service has settled down and looks set fair to make a reasonable profit this year and next year.
  Mr. Bryan: How does the hon. Gentleman know what has been said in the debate?
  Mr. Dobson: Unfortunately, I was slightly delayed in getting here today and missed the hon. Gentleman's contribution. If he said that he praised the two-tier letter service, I congratulate him on his conversion. It is about time. He has had plenty of opportunities to do it in the past, and I am delighted if he has done it today.
  It is useful to study these figures because they indicate that the Post Office has made a number of changes, difficult though they were in the interim period, which have turned out well for the senders and recipients of letters, and for the Post Office as an organisation.
  The hon. Member for Acton made rather heavy weather of Giro. He suggested that it had been introduced for an experimental period. However, he must know that that is not so. The service is a very useful one and, once it can establish itself firmly in the market, it will make substantial profits for the Post Office, even though it appears from paragraph 50 of the White Paper that it will make a loss this year and next year.
  The setting up of a service of this kind involves a high capital cost, and we must allow it time to settle down in a very difficult market. It offers very important facilities, and it is one

  1673
  which we should all welcome. I know that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) does not agree with me and has always taken a different view, but it is not shared by other hon. Members opposite. It is a service which the Post Office should have offered long before it did, and I shall be very pleased when it starts to make a substantial profit.
  In that connection, I want to utter a word of caution to my right hon. Friend. I think that it would be better if his public relations department issued more information about Giro. I was engaged in writing an article recently and found it rather difficult to obtain answers to questions which I raised with the Post Office. This was particularly unfortunate as I was trying to praise Giro and not condemn it. It may be that the people to whom I spoke were not aware of my interest in it.
  I want to turn now to the National Data Processing Service. It has been running for some time now and, in my view, has never developed properly and in the way suggested by the then Postmaster-General when he introduced the Bill which we discussed in Committee. I have always thought that it could develop into a very valuable service to industry, possibly to accountants, and to a wide range of people who are interested in using a computer system in a computer network; not wishing necessarily to rely completely on private bureaux and small networks of that kind.
  I do not feel that enough push has been given to the Director of National Data Processing Service to get it off the ground and provide the viable and profitable service which it should offer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this again and make sure that something is done to advertise its wares and concentrate on attracting business to it in a way which has not been attempted so far, much as has been done in the case of Giro.
  The hon. Member for Acton spoke rather disparagingly about the increase in staff. He particularised cleaners, etc. The increase in the cleaning force has been caused by a change of policy. The Post Office has decided to change over from contract cleaning, which has not proved successful. Contracts were given to cleaning firms, and they resulted in a very
  1674
  low standard of cleaning in Post Office buildings. The increase is obviously due to the need for more cleaners to be used in keeping Post Office premises in good order.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, there will be some further changes in staff when the Post Office becomes a corporation. In the last few days, I have tabled a number of Questions to him bringing to his attention one specific case of staff shortage which interests me. In that connection, I had better declare my interest, because I was in the section concerned.
  The radio operators' section mans the 13 stations round our coast, contacting ships at sea with distress and personal messages and, through the station at Burn-ham-on-Sea, maintaining contact with British and foreign shipping throughout the world.
  Burnham-on-Sea radio station has been suffering for some time from a shortage of staff. This is due to several reasons: uncongenial hours, low pay, and the kind of problems about which my right hon. Friend has heard before. But it has resulted, and probably could result, in certain services being withdrawn from that station.
  One is the ship letter telegram service. I have put down a Question to my right hon. Friend about this. I do not expect him to be able to answer now, because I have not given him notice. I apologise for raising it in this way, but it seemed convenient to speak about it. I have heard rumours that the ship letter telegram service is to be withdrawn. This would be a pity and a great disservice to those who sail the high seas and those engaged in coastal water trade, because it is a cheap service for people at sea. Telegrams are received in the station and they go on their way by post, so it becomes a very cheap method for people at sea to keep in touch with their families ashore. There is a stipulated minimum of 20 words. I submit that this is a very valuable service.
  Secondly, there is a development called high frequency radio telephone which has been talked about for at least 15 years to my certain knowledge. This has developed to some extent anyway. The equipment has been installed in Burnham radio station to enable it to control this type of service. It provides a telephone

  1675
  connection between ships at sea and their owners and others ashore. It is very valuable, therefore, for business and for private individuals.
  This equipment has only recently been installed. The staff is not yet available to operate it. Once again, I do not expect my right hon. Friend to know about it at this stage, but I hope that he will look into it. It would be a very valuable asset and a money-making proposition for the Post Office. As it takes at least six months to train people fully to operate this equipment, there is an urgent need to look into the staffing of this radio station as soon as possible.
  I suppose that this is probably the last "Post Office Prospects" before we start the Corporation. Therefore, it is opportune to hope that, under my right hon. Friend, the Corporation will be even more successful than the Post Office has been.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I think that we should all congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on his productivity. Five minutes listening and a 12-minute speech is a better proportion than many of us manage to achieve.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and others of my hon. Friends, I am sorry that the Assistant Postmaster-General is not here to wind up the debate in his usual way. We look forward to seeing him again after Easter.
  When somebody wants a larger loan, his bank manager, or whoever the lender may be, is accustomed to scrutinising him and his past performance before he is prepared to shell out the money. It seems to me that at least some of the operations of the Post Office would not pass the scrutiny of a bank manager. If it came to the ears of a bank manager that one of his clients was a bit loose in his business practice, I think that he would either refuse the loan of more money or he would demand an assurance that this sort of thing stopped.
  It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman should look again at the advertising of his Department. It would be too much to call it fraudulent, but it is certainly misleading, and it has been
  1676
  misleading on at least three specific occasions. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has done any television advertising lately. If so, I think it is time that the I.T.A. had a look at what is said.
  We all know about the notorious two-tier post advertisements. I think that the Postmaster-General has recognised the justice of some of the criticism to the extent of sacking the advertising agent.
  We have had the advertisement about Giro,
  "Do not pay your bill, Giro it."
  That seems to imply that as a result of using Giro people do not have to pay their bills. I do not know of a more ineptly worded advertisement. It calls up reminiscences of the early days of Socialist finance: that the money would be found elsewhere.
  We had the advertisement which seemed to suggest that telephoning is no more expensive than it was in 1934. That is a proposition to which very few would assent. Mr. Quintin Crewe, in his article in the Sunday Mirror of 16th March, said:
  "All in all, I think it borders on the deceitful to suggest that the cost of the telephone service today can be compared in any way with 1934—except that it has multiplied about five times."
  That seems a just criticism of advertising.
  The Postmaster-General has evidently spent a lot of money on advertising his wares, but it would be a brave man who suggested that the public's opinion of the Post Office was better as a result of the expenditure of this money than it was before. Indeed, I think that the standing of the Post Office in the eyes of the public varies almost in inverse proportion to the amount that the Post Office spends on advertising.
  I think that a bank manager would have a look at the general public reputation of the borrower. In this case he would have quite a good guide to go by, because the Opinion Research Centre conducted a poll which was published in the Western Mail on 15th February. One question asked was:
  "On balance, do you think that the Post Office is being well run or badly run nowadays?"

  1677
  The answer was that 35 per cent. said well run, 57 per cent. said badly run, and 8 per cent. did not know. I imagine that that is a most distressing figure for the Postmaster-General to be told.
  It is worth noting that in the same survey people were asked:
  "If the Post Office was denationalised and run as a private enterprise by a commercial company, do you think it would probably be run better or worse than it is now?"
  No less than 45 per cent. thought that it would be better run, only 22 per cent. thought that it would be worse run, and the remaining 33 per cent. said that it would make no difference or that they did not know.
  The increase in the number of public relations officers, which has risen from 51 to 98, does not seem to have made a great deal of difference so far to the reputation of the Post Office. Neither that nor advertising seems to have been very successful.
  Incidentally, the Postmaster-General's attitude to advertising is a little odd. He extols the advertising of his Department. He did so today. He said that spending £300,000 would cause a great saving in the Post Office. But the only advertising of which he seems to approve is that done by his Department. When reference is made to advertising by private companies and when it is suggested that it would be a good thing to finance local radio by advertising, he says that advertising is not free and that it adds to the cost of the product. Will he say that it adds to the cost of his Department's product and service? The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he thinks that the cost of advertising is added to the general cost to the consumer or that advertising saves money.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The particular advertising to which I was referring was designed to secure more efficient use of the system as a whole. I gave the House details of the net additional turnover which we should obtain from it.
  Mr. Gilmour: But so much advertising is designed to increase the sale of a particular product, so that the same considerations apply. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in producing a valid distinction.
  1678
  A bank manager would also want to know how accurate the forecasts made by his customer were likely to be, and he would look at past performances. I think that he would be shaken to read the words of a by no means unfriendly critic, in this case, the P.I.B., which said:
  "There is clearly no basis in the market research results for the assumptions on which the Post Office has made its financial forecast."
  I agree that that did not apply to all the operations, but it is nevertheless not a very kind comment. It seems as though the right hon. Gentleman and the Post Office were caught off balance by the two-tier postal service. We read that a £4 million cut had to be made in expenditure, and that the receipts from the two-tier system were much lower than they were expected to be.
  Most important of all is the question of the proportion of capital expenditure to be financed from inside the Post Office. The proportion has gone steadily down over the last few years. In 1962–63 it was 70 per cent. In 1965–66 it was 57 per cent. In 1966–67 it was 52 per cent. In 1967–68 it was 42 per cent. It seems likely that it may be only 36 per cent. in 1968–69. It is forecast to be 49 per cent. In 1969–70, but in view of the trend, and in view of the continual fall, there must be some doubt whether that target of 49 per cent. of capital expenditure is likely to be achieved or whether it will be like all those forecasts of a balance-of-payments surplus of £500 million which we hear from the Chancellor every year.
  This is an especially vital matter because the amount of finance which is not raised from the Post Office internally is paid directly by the taxpayer, and £200 million extra is by no means a trifling sum. It should therefore be incumbent upon the Postmaster-General to do all that he can to find alternative sources of finance and to allow services or functions which can be run better by other people to be run by other bodies. Unfortunately, however, as we discovered in Committee, the Postmaster-General is so obsessed by his monopoly, and is so intent on hanging on to it, and indeed on extending it, that he has closed his mind to these important considerations and is prepared to let the taxpayer go on footing the bill. Until the right hon. Gentleman changes his

  1679
  mind, and until his administration improves, the popularity of the Post Office will continue to be low, and the Postmaster-General can only be grateful that he is not subject to the normal financial disciplines provided by a bank manager.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am most grateful—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member needs the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Stonehouse: May I seek the leave of the House to speak again?
  I was most grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and to the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) for what they said about my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. I shall convey their observations and those of the House to him. We all look forward to seeing my hon. Friend back here soon.
  This has been an interesting, if short debate. I want to start by dealing with some of the misunderstandings which seem to lie in the mind of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), and that of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). They spoke about the losses of the Post Office, and went on to talk about the burden on the taxpayer. What they do not seem to realise is that the figures shown in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the White Paper, Post Office Prospects, represent the position after interest charges have been fully met. On the post side of the business, the figures shown in paragraph 50 are arrived at after the post side has paid interest charges at the appropriate rate on the money borrowed from the taxpayer of £8 million, and has arranged and allowed for a £0·7 million supplementary depreciation so that there is actually not a loss but a return of 1·7 per cent. on investment.
  Furthermore, as is indicated at the bottom of paragraph 49, and at the bottom of paragraph 30—and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) to this, because he made disparaging remarks about the fruits of profitability in the last few years—we have this year adopted a new practice
  1680
  of charging to current expenditure certain costs which before were not so charged, so that the profitability is reduced by nearly £9 million this year.
  Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the figures for 1968–69 in paragraph 50 are not comparable with the figures in the Report and Accounts for 1967–68?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am not suggesting that. I am saying that a cursory reading of the White Paper might give the impression that the figures arrived at in paragraph 50 are the figures before interest charges have been paid. If I might take up the point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central, a bank manager would pay a great deal of attention to his customer's ability to pay the interest on the money that he borrows, and the Post Office is paying the full interest. There is no question of any of the accumulated debt of the Post Office being wiped out, as has been the case in a number of authorities. We are fully able to meet these charges, and we intend to meet them in the years ahead.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The taxpayer finds the capital. We are not complaining about the Post Office not paying the interest.
  Mr. Stonehouse: But it is an exaggeration to talk about this being a burden on the taxpayer, because the going rate of interest is being paid.
  The hon. Member for Howden asked me a number of questions. He said that inland parcels and postal money orders were showing a loss, and asked what we intended to do about it. As I said when I introduced this document to the Press a week or so ago, we are considering what action we should take about this loss. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) for drawing the attention of the House to quite remarkable successes, considering the effects of the industrial dispute and the drop in traffic since the increase in charges last year with the two-tier system. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Howden, who devoted a considerable part of his speech to discussing paragraph 50, did not draw attention to the fact that despite the effects of the industrial dispute, and

  1681
  the drop in traffic, which combined caused a loss of about £5 million, the two-tier system is showing a post two-tier profit this year of £3½ million, compared with a pre two-tier position of a loss of £4 million.
  Mr. Bryan: But does the right hon. Gentleman think that the drop in traffic has nothing to do with the early chaos of two-tier?
  Mr. Storehouse: I believe that the drop was due to the increase in charges, and we are expecting to recover the position towards the end of this year. To have made a surplus despite, particularly, the effects of the industrial dispute, which, together with the inland parcels effects, cost us about £2 million, is reasonably satisfactory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised some fascinating questions, to which I gave a good deal of attention. A number of hon. Members have mentioned shared telephone lines. These have been with us for about 20 years and it is our eventual aim to eliminate the shared service and certainly the idea of obligatory sharing. There is a shortage of exchange equipment, and as soon as we have dealt with that, we hope to eliminate the need for sharing lines. But I was surprised that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) made such a song and dance about this, because, when he was Assistant Postmaster-General, he was party to imposing the very sort of conditions which we are now having to impose so that we can connect as many potential subscribers as possible. This is a system which we hope will be gradually eliminated, and we regret that we have to adopt it.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that vandalism to our kiosks is very serious. In some parts of the country, particularly the East End of London, the situation is deplorable. I wish that there were some way of preventing this. Certainly, through the steps which we now take, I hope that it will be ameliorated. My hon. Friend suggested public kiosks being in private houses or private gardens. I will consider that suggestion, but we are already arranging for these call extensions to be available in hotels, public houses, launderettes and other such establishments, where they provide a useful convenience for customers.
  Mr. Dempsey: Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on my question about the 24-hour radio service?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I will consider all these points. They are questions for the B.B.C., which I will ensure is made aware of them.
  The hon. Member for Acton talked about the two-tier service being the wrong way to plan a postal service. He thought that we should deal with the post all at the same time and not separate it into fast or slower streams. What he does not seem to realise is that there is a very serious problem in dealing with the peaks between four and seven o'clock in the evening, when 75 per cent. of the mail is pushed through the boxes and into the sorting centres. It was a physical impossibility to cope with this buildup and that was the reason for two-tier—to enable the customer to choose the priority for his mail and to enable us to give priority to first-class mail.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, when the system was introduced, many suggestions were made, particularly from this side of the House, that one way of getting over this blockage, which was accepted, was to deliver the next day all letters posted before, say, one or two o'clock in the afternoon and to say that, of letters posted later in the day, some would and some would not be delivered the next day.
  Mr. Stonehouse: That is extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be an extreme deterioration in the service which we now provide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East said, we have this remarkable performance of 94 per cent. of first-class mail delivered the next day, which is better than in any other country. The hon. Member's suggestion is that we should allow the service to deteriorate to the extent that any mail posted after one o'clock should not be delivered the next day. This would not only be most awkward for ordinary customers but would be a severe embarrassment to business houses which have come to rely on next-day delivery of mails posted as late as six or seven o'clock in the evening. It is extraordinary that hon. Members opposite, who continually attack us for the alleged deficiencies of the postal service, should now suggest

  1683
  that the way in which they would handle this situation is to impose that sort of restriction. I hope that the public will note it.
  The transfer of money is an expensive service because postal and money orders demand a great deal of staff time. We expect that, in due course, the Giro will increasingly take over the function of these services, but it was always expected that Giro would incur a loss in the first years. As a new service, it could not be built up into the number of accounts which would make money for it within the first year. We are now expecting that, in two years, we shall break even and then begin to make a return on our investment.
  Although we are not yet receiving the number of accounts which were at one time optimistically expected, we are increasing them at about the rate of 2,500 a week and we now have about 100,000. It is interesting that many business houses, particularly insurance and mail order firms, have taken over Giro accounts and are using them for in-payments by their various agents around the country. A total of 250,000 transactions was recorded in the last week of February and the number is increasing. Given time, I believe that Giro will build up, as it has in other European countries, to a valuable system of transferring money.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of the N.D.P.S. development. I assure him that we are anxious that this service should be developed. We look forward shortly to N.D.P.S. securing a good contract outside the G.P.O. I will look into his question about the ship service.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central accused us of misleading advertising and chose as an example the advertisement quoting the cost of a telephone conversation to anywhere in the United Kingdom for three minutes at 1s. This compares—I challenge the hon. Gentleman on this—with 1s. charged in 1934. It is the identical charge, although the value of a shilling in 1934 is about 4s. now. We are entitled to boast about this great achievement—the fact that, through this tremendous investment in the S.T.D. system and through holding down charges at off-peak times, we can provide a service for customers at the identical cost charged in 1934.
  1684
  That is not misleading advertising. I assure hon. Members that I take a close interest in our advertising and the advertising that we are planning because it is important that it should be closely geared to the marketing job which we are trying to do. I believe that in the next 12 months we shall be able to use advertising as an important tool to make our service more effective.
  The hon. Member for Howden wondered what proportion of the development programme was being financed from our own resources. In this financial year the telecommunications business is financing 43 per cent. of its activities from its own resources and, overall, the figure is 39 per cent. We are expecting, over the whole five-year period, to finance about 50 per cent. of the £2,000 million development programme from our own resources, and I suggest that that is a satisfactory split to achieve.
  Mr. Bryan: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the figure of £9 million which it will cost in overheads to change over to the Corporation?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I do not understand the significance of the hon. Gentleman's intervention in connection with the figure of £9 million. We pointed out in the White Paper that charges are now being made to current account which in past years were not made to that account. It would have been possible to have spread these charges over a number of years, but, as we have indicated, we are charging them to current account, which is a more advisable procedure, certainly from the point of view of preparing for the situation which will exist from October onwards. For this reason the profitability figure is about £9 million less than it would have been.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker Mr. Kenneth Baker rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already had two perorations.
  Mr. Baker: That is true, Mr. Speaker, but I have not had any answers.
  Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on my remarks about the loss-making services of inland parcels and telegrams?
  Mr. Stonehouse: On the parcels side, we are considering what to do about the

  1685
  charges. On the telegrams side, we shall be considering what action should be taken, and I am sure that the observations made by hon. Members today on these matters will be most helpful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provider for in section 5 of the Post Office Act, 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1970.
  Resolved,
  That the limit of the Postmaster General's indebtedness to the National Loans Fund under section 10(2) of the Post Office Act, 1961, as amended by section 1(1) of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1967, be increased from one thousand seven hundred and fifty million pounds to two thousand two hundred million pounds.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

  HOUSING CORPORATION (ADVANCES)
  6.24 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
  That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
  The purpose of this Order is to enable the Minister of Housing and Local Government with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales to make a further advance of up to £25 million to the Housing Corporation for it to lend to housing societies.
  The Corporation began, when it was founded in 1964, with £50 million for this purpose. The Act under which it was established provided the first £50 million, but it also enabled the sum to be enlarged by Order or series of Orders up to another £50 million, making £100 million in all. There is, therefore, room for another Order or Orders to be introduced allowing for up to the last £25 million in future, if this Order is approved.
  As the House knows, the Housing Corporation was set up to sponsor, advise and lend money to cost-rent and co-ownership housing societies. These types of society differ from the old-fashioned traditional housing associations, like the
  1686
  Peabody Trust, which were non-profit making, providing particularly to meet the needs of people who could not afford to pay a full rent or who did not want the burdens of owner-occupation. The purpose of cost-rent societies is to provide accommodation of a good quality, usually new accommodation, for people who can afford to pay an economic rent for their requirements but who, either because of the nature of their jobs or for other reasons, do not want to venture into owner-occupation.
  A co-ownership society is an organisation which gets people together to share in the costs of providing houses for people who occupy them as co-owners. This type of society has certain advantages over cost-rent schemes because under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, which started option mortgages, a special provision was made for the co-owner to be regarded as an owner for the purpose of the option mortgage scheme, if that were the will of the majority of members of the society.
  Under the Housing Act, 1961 there had been established a fund of £25 million to be given direct to cost-rent or co-ownership societies and that sum was quickly allocated. Under the 1964 Act, the money provided was advanced with the idea that the Housing Corporation would not lend the whole cost of schemes but that, in the ordinary way, building societies or similar financial institutions would lend two-thirds of the capital, with the remaining one-third coming from the Corporation on second mortgages.
  Schemes of this type are not intended to be charitable or subsidised. It is a straightforward meeting of a demand which is presumed to be in existence, and the result is the production of property to be let at rents which people can pay. Much thought and research goes into the question how the property should be laid out, which sizes of houses there should be in the various schemes and how they should be designed. This research is vital because if a scheme does not produce sufficient money to enable the loans to be repaid, such a scheme is bound to be essentially unsound. If a scheme is sound, the building societies can be expected to back it and if, with their financial acumen, they do back it, then that in itself is a corroboration of the soundness of the scheme.

  1687
  It was hoped that, as a result of the schemes which were permitted under the 1961 Act, private investors would see that this was a promising sphere of activity. Thus, an essential part of the set-up is that the Corporation should advance only one-third of the cost. This is, as I pointed out, meant mainly to be a sphere for private investment. The Corporation is designed to encourage, to advise and to offer the necessary know-how to those concerned and to make advances of about one-third of the cost.
  The total since the Act came into operation is 602 schemes providing 24,506 units at an estimated cost of about £108,732,000. This has meant that the Corporation has committed itself to advance approximately £40 million out of £50 million allowed under the Act. Unless the limit, therefore, is now, with the will of the House, increased, it might be that the Corporation's commitments would go beyond the resources which Parliament has allowed to the Corporation.
  I think that the way in which the Corporation has managed to advance these schemes and to get them going, and has committed its resources in this way, while having regard to reasonable business soundness in doing so, indicates that its work has been successful, that the Corporation has encouraged and helped in a real need, and that it ought to obtain the support of the House in this way.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I find that confusion is caused by the terms used in connection with housing societies and housing associations. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary partially explained them, but it is probably worth putting on record at the beginning what we mean by these various expressions—Housing Corporation, housing societies, housing associations, housing trusts, and even building societies—so that we may appreciate clearly what we are talking about in connection with this Order, namely, the Housing Corporation and the housing societies which the Housing Corporation finances.
  I must declare an interest as a member of the committees of management of several housing societies and as a director of a building society, but I declare the
  1688
  interest very deliberately, because I shall be drawing on my own experience, and I do not wish the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the House or the Minister to think that any of my complaints, which I shall have to make against the Minister, have been put in my mouth by the Housing Corporation. I am drawing on my own experience.
  This Order deals, then, with the Housing Corporation and the money which the Housing Corporation will be entitled to borrow from the Treasury and with that money, to finance housing societies. As the joint Parliamentary Secretary said, the Housing Corporation finances the projects of the housing societies up to one-third of the capital value of those projects, and the remaining two-thirds comes from the building societies. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said "or from other financial sources", but I know of no others which have supported the scheme so far, and so it is the building societies to which the housing societies look for two-thirds of the cost of their projects. With that aid from the Housing Corporation and the building societies, the housing societies provide homes to let at cost. They are able to do that by reason of the voluntary services of those who form the societies, direct them and manage them.
  As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary briefly indicated, housing societies are of two different kinds, the cost-rent society which provides homes to let in the normal manner on short tenancies, and co-ownership societies providing homes to let on long leases—and if the tenant moves out of a co-ownership scheme, then he receives a part of the sale price; and his share in that, of course, increases with the length of time that he lives in that home. Those, then, are housing societies.
  I want to make it quite clear that we are not discussing today the sort of society or association which catches the headlines, that which is financed from charitable funds and by local authorities and comes under the umbrella of the National Federation of Housing Societies. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the Federation's name has "society" in it. It is the umbrella for housing asociations. Therefore, we are not talking about such organisations as Shelter, the Peabody Trust, which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, the Mulberry Housing

  1689
  Trust, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has become famous, or such trusts as the Notting Hill Trust and Kensington Housing Trust. Nor are we concerned, with this Order, with what I would call the 1961 housing associations, those which were assisted by the Housing Act, 1961, by an advance of £25 million from the Exchequer direct to housing associations. But I mention those because they were the pilot schemes for the Housing Corporation and its children, the housing societies, under the Housing Act, 1964, the credit for which, again, must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East.
  The 1964 Act created the Housing Corporation and authorised it to receive from the Exchequer £50 million and to advance that to housing societies, and it authorised a further £50 million to be granted to it by Order, and this is the first Order made under the Act. The first £50 million went under the Act itself, and we are now asked to authorise a further £25 million of the remaining £50 million authorised by the Act.
  When we were considering the £100 million advance to the Housing Corporation we had in mind at that time about 100,000 houses spread over a period of five years. Perhaps I should make it clear that I do not mean just separate houses, but units, or flats—or let me call them homes. We thought that 100,000 homes might be sponsored by the Housing Corporation over a period of five years by means of the use of £100 million.
  When considering this first Order to increase the first use of money by the Corporation, we can see how the movement is progressing, we can examine the achievements of the Housing Corporation and of the housing societies which it has financed. In the first year—that was 1965–71 projects were approved, which consisted of 3,339 homes costing—I give the exact figure—£13,868,113, that is nearly £14 million. That was an encouraging start, particularly when one considers the nature of the bodies, the housing societies, which are carrying out the work, because housing societies normally consist of a number of professional and business men who give their management services voluntarily while, of course, receiving proper remuneration for
  1690
  any professional services or commercial services which they give to a housing society.
  The architect, if he is a member of the committee of management and draws plans for its schemes, is, of course, paid for those services; the lawyer is paid for conveyancing work which he does for the society; the quantity surveyor for his services; and the accountant for auditing; and so on. I want to make it quite clear that although the management services are voluntary, the society can call on the professional services of those who form its committee.
  Those professional and business men seek appropriate sites for development. They negotiate the purchase of the right site on which they want to develop, and they plan the development. It is important to appreciate this aspect when considering the Order, because if such men are frustrated by the Corporation, and the Corporation, in turn, is frustrated by the Minister, this movement will die.
  The year 1966 was also encouraging. There were 145 projects sponsoring 5,685 homes at a cost of £24 million-odd. That was a doubling of the 1965 figures. The third year, 1967, was a bumper year. The Corporation approved 247 projects which would provide 10,532 homes at a cost of about £48 million. In that bumper year, two features accounted for the rise in the figures. The first was the availability of building society funds—there was no obstruction or restriction on the finances which the housing societies then required from the building societies. The second was the application of the mortgage option scheme to co-ownership societies, on the basis that the long leaseholder co-owner is, in fact, paying the mortgage interest.
  This is, perhaps, the only sphere in which the mortgage option scheme has had any success at all. I admit readily that it has resulted in co-ownership schemes going ahead and, indeed, being preferred to cost-rent schemes. In some ways, that is a pity. The original intention was that the two types of scheme should go along in balance, but there will now be no more cost-rent schemes, because they are no longer economical. The whole future progress looks as though it will be based on co-ownership schemes.

  1691
  That 1967 trend continued for the first quarter of 1968, when 61 projects were approved to provide 2,555 homes at a cost of about £11½ million. But in May, 1968, there started a catastrophic drop. The way in which the Corporation suddenly seemed to be brought to a standstill was astonishing. The final figures for 1968 showed only 139 projects—fewer than the number in 1966, and 100 fewer than the number in 1967. Those projects would provide 4,950 homes—again, fewer than the number in 1966, and only half the number in 1967—and their cost would be £22¾ million.
  We have the Minister, faced with this sudden drop in the Corporation's activities over the last ten months, asking for £25 million to be authorised as an advance to the Corporation. It is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to explain this phenomenal decrease in the Corporation's activity for the last ten months. If he will not explain it, I shall try to do so.
  First, I want to know why the Minister has done nothing to arrest this drop in the figures, and to bring the figures back to the doubling-up trend which we saw over the first three years of the Corporation's life. It is not a doubling up now: it is a halving of those figures. Here we have the Corporation with the machinery to produce at least 20,000 houses a year. It is very economically run. It has a staff of 80 for the whole country, spread out amongst its several regions. That, incidentally, is less than the staff of any one of the eleven regions of the Land Commission. That shows how economically the Corporation is run for the work it produces.
  But the Corporation has been ordered—I repeat, ordered—by the Treasury to restrict its activities to sponsoring only 5,000 houses a year over the next three years. An organisation with the machinery to produce 20,000 houses a year has been ordered by the Treasury to sponsor only 5,000 houses a year, for the next three years. In 1968 the Corporation sponsored twice that number. Is the Minister so frightened of having that crude surplus of a million houses in 1973 that he has to restrict the Corporation's activities?
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is making a
  1692
  very interesting point, and I am listening carefully because I, too, have an interest in a housing society, which, perhaps, I ought to declare before going further Under what authority, precisely, did the Treasury stop the Corporation? Can he explain in which way the Treasury issued that direction?
  Mr. Page: The Treasury has control of the money bags. It can control the rate of advance of the £50 million to start with, and of the £25 million which we are asked to authorise. What the House is doing is to authorise the advance of £25 million, if the Order is approved. What the House did in the Housing Act, 1964, was to authorise the advance of £50 million. But it is up to the Treasury, to the Government of the day, to decide how much shall be advanced from time to time. I understand the present position to be that the Corporation is to be restricted to the amount that will produce 5,000 houses a year over the next three years.
  I am blaming the Minister, but I appreciate that he is not wholly to blame for the general policy of his Government. When that general policy put up interest rates last spring, it put up the average rent under housing societies by 10s. a week. I am speaking of houses costing, say, £4,000 to £5,000—the sort of unit which one expects housing societies to produce in order to provide what the Parliamentary Secretary called good quality accommodation for the middle income groups.
  The present rise to an 8½ per cent. interest rate which building societies have been recommended to charge by the Building Societies Association will put up rents by 14s. a week. That means that in less than 12 months the unfortunate co-owners have to face an average increase of 24s. a week. It happens in this way. A housing society has one-third on loan from the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation has by Statute to charge ¼ per cent. more than the recommended Building Societies Association rate. Therefore the Housing Corporation has to charge its housing societies 8¾ per cent. on that one-third of the capital finance, an increase from the 7⅝ per cent. it was charging, up to 8¾ per cent. The housing society has the remaining two-thirds on loan from a building society, and the rate on that will go up to 8½ per cent.

  1693
  One may say that the owner-occupier has to stand that as well. But there is a distinction. The owner-occupier can arrange with his building society to pay the same instalment and to extend the repayment period. That option is not open to the co-ownership tenant; he has to face the increase in rent which is due to the increase in interest rates. As many of these schemes were planned and started when the rate of interest was 6 per cent., one can appreciate what a blow that will be to the co-owners.
  The rise in interest rates has killed cost-rent schemes. I do not know of any part of the country in which a cost-rent scheme is going ahead on the level of rents which people can afford in the area. The great majority of societies have had to switch to co-ownership, and no new societies are being formed on a cost-rent basis. They are all being formed on a co-ownership basis. That is done in order to obtain the mortgage option, when the difficulties I have been talking about are not the same, the interest rates being 6½ per cent. to the building society and 6¾ per cent. to the Housing Corporation.
  Having looked at the matter from the housing society's point of view and that of the co-owner who forms part of the society, I now look at it from the Housing Corporation's point of view. In future, the Housing Corporation will be lending at 8¾ per cent., but it is to be charged by the Treasury 9 per cent. It will operate at a loss. I can only assume that the Government are determined to let the whole movement die a slow death when they impose that sort of loss on it in its normal commercial operations.
  Apparently, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whose responsibility it is to see that the Housing Corporation operates efficiently, stands by and does nothing. If he is unable to interfere in these matters of high finance, if he is dictated to by the Treasury, he could at least show some interest in the operation of the Housing Corporation itself. For example, his Ministry has given a directive to the Corporation that Ministry approval is necessary for any project including units over £5,000. That may have been a good directive three or four years ago, but nowadays a flat of good quality may well cost £5,000—and quite a modest flat at that.
  1694
  I understand that the Corporation made representations to the Ministry that, if one is to be successful in transactions of this kind, there is some urgency in them from time to time. A housing society may be buying a site at auction, perhaps buying a good site for which there are several prospective purchasers, and it wants to nip in quickly to secure it. I gather that the Ministry have promised to let the Housing Corporation have a reply in 48 hours. They always have let the Corporation have a reply in 48 hours. It has been easy. The reply has always been, "No". Thus, the Corporation has been prevented from running a normal commercial transaction covering units over £5,000, a figure which must be regarded as reasonable, certainly in the South-East, for the provision of middle-class dwellings. That is one point in which the Minister might take a little interest and about which he might look into the workings of the Corporation.
  The bulk of preliminary expenses falls upon the individual members of the committee of management. In a co-ownership scheme, as far as I can see, those expenses are not recoverable for some 40 years. A committee of management has a list of properties. It investigates them. If it is an efficient committee, it will want to find the best sites. Those investigations cost money. I know of societies in which many thousands of pounds have been put up in preliminary expenses, either advanced or guaranteed by the individual members of the committee.
  That is no basis on which to secure and keep voluntary services. If a member of a committee of volunteers has to guarantee a bank account up to several thousand pounds, that sort of voluntary service will not be forthcoming. The result already is that small societies are having to merge with larger societies. Again, there is a loss of voluntary service, because, although many professional and business men are prepared to give their time to a small society, perhaps in their home district where they know of the society's needs, they are not prepared to become involved in the work of a large society owning hundreds and hundreds of units of accommodation. There is another matter into which the Minister might well inquire.

  1695
  Third, the money for a project is provided to a housing society by the Housing Corporation only on the advice of the district valuer. There have been cases—I know of some—in which the district valuer has taken a very long time to give advice. The result is that a housing society, having found a good site—if it is a good site there will be other purchasers after it—is unable to clinch the bargain because it is still waiting for the district valuer, perhaps over months, to advise the Housing Corporation upon the proper price. I do not blame the district valuers' offices. They are overburdened with work, particularly work resulting from legislation pushed through by this Government over the past two or three years. But it is a matter which should be looked into in relation to the workings of the Housing Corporation.
  I fear that there are members of management committees of housing societies who will not wish to face the blame from their co-ownership tenants for the increases in rent which will have to be made as a result of the rise in interest rates. I believe that there may well be resignations from that cause. One may say that it would be cowardly to do so, but we must remember that they are volunteers, and not everyone is prepared to suffer blame when giving voluntary services.
  To sum up, in my view the Housing Corporation is not receiving the consideration, encouragement and help in its ordinary work that it is entitled to expect from the Minister, and financially it is receiving not just discouragement from the Government but very nearly a death blow.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: I suppose that until we reform our methods of declaring interest, speeches in the House will be like those of deposed Communist Party officials. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I declare that I have an interest, as an adviser to a number of housing associations.
  I am often slightly embarrassed by the hon. Member for Crosby because I often agree with something that he has said. It may seem as if there is an unholy conspiracy
  1696
  between us before the debate, but these things happen spontaneously.
  I am disturbed that there has been a drop in the number of units approved by the Housing Corporation over the past year. I had not been struck by the drop until the latest figures were given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We should have an explanation for the drop, and I hope very much that we shall have a firm and unequivocal denial of the allegation of the hon. Member for Crosby that the Treasury is deliberately restricting the number of units approved by the Housing Corporation to 5,000 a year by one means or another.
  I welcome the Order, which represents a milestone in the achievements of the Housing Corporation. The Housing Act, 1964 enabled it to borrow up to £100 million, and it has now got half way to that statutory target.
  I am particularly interested in the development of institutions of co-ownership, which used to be known as cooperative housing, and I am glad that under the aegis of the Corporation they have flourished so well. Co-ownership, or co-operative housing, is a new concept which was virtually unknown 10 years ago. It enables tenants to own, control and plan their own houses, flats and estates.
  Co-operative housing represents a spirit of self-reliance and co-operation inside the community and an end to the traditional conflict between landlord and tenant which is present whether they be private tenant and private landlord or even council tenant and council landlord. This kind of co-ownership housing represents a resolution of that conflict, and I very much welcome it.
  Anyone looking through the Reports of the Housing Corporation cannot but be impressed by the quality and standard of the estates which have been developed with loans from it. Nevertheless, there are a number of matters of concern to me, apart from those raised by the hon. Member for Crosby with which I agree.
  I see in the last Report of the Corporation that in the course of the year it lent £12 million and that its administrative expenses were about 2 per cent. of that. I assume that the administrative expenses in collecting past loans are not very high, and therefore I wonder whether

  1697
  that percentage is too high, since the administrative expenses of the building societies are about ½ per cent. of the money lent. Perhaps the Corporation is still doing a great deal of promotional and other initial work which tends to send up the administrative expenses. An expansion of its business might tend to reduce that fairly high figure of 2 per cent., which might eventually be passed on to borrowers.
  I am also concerned about the rate of interest. My hon. Friend should tell us the rate of interest paid for the money provided for the Corporation under the present tranche of £25 million, wherever it is obtainsd. It may be that it is being borrowed on the market and that a market rate has to be paid for it. But if my reading of the Government's estimates is correct, it is being raised by taxation, and therefore the £25 million lent to the Corporation is not costing the Government anything in interest. It may be that it is being borrowed elsewhere, and that a rate of 8 or 9 per cent. has to be paid for it. Where is the money raised initially, and does any interest have to be paid on it by the Government?
  Mr. Dobson: Would it not also be opportune at this stage to raise the question of the Corporation's finances in the rather wider sphere? Why is it not possible for it to control its finances itself, and not have to rely on the Treasury or any other sources such as building societies to raise a portion of its funds?
  Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, with which I shall deal in the course of my speech.
  I should like to know what rate of interest will be charged by the Housing Corporation in the future to its housing society borrowers. The hon. Member for Crosby said that there was a statutory obligation to charge one quarter per cent. above the building society rate. That is not so. There is no statutory obligation to do so under the Housing Act, 1964. By virtue of Section 1(2), the Minister can give a direction to the Housing Corporation, and has done so, regarding the various rates of interest. But there is nothing in the Act specifying that one quarter per cent. above the building society rate must be charged.
  Now that the building society rate is 8½ per cent., will the Minister vary the
  1698
  past practice and issue a directive that the rate of interest to be charged by the Corporation on its loans should be less than, or at any rate not greater than, the rate being charged by the building societies? It is undoubtedly true that the more one raises the rate of interest the more difficult it is for people to form housing associations and to pay the rents demanded.
  It is that much more difficult because co-ownership housing societies choose to have the mortgage option scheme, for administrative convenience. They can take advantage of Section 43 of the Finance Act 1963, which enables a housing society to apportion among its members the interest paid during the past year. Then each tenant-occupier can get the same relief as an individual who has a building society mortgage and chooses to have the interest on his mortgage set against his Income Tax. But it is administratively very difficult to do that, because it means making a large number of calculations each year, and the number of tenants tends to change from year to year.
  The societies which have chosen the mortgage option scheme are now finding the relief worth rather less than that which would be available to tenant-occupiers paying tax at the standard rate. The real interest charge to an owner-occupier or a co-operative tenant who has elected to take tax relief and not be in the mortgage option scheme is £5 15s. 3d. per £100 borrowed in respect of the building society loan to the housing society. I suggest to my hon. Friend, for onward transmission to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the rate of allowance given should be a composite rate which may be varied from year to year.
  The building society pays a composite rate of tax on borrowings from investors at 6s. 5d. per £. There is no reason why one should not vary from year to year the tax reliefs given to borrowers, including housing societies, so that they would in reality be paying at the moment only a rate of interest of 5¾ per cent. This would also save the Treasury an immense amount of money because it would avoid hundreds of thousands of claims being made to inspectors of taxes each year for income tax relief on building society interest.

  1699
  It would be possible to take one year with another and to have a regular and lower rate of interest paid by housing societies. In view of the hardship caused to housing societies, whether a scheme is to be successful is more than marginal, and I hope that my hon. Friend, even if he cannot say anything about it now, will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether anything can be done on 15th April.
  My next point concerns the sources of finance of the Housing Corporation. It is the practice of the Corporation to advance one-third of the development costs of a housing society and for the housing society to borrow two-thirds from a building society. There is no statutory provision for that. By virtue of Section 2(1) of the 1964 Act, there is nothing to prevent the Corporation from lending 100 per cent. of the cost of the housing society's development, but in practice it has been directed to provide only one-third of the finance, with building societies supplying two-thirds.
  This leads to a great deal of difficulty because a housing society not only has to show the Corporation that its scheme is viable and to submit surveyors' reports, architect drawings, costings, etc., but also to go through the whole process all all over again with the building society. This doubles the amount of administrative work undertaken by the housing society.
  Furthermore, building societies are not particularly interested in lending to housing societies, and for good reasons. If a building society lends to the individual owner-occupier, statistically the mortgage will be paid back in eight to nine years, and the money is then available for re-lending. If it is lent to the Housing Corporation, the building society will not get its money back for 40 years. The result is that only four building societies of any size are prepared to support the movement—the Abbey National, the Co-operative Permanent, the Halifax and the Woolwich Equitable. Many building societies have not lent any money under housing corporation schemes. I do not want to denigrate other societies, however, many of which are small and whose advances, therefore, are large in relation to turnover. But it is increasingly obvious, particularly when there is a mortgage
  1700
  scarcity, that the building societies do not want to tie up money for 40 years in co-operative housing schemes. They would prefer to lend to owner-occupiers because then the money is turning over.
  The best way to solve the problem of duplication of submissions to the Housing Corporation and the building societies and to solve the problem of building societies being unwilling to advance money for 40 years, is to allow the Housing Corporation to borrow money collectively from the building society movement and to put it into one single consolidated fund and not to have fractions of advances to housing societies. Let the housing societies deal only with the Housing Corporation and let the Corporation deal only with building societies. It would then be possible to balance the surplus of one building society available for lending to the Corporation with the desire of another society perhaps ten years hence to withdraw some of its money. The fund would be attractive to building societies, would lessen the administrative expenses of housing societies and would make the Corporation's activities easier to undertake.
  The Corporation should go further. Instead of relying solely on the Government for one-third of the advances and engineering two-thirds from building societies, it should be enabled to go to pension funds, to the market, and to issue short-term securities to make up the money that it wants to borrow. It should take a leaf out of the book of some Scandinavian organisations, particularly HSV of Sweden, which operates a building society movement for people who want to become co-operative tenants. The lesson of the building societies is that it is possible to borrow short and lend long. There is no reason why the Housing Corporation should not follow this precedent.
  Even more important, by arranging investments by individuals as well as institutions, by widening the scope of its borrowing both from the Government and on the market, the Housing Corporation could demonstrate the relationship between saving and getting a home. This relationship between saving up and subscribing money to the Corporation—saving for one's home—and then going to get a home loan is important. It has lessons for the country as a whole

  1701
  in proving that there is a relationship between being housed—indeed, as with any other social benefits—and saving.
  I want to deal with the question of land. Has there been any liaison between the Housing Corporation and the Land Commission? The Land Commission has power to pass on to housing societies concessionary Crownholds. It is well known that it is difficult to develop a housing society in the centre of a conurbation where land is extremely expensive, but there is one way of doing it. This is by the Land Commission exercising its powers to purchase land at below the market value—at a value less the levy—and then passing that land on to a housing society, making it available at less than the cost. No one would be able to do any profiteering out of it and it would be one way of cheapening the cost of land for housing purposes. What liaison is there between the Corporation and the Land Commission? Does the Commission propose to make any concessionary Crownholds available? What plans has the Housing Corporation in future for buying up land to make available for housing and thereby providing a sort of land bank, so that societies which found it difficult to get land would be able to draw upon the bank for land which would be readily available to them?
  I agree with some of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Crosby about the operation of the district valuer. I do not want to denigrate district valuers. Many do a fine job. But there are occasions when they come in conflict. If a district valuer has been asked to frank the price of land by a housing society and the price is relatively high but probably about market value, and if he is dealing at the same time with a compulsory purchase order on land for the local authority on an adjoining site and in the interests of the local authority is asked to pay as little as possible, there can sometimes be conflict.
  I see no reason why reputable valuers apart from district valuers should not be permitted to frank the price of land. Sometimes it is only a matter of £100 or so between getting a plot of land for a housing society and seeing it go to a private speculator who, a year later, sells it at 8 per cent. profit—or not even a speculator but someone able to take advantage
  1702
  of the annual rise in the price of land.
  Mr. Graham Page: There have been occasions when, because the housing society has been delayed in purchasing, it has finally had to buy the developed property as a package deal and has had to pay very much more.
  Mr. Fraser: I am aware of that situation. A little more flexibility in the market operation of the sale of land would help in these cases.
  If I have been critical of any aspects of the Housing Corporation, it has not been because I am against the Corporation, but because I want to help it. As a Socialist, I believe that the development of co-ownership and co-operative housing represents a quiet revolution. It represents something which is part of the essence of Socialism—people owning and controlling their own destinies without the profit motive being operated. The development of housing societies with people being their own bosses and not in conflict with or fighting the market and where rents, because they are nonprofit rents, are taken out of the market mechanism represents an important element of Socialism with strong lessons for other parts of the economy.
  I wish the Housing Corporation success, and I hope that it makes good use of the money which the House is to allow it to borrow. I hope that we shall receive promises from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it will produce in future much more than it has so far produced, very creditably, since 1966 when it was first established.
  7.21 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: The House has listened with interest to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who speaks on this subject with great authority. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of a housing society and a member of the Council of the National Federation of Housing Associations. I suppose that I am now empowered to continue my speech without declaring any more interests.
  I am an enthusiastic supporter of this movement. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) introduced this scheme in 1964, he showed great imagination. He introduced a scheme which should have

  1703
  been developed far more than it has been developed in recent years. My criticism of the present Government, and it is a rather bitter criticism, is that this idea should have been pushed and enormously developed during the last five years, but, instead, it has gone at a slow penny-farthing bicycle speed, and even now its activities are contracting.
  This is not a matter of Socialism—I did not agree with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood. We are here dealing with a serious problem, and the nation might as well realise it. I do not apportion any blame, because the problem goes back to 1918, but, because of the rent control policies which have existed for all that time, there has not been and there is not likely to be any private property to let at other than usurious prices. Private property will not be built which the great mass of the population can afford to rent. As a result of these policies, there are now about one million fewer units of accommodation for letting, apart from local authority housing, than there were 10 or 15 years ago.
  This has reduced the nation's mobility. I am a great believer in owner-occupation and I should not like anything I say to be thought to diminish my support for those who wish to buy their own houses. But if we want a mobile society to man the new industries which are growing up and to help people to take jobs for their advancement, there must be rental accommodation which they can get without having to go on a local authority housing list for 10 or 15 years.
  For example, a man working at Fords at Dagenham may be offered promotion which means having to go to Halewood. He may have to go only temporarily, but not know whether he will be there for 12 months or two years—he may be on trial. There is a long waiting list for council houses in Liverpool, and so he will not get a corporation house and he will probably settle for one room. That means that he cannot take his wife and children with him. He will return to Dagenham and tell the Ford management that he will not take promotion. That is the result of the lack of accommodation to cope with mobility.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will
  1704
  be seized of what I am saying when I say that I should like 10 per cent. of all the houses built in the country, that is about 40,000 a year, to be built under one of these schemes. Without that, the population will be static and there will not be that movement which is needed in a viable society. But if that is to happen, the Government of the day will have to be much more dynamic about this problem than has been the case so far.
  I will not go into this at any great length, but many of the things said by the hon. Member for Norwood I said, funnily enough at a Housing Corporation conference at Liverpool when the housing associations were called together. I put it slightly differently. I said that if the building societies were not prepared to find the funds for the housing associations, the Housing Corporation and the housing societies jointly had better start their own building society. I see no reason why they should not do so. Such a society would be backed by a great number of sound well-built properties, so the assets would be there. It would be able to appeal to the public for funds and to use the other methods of raising finance which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Such a society could then be quickly got off the ground to provide the finance for building 30,000 to 40,000 units of accommodation every year, and that would result in a dramatic alteration of the present position.
  But it would need action from the Government. The Housing Corporation is not as old as all that—it has been established only in recent years—and I get the feeling that it moves cautiously and is frightened to take firm decisions. My experience and that of my professional colleagues in the housing association of which I am chairman is that it is difficult to get a firm decision out of the Corporation and the Corporation sometimes finds it difficult to get a firm decision out of the Government, so that it is not altogether the Corporation's fault.
  But the whole business is very long drawn out and I am sure that it could be speeded up if it were appreciated that housing associations are almost all professional organisations in the provision of cost-rent co-ownership accommodation. I get the feeling that we are

  1705
  regarded as a lot of old-age pensioners building a few old people's homes on a sort of charitable basis.
  We are even sent directives as to when to put up a sign saying that property is available to rent. Surely our professional advisers can judge the right moment. If it is done too early, there is a queue of people who want the accommodation and who are told provisionally that they may rent it as from, say, 1st April, 1969. But if on 1st April, 1969, the work is not finished and the would-be tenants have given notice somewhere else, they are in a mess. The Corporation wants much more freedom of action from the Government and the associations want much more freedom of action from the Corporation. We are here dealing with what are generally ably commercially managed organisations.
  I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby about amalgamations. I believe that, as with the building societies, as the housing association movement develops, amalgamations will be inevitable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood with his experience will agree. Once plans for blocks of houses, flats, or flatlets, get off the ground the management of the property becomes a serious problem. A minimum size of society becomes desirable if the blocks are to be properly run and serviced, if the drains are to be kept in order and the decorations are to be done and so on. That cannot be done if there is only one block of flats in which everyone has lost interest by the time it is completed.
  I am very worried about the co-ownership element in cost-rent houses. I would not mind if it was genuine co-ownership, but we must be blunt about it; it is really a bit of a fiddle by the Minister of Housing to get round the option mortgage. The right answer is for the Government to give the option mortgage to the cost-rent schemes just as much as co-ownership. Anyone who is a lawyer, and thank Heavens I am not, will say that the legal position with the co-ownership business, and the changes of ownership that will go on, has by no means been worked out. It will be a very complicated business.
  The bulk of the people moving into those co-ownership units are not
  1706
  genuinely buying a house or flat. They are people who, except for the option mortgage, would have gone into a cost-rent unit. It might be a school teacher, who gets a job in Liverpool or Leeds and wants accommodation. He may be at the school for two years, seeks promotion and then goes somewhere else. He does not want the bother of buying a property, and because of the option mortgage, he goes into this co-ownership business. It is not a genuine co-ownership purchase of property. Such people are living in rented property, because under the co-ownership scheme, with the option mortgage, the rent is lower than it would be with the cost-rent scheme.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are schemes made up of members who are at a disadvantage, and are required to opt for the option mortgage scheme? I am acquainted with such a scheme, where every member would, if he had a free choice, not opt for the option mortgage at all, because his income is at such a level that he is gaining no advantage from it.
  Sir D. Glover: I entirely accept that. I do not want to detain the House too long on this, in fact I must apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary because I shall not be able to stay to listen to his reply—I have another appointment.
  Mr. MacColl: Before the hon. Gentleman goes, may I say that I was sorry that he suggested that people who were going to Halewood would want to live in Liverpool. I was about to suggest, declaring my own interest in this matter, that any wise and sane person would live in the Widnes division.
  Sir D. Glover: I accept that rebuke from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He must realise that in the House a lot of people do not know the desirabilities and beauties of Widnes. I was using the word "Liverpool" intending it to include Widnes. All I was saying was that if a person could find a cost-rent or co-ownership unit, he would take the promotion. I agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood said that in a co-ownership scheme, where it operates under the 1963 Act and gets a lower rent because of the taxation structure, then it is a very good thing to do. But the

  1707
  complications of co-ownership will develop as the years go by, and the right answer for the State, and here I am being very neutral, is for it to get this ironed out on a cost-rent basis to that it would apply to either side. Basically, such people are mobile people who want to move about the place.
  We have had to learn by experience. This year we shall have about 250 units, which is quite substantial. We have learned a great deal. Although I have declared an interest, I should add that I am the only person who never seems to get anything. I am the chairman, and I do not even get paid my expenses. I am asked to pay £5 to become a member, and Lord knows when I will get that back! My society now has 250 units, and if the growth takes place, as I would like to see, then I presume that by about the end of 1975 the society ought to be controlling 1,000 units. It will be a very powerful property owner.
  By that time I will probably not be the chairman, but in these societies where there are professional people, it is a good thing to have someone who is not a professional as a chairman of the board. However, it cannot be expected that the chairman will go on being unpaid for ever. Even the most worthy person is worthy of his hire, and this is in a way sweated labour. I must say that when I was asked to become the chairman I thought that it would be very easy. I find that I am the father confessor of the whole organisation, and it is always wanting me to go to Liverpool to sort things out. Every time I go I cannot even charge the petrol. It is all out of my own pocket.
  The Minister ought to look into this, because it will have to be investigated, for the health of the movement. I have no doubt that building societies started through worthy people in a district banding together in a small group. I do not suppose that one of them ever drew a penny, but now they are great financial organisations. I will not say some of the most lucrative, but some of the most substantial jobs in commerce and industry are connected with the building societies. We have to accept that this sort of thing is bound to develop here.
  There is also the question of land, and here I agree with what the hon. Member
  1708
  for Norwood said. We have a case where the district valuer took a long time. I am not blaming him or his office, because they do very well. He took quite a long time before we got the figures. It was less than the owners were prepared to sell for, so we were not able to buy, and someone else bought it. About 18 months later we bought it from the other people and the building corporation and everyone else was worse off as a result. We are knowledgeable people, we are just as well able to make our decisions in this as anyone else. We assess what rentals we can charge, what sort of units we can put on a site, what the traffic will bear. If we know that it will bear so much, then we know that we can pay so much for the land and make a go of it on a cost-rent basis.
  The Department has to involve a scheme whereby we can have more freedom of action. At this Liverpool conference my suggestion met with a great deal of support. I am quite prepared to accept that there may have to be a first and second division for housing societies, whereby a society might have to pass a "driving test"—would have to be established for so long and have so many units, a record of success, before being allowed to "drive on the road" without supervision. Until then there would have to be someone to see that they were doing correctly. The Housing Corporation said that it was trying to evolve this scheme. Will the Minister encourage it to do so more quickly? This is very relevant and it will keep expense down.
  I do not think that this organisation, which is beginning to slow down, will get very far—and here I am putting a challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby—until the Government of the day say publicly that their target is that by 1975 this type of organisation will be building 25,000 or 30,000 units a year. If a housing target is not laid down, we shall not get very far. It is a spur and a guide. The Government can begin to work out their finances. They can decide whether the proposals of the hon. Member for Norwood would have to be sucked in to raise the finance.
  I do not think that we can jolly a scheme along on the basis "We shall build what we build, and hope that next year it will be a bit more." The State

  1709
  must decide that this type of housing scheme has an important and vital role to play in the housing structure and to say that the aim is in eight years to get up to 10 per cent. of the total volume of houses built in any one year built in this way. If this pattern were established, more able people would perhaps be encouraged to take part in these schemes. The question of the financial structure would become much more vivid in people's minds and action would have to be taken. Then we would get something which is very dear to my heart, namely, a group of modern, well-built units of accommodation for a mobile, vital economic society. If the Government would do this, or the Conservative Party when it returns to office, our successors will think that we had done something very useful to make Britain a more efficient and better place to live in.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I never thought that I would share an experience with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), but I do. I, too, am an unpaid, acting-for-nothing chairman of a housing society. I should, however, make one distinction, and that is that I am more of a learner than the hon. Gentleman.
  This has been an interesting debate because reference has been made to almost identical problems arising in different parts of the country. I hope that this shows my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that there are two or three basic problems which he should consider and about which he should do something. Something which is not exactly in my hon. Friend's court but which is certainly in his Ministry's court is the common problem of district valuer delays. I do not criticise individual valuers or officers because at times they make a particular effort to meet commitments if they are pushed to do so. This is to be welcomed. They work under extreme difficulty and heavy pressure, particularly in the last year or so, which has made this a slow and cumbersome process.
  I am not keen about using private valuers, if that is the right phrase. With schemes such as those which exist, I do not know that we could rely absolutely on private valuations, although I accept
  1710
  that the chances are that somebody working in the district will arrive at a figure close to that of the district valuer.
  Mr. John Fraser: Would my hon. Friend concede that this is what the building societies do? They rely on their private valuers.
  Mr. Dobson: I concede that readily. But here we are dealing with a certain amount of private funds, which is why the district valuer was suggested when the Act was introduced. The financial structure in housing should be overhauled. It then becomes clearer that one has to use a district valuer rather than a private valuer.
  Another common thing is the abortive work of some of the professionals who serve on the society. They do a lot of physical abortive work in looking for sites, producing plans for sites which do not materialise, and arguing with local authorities, perhaps in some cases with building societies and in others with owners of land, in trying to get schemes accepted. It is true that they are paid for their professional services, but they are paid for professional services which click. Many jobs which they take on for societies fail to mature and they get nothing for them. Great credit is due to them for the wide range of work which they do for which they get no recompense or reward other than that which they get out of a desire to supply houses.
  I wish to refer to the question of management problems. In the South-West area a report has been presented to the housing corporation specifying the problems which beset the management of the various societies. I do not claim that it is a very deep study or a study which deals with every problem, but unless I miss my guess it has had a very good stab at the general problems which housing societies face. I hope that the Housing Corporation will take up this matter in consultation with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or somebody else from the Ministry and ensure that this information, if information it is, and expertise and help is available not only to that area but to all societies on request if this report merits that treatment, as I believe it does.
  I wish to make two other points. One concerns finance. What my hon. Friend

  1711
  the Member for Norwood said generally makes sense. We cannot go on for much longer relying on one-third of the money coming from the Housing Corporation and two-thirds from building societies. As soon as there is any problem concerning the supply of money through the building societies, that source dries up. All the building societies are known to the housing societies. Nevertheless, if they have to make choices the last choice in many cases is the housing society. As soon as there is a drying up of building society resources, housing society schemes do not come to fruition. Therefore, the suggestion of my hon. Friend, to which I was attracted, should be considered.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consider whether the Housing Corporation should be re-funded so that it deals completely with its own finance. This might be a difficult job to start with, but it is worth looking at. There are only two alternatives. The present scheme means that we totter from one crisis to another in the Finance Bill with no result.
  A point which has been raised frequently in the debate is why the targets for the number of units have recently dropped. Why have not the Housing Corporation's schemes and figures moved in an upward direction? There has clearly been a fall-back in the number of units and schemes. This is a pity and is depressing for those who are working in housing societies and in the Housing Corporation. We should try to avoid stagnation. The hon. Member for Ormskirk mentioned target figures. I think it would be valuable to have targets, which would stimulate all those who are working towards providing houses of this sort.
  7.51 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): This has been a short debate participated in by few hon. Members, but it has shown one of the great values of the House of Commons in discussing a subject which is so specialised and abstruse. I and my Ministry have had a battering from hon. Members of widely differing political views with widely differing approaches to the problem. But all those who concerned
  1712
  themselves with this subject knew what they were talking about, and the cumulative effect of what they said is of great value.
  I express appreciation to those running the Housing Corporation. Some of the criticisms which have been made of them have not been well founded. They have a difficult job to do. The Board of the Corporation is a strong Board and its members are widely experienced and are in a position to talk with authority about what they are doing. They do not always agree with the Government, and the Government do not always agree with them—it would be very odd if they did—but we all recognise that we are trying to do the same job. Each individual housing society consists of people who devote themselves to this work and who, as a result, develop very strong views on what they think should be done, in the same way as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). That is right and I do not quarrel with it.
  The debate has revealed a fundamental difference of approach to the problem of what the housing societies are trying to do, and of what kind of control ought to be imposed upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) saw housing societies as being Socialist in conception. He thought that co-ownership was a good, democratic, Socialist method of providing houses and should be regarded as an essential part of the public sector so that public money increasingly took over responsibility. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) were impatient with the two-thirds and one-third proportion. They thought that there should be increasing public responsibility and increasing use of public resources.
  On the other hand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that he regarded housing societies as doing a normal commercial transaction for the provision of middle-class dwellings. I am not making a debating point and playing one off against the other. This is the dilemma which we must face.
  If we are regarding this as a normal commercial transaction for people who can be expected to pay their own way and who do not want and would not expect a public subsidy, then public participation

  1713
  in the financing of the body should be minimal. It should be just a pump-priming job. If, on the other hand, it is to be regarded as comparable with a housing association, which has authorised arangements with local authorities, or with the provision of council houses, then it must come within public sector investment and be looked at from the point of view of what can be afforded in the way of investment in the public sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East gave this as a ground for giving them independence. He said that we should not be tottering from financial crisis to financial crisis. We all agree with this, but the whole point of his argument about the Government's policy in this matter and in other matters is that unless we control public investment, unless we limit it rigidly, unless we are clear in our minds on how it should be allocated, then we shall totter from financial crisis to financial crisis. If we want to use the Housing Corporation to maximum effectiveness we must achieve greater private participation through building societies and other bodies in the provision of cost-rent and co-ownership houses for the minimum expenditure of public money.
  I was asked whether there was joint operation with the Land Commission for the use of Crownhold land as a land bank. There is nothing to prevent the Corporation from being in close touch with the Land Commission; it is quite free to do so. It is a matter for those bodies to work out how they can best work together in partnership. The Housing Corporation was set up primarily to supervise the lending of public money, to see that it was used economically and to exercise strict control over the manner in which it was used.
  The views of the House on the district valuer are most valuable. The district valuer is the custodian of public economy and the use of public funds and he therefore has his responsibilities. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this point.
  There have been two main charges against the Government. The first is that they are keeping down the amount of money advanced to between £8 million and £9 million a year. This is not a limit on the number of houses but on
  1714
  the amount of money which is available. That means that if the Corporation can get more than the two-thirds from outside sources, they will be able to provide more houses. I am sure that, when my hon. Friends think about this carefully, they will see the point. We cannot have a tough policy on keeping down loans and keeping down investment in the public sector and other sections of housing while saying at the same time that we shall give a blank cheque to the Housing Corporation to draw all the money that it wants. That is a straightforward way of getting into a financial crisis, and it is not just.
  The second point made referred to the ceiling of £5,000 a unit, although nothing beyond that was forbidden, provided that it had my right hon. Friend's approval. In fact, the figures are £5,000 in the provinces, £6,000 in the South-East Planning Area, and £7,000 in Greater London. My right hon. Friend felt bound to place this ceiling on the activities of the Corporation because of the feeling that the object of the Corporation in the use of that very scarce commodity, public investment, was not to make advances for purposes which could find the necessary finance elsewhere. The object was to provide accommodation at moderate and reasonable rents, rather than expensive luxury property for which there was already a fairly easy market and for which there were other means of providing the necessary finance. If one is doing a commercial job in providing middle-class dwellings for middle-class people, normally they should be able to pay the cost. When one is seeking finance above a certain level, the question arises whether it is proper to use Housing Corporation funds for it. I have seen some cases in which I thought that there could be no argument for using public money in this way.
  If, as we have been told, it is so important to keep down rents, we must also keep down costs. It is no use allowing a housing society to buy expensive land in the middle of a high-rent area in order to build accommodation if the resulting rents are beyond the purses of those for whom it is intended. Some regard must be had to the rent and, therefore, it is very important not to allow the developments which are taking place to get out of reasonable balance.
  Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of restrictions on finance, may I ask whether it is necessary to restrict the finance to £8 or £9 million a year for a period of three years? It gives the impression that there is some permanent policy towards the Housing Corporation to restrict its activities. A restriction for one year in a time of crisis would be sufficient, and it would be more encouraging to the Corporation if it felt that it was a matter only of a temporary restriction on its powers rather than a permanent restriction.
  Mr. MacColl: I think that we should take a realistic view. It is only fair to give the Corporation some idea of the kind of scale upon which it can reasonably hope to operate.
  A number of constructive and in some cases conflicting points have been advanced about whether we should concentrate on co-ownership or on cost rents, whether we should have large societies or small societies, and whether, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk said, 10 per cent. of building should be kept for housing societies.
  All these are difficult problems, and I am in no sense bringing a rabbit out of a hat. My right hon. Friend regards them as being real problems, and he is very much aware of them. He is far from being complacent. That is why he asked the Central Housing Advisory Committee to set up the Cohen Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Karl Cohen and with the great advantage of having as one of its members the hon. Member for North-ants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones). It is receiving an enormous amount of evidence from the Federation, the Corporation, and other societies, associations, and local authorities with a view to answering these questions and to giving us guidance about them. The Committee is involved in a tremendous job of distilling the wide variety of views advanced. If, as a result, there come clear recommendations, it will be of great help to the Government in deciding future policy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

  HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
    Clause 1

      DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL SCHEME FOR BOOKMAKERS' LEVY
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out "by the 1st November preceding" and insert "six months before".
      8.5 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we considered Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 23, at end insert:
      "(7) The period of months specified in subsection (2) of this section may be varied by order of the Secretary of State substituting, in relation to any levy period beginning after the date on which the order comes into force, a different period, whether longer or shorter, but not longer than fifteen months:
      Provided that where the effect of an order is to increase the said period of months, the order shall not be made so as to come into force later than three months before the beginning of the increased period.
      (8) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (7) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and include power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If there is no objection, so be it.
      Mr. Morgan: The two go together. The effect of the first is to require that if agreement cannot be reached about a scheme for a levy period a report of the circumstances must be made to the Home Secretary six months prior to the beginning of the period in question, and not 1st November as provided at present. The second gives the Home Secretary power to vary the date by Statutory Instrument.
      The levy payable for a levy period depends on betting transactions in the previous financial year. Whatever method is adopted for calculating a levy, it would be possible for bookmakers to be able to estimate well in advance what their

      1717
      future levy commitments will be so that they can regulate their business accordingly.
      It follows that it is in the bookmakers' interests that a disputed scheme should be reported to the Home Secretary as early in the year preceding the levy period as possible so that he can determine the scheme soon enough to give bookmakers adequate notice of the amount of levy. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that, ideally, a full year's notice should be given.
      Clearly, that will not be possible, either for the current year or for the ninth levy period beginning 1st April, 1970. However, it has been represented to the Government, and the Government accept, that 1st November, in Clause 1(2), is later than necessary even in relation to the ninth levy scheme.
      In those circumstances, the first Amendment in effect substitutes 1st October for 1st November, and the second gives power to the Secretary of State to amend that date by Statutory Instrument.
      The proviso contained in the second Amendment ensures that the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board have at least three months' notice of any change so as to give time for their consultations. The date cannot be amended so as to make it arrive before 1st January in the calendar year preceding the commencement of a levy period, since practical convenience can hardly require the Secretary of State to commence his task earlier than that.
      Sir David Renton: On the face of it, the greater flexibility which these two Amendments would provide seem to give some advantage, at any rate, to the Home Secretary. It can potentially mean that the bookmakers and the Levy Board will have less time to amass the huge amount of statistical detail that will be required, to collate it, to consider it, and to try to reach agreement upon through the Bookmakers' Committee. To that extent the advantage of flexibility, on the one hand, may be offset sometimes by a bit of pressure on the bookmakers, on the other.
      The House needs to understand the true position regarding what the hon. Gentleman said about the levy scheme for any particular year—which we know
      1718
      from the original Act starts on 1st April each year—being based upon, as he put it, the "previous financial year". I wonder whether that is really quite right.
      Perhaps I may illustrate it in this way. Let us take years 1, 2 and 3. Assuming that year 1 is the relevant financial year and year 3 is the year of the levy scheme to which it relates, then the previous financial year is nearly two years before the levy scheme. If that is so, these Amendments are acceptable. But if the relevant years are years 1 and 2, not years 1 and 3, these Amendments would be quite unacceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my ignorance in pressing him to clarify that point. So long as that point is clarified, my advice to my hon. Friends would be to accept the Amendment.
      But for the timetable which the Government have imposed upon us, I should have wished to move at least one Amendment to the second of these Amendments. However, it would be out of order for me to discuss this because, in our wisdom, we have decided not to put down any Amendments.
      If I remember rightly, in order that the eighth levy scheme may come into force before the beginning of the next levy period, which starts on Tuesday next, 1st April, it is necessary for the Bill to receive Royal Assent tomorrow—and, goodness knows, that leaves little enough time for the Levy Board to notify the bookmakers before the beginning of the levy period. If we had put down Amendments tonight, we might have jeopardised the opportunities of the Levy Board for notifying the bookmakers in time.
      Mr. John M. Temple: My right hon. and learned Friend may not be aware that the Levy Board has already given notification to the bookmakers in advance of the Bill becoming law. So the bookmakers already have that information.
      Sir D. Ronton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. In some circumstances, anticipation of the passing of an Act of Parliament is to be deprecated, but in these particular circumstances tonight, if it be the fact, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that these bookmakers have already been notified, it may be that the few days that remain are sufficient. We

      1719
      know that there was a dispute about this. If the early notification which gave rise to the dispute is to be challenged in these circumstances, it would be ridiculous. We might have been justified in moving the Amendment which I had in mind but which it would be out of order for me to mention. At any rate, if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that my understanding of the timing as between the financial year and the levy scheme is as I stated, then I should advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved and the Amendment which goes with it.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: With the leave of the House. I should like to comment on one point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, the meaning of the term "previous financial year" to which I alluded.
      The levy is, in practice, fixed by reference to the bookmakers' figures for the year preceding the year in which the levy is paid. This has always been so. The Bill does not bring about any change whatsoever in that situation.
      8.15 p.m.
      Sir D. Renton: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to speak again. I am no wiser than I was before. The hon. Gentleman has now used the word "preceding" instead of "previous". I think that it is much simpler to use the terms first, second, and third years. The levy period and the financial year almost coincide. It is 1st and 5th April in each year, so there is really nothing in it. I cannot believe that a levy scheme for the year beginning, say, 1st April, 1969, is to be based upon the bookmakers' returns for the financial year ended 5th April, 1969. It must be based upon the figures for the year ended 5th April, 1968. Surely that is commonsense. It is practical necessity. However, it needs to be clarified. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said and in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in another place where, again, the words "previous financial year" were used, we have a right to clarification.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: All I can say is that the Bill does not bring about any change in the law in that respect.
      1720
      Whilst the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking a second time I was trying to read up the relevant sections in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. It is clear that when deciding upon a levy scheme the Board must make its decision upon the best available knowledge of the financial circumstances prevailing about the incomes of bookmakers.
      Sir D. Renton: There is no mention of the financial year in the 1963 Act. Because of that I felt obliged to press the hon. Gentleman for clarification. I hope that he will clarify the matter.
      Mr. Morgan: I concede that. That is the conclusion to which I came. The principal Act does not refer to any previous period. But it is obvious that in fixing the amount of levy for any period—and this is something about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have argued so eloquently—the Levy Board must pay regard to the financial circumstances of bookmakers at the time. It is absolutely necessary that it should pay regard to those financial circumstances. The financial circumstances years past would have no relevance. It cannot prognosticate, and therefore it is obvious that the period which is relevant is the period immediately preceding the time when the Board comes to that decision.
      Mr. Temple: It is perhaps unusual, but I should like to come to the rescue of the Under-Secretary of State because it seems to me that what he has indicated is a fact of life of the racing year. One is almost bound to look at the year previous, because only after a considerable time lag will the figures be available in a sufficiently collated form to enable the Board to form the fullest judgment with regard to the establishment of a levy for the succeeding year.
      I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was right when he mentioned years 1, 2, and 3, but possibly he was slightly misunderstood by the Minister. I think the effect is that in year 3 the levy scheme will be based on what one might term technically year 1 figures. I believe that this will be acceptable to

      1721
      the Bookmakers' Committee. In the circumstances, I think that the amendment is reasonable, and I wish it well.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    New Clause "A"

      LEVY BOARD'S COSTS ON APPEAL BY BOOKMAKER AGAINST ASSESSMENT TO LEVY
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 15, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A.—(1) The following subsection shall have effect where, under section 28 of the Act of 1963 (assessment of individual bookmakers to levy), a bookmaker appeals in respect of an assessment notice issued by the Levy Board in his case, and the appeal, having been referred to a tribunal established under section 29 of that Act, is either dismissed by the tribunal or abandoned by the bookmaker.
      (2) If the tribunal thinks it just that the bookmaker should make a payment towards expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board in connection with the appeal, the tribunal may certify accordingly and the Board shall be entitled to recover from the bookmaker as a debt due to them the amount specified in the certificate."
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to bring about a quid pro quo. Section 29(6) of the principal Act enables the appeals tribunal to award a bookmaker his costs against the Levy Board where his appeal against his assessment is successful. The section contains no comparable provision enabling the Levy Board to receive its costs from the bookmaker when he abandons or loses his appeal.
      The purpose of the Amendment is therefore to put the Levy Board on the same footing as the appellant. It provides that where a bookmaker appeals to the tribunal and then either abandons or loses his appeal the tribunal may fix a figure representing the reasonable costs of the Levy Board incurred in connection with the appeal so as to enable the Board to recover that sum from the unsuccessful appellant.
      Sir D. Renton: Subject to any explanation which the Minister can give, the Amendment appears to create a very onesided
      1722
      situation. Subsection 2 of the new clause says:
      "If the tribunal thinks it just that the bookmaker should make a payment towards expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board",
      the Board can recover from the bookmaker. If the tribunal thinks it just that the Levy Board should pay the bookmaker's expenses, or costs to use a word more familiar to the hon. Gentleman and myself, what happens then? We should be told, because it would be very unfortunate if we were to accept a position in which costs could be obtained from one side after a dispute, but not obtained from the other.
      Mr. Temple: The Minister said that the Levy Board was entitled to recover reasonable costs. The Clause says nothing about reasonable costs. It refers to, "recover from the bookmaker" and also to
      "expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board."
      These can be quite different matters. Quite substantial expenses might reasonably be incurred by the Levy Board by having to take a great deal of legal advice. If the words "reasonable costs", which were used by the Minister, were included in the Clause the matter would be put in better perspective. The inclusion of those words would make the Amendment appear more reasonable.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend compare the wording of Section 29(6) of the principal Act with subsection (2) of the Clause they will find that they are very similar. Section 29(6) of the principal Act says:
      "If any such tribunal thinks it just so to direct in allowing any appeal by a bookmaker, the Levy Board shall pay to that bookmaker such amount as the tribunal may specify towards expenses appearing to the tribunal to have been reasonably incurred by the bookmaker in connection with the appeal."
      Subsection (2) of the Clause says:
      "… expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board …"
      Sir D. Renton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having at last conclusively won an argument in the debates on this Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause "B"

      AMENDMENT OF S. 24 OF ACT OF 1963 AS TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF LEVY BOARD
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 38, at end insert new Clause "B":
      "B.—(1) In consequence of the amalgamation of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, section 24 of the Act of 1963 (constitution and membership of Levy Board) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
      (2) In section 24(2), for paragraphs (b) and (c) (which provide for two members of the Board to be appointed by the Jockey Club and one by the National Hunt Committee) there shall be substituted the following:—
      '(b) three members shall be appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'.
      (3) In section 24(3) (duration and terms of membership and removal of members) for the words 'subsection (2)(b) or (c)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b)'.
      (4) In section 24(4) (temporary substitute members)—

      (a) for the words 'the National Hunt Committee' there shall be substituted the words '(incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'; and

      (b) for the words ' subsection (2)(b), (c), (d) or (e)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b), (d) or (e)'.

      (5) Any person who at the passing of this Act is, or acts as, a member of the Levy Board by virtue of appointment under section 24(2) or (4) of the Act of 1963 by the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee shall be deemed to have been appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee).".
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you think it would be for the convenience of the House if with that Amendment we took Lords Amendment No. 5 to the Title, in line 5, at end insert
      "and to amend section 24 of the said Act of 1963 with respect to the appointment and removal of members of the last mentioned Board.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.
      Mr. Morgan: These two Amendments are necessary because of the amalgamation which took effect from 1st January of this year of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, as the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee).
      The Amendments make the necessary alterations to Section 24 of the 1963 Act which lays down the composition of the Levy Board, which includes two members of the Jockey Club, and one member of the National Hunt Committee. The Amendments retain the status quo in that as before, the Board will continue to comprise, in addition to the chairman, two independent members appointed by the Home Secretary, three members representing horseracing, and two members representing the contributors to the Levy, that is, the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee and the Chairman of the Totalisator Board.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire congratulated me on winning an argument on the previous Amendment. I hope that we can go one better here and say that it is not necessary to argue at all.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Timothy Kitson: Why is it necessary to make this Amendment now? Why was not it thought of in Committee? If the amalgamation was on 1st January, surely this could have been done before. The Government must have slipped up here.
      Mr. Morgan: With leave of the House. The reason was that we were well aware of it, but so many grave and weighty matters were discussed in Committee that we did not want to over-burden those proceedings.
      Sir D. Renton: I now have to congratulate the Under-Secretary on making an open confession. It was obviously important, from the moment of amalgamation—which I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson) had effect from 1st January this year—that something on the lines of this Amendment should have been inserted in the Bill. Otherwise, of course, a most embarrassing situation might have arisen. There might have been a serious gap in the law. The hon. Gentleman cannot even claim that this Amendment is a happy afterthought by the Government. It was left to the initiative and, indeed, the wisdom of Lord Goodman to avoid what might have been an embarrassing situation. This only goes to show not only the value but the imperative necessity of a revising

      1725
      Chamber. In this case, the other place, as at present constituted, has displayed its value, with the help of Lord Goodman. My advice to my hon. Friends is to accept the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

  SOUTH WALES POLICE (AMALGAMATION)
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to move,
  That the South Wales Police (Amalgamation) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be withdrawn.
  I must confess to a profound constituency interest in this Motion. I tried to discover when the draft appeared what had inspired the Home Office to agree to such a great change in the organisation of the police force in South Wales. I failed to discover any reasons. All that we have learned is that size was the only virtue. In the county boroughs and in Glamorgan administrative area, there is a population of at least 1¼ million people. It is that and nothing more which could have inspired the Home Office to commit this atrocity on our well-established police force.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I find it rather difficult to understand why my hon. Friend should describe the actions of the Home Office as an atrocity when his own police authority, that is, the police authority for Merthyr Tydvil, voluntarily agreed in principle on 1st February to this amalgamation.
  Mr. Davies: Yes, but my hon. Friend does not know my constituency. Nobody with any authority to speak on behalf of the people of the county borough of Merthyr Tydvil made any such statement. They know by today the small majority which carried this and that it was done with the profound disapproval of the people of Merthyr Tydvil. I fear that this action will reduce the police force of my county borough of Merthyr Tydvil to a crowd of impersonal beings.
  I assure the Minister that I know what I am talking about. I have lived in my constituency for over 50 years. I have
  1726
  known many policemen personally and on many occasions I have been able to co-operate with them. Apart from their chief, Merthyr Tydvil's policemen are drawn from the local community which is, because of its industrial history, extremely closely-knit. Our policemen have come through the local primary and secondary schools, they play in the local soccer and rugby teams and they are regarded as friends.
  In my part of the world the police uniform has considerable significance. The policemen in my constituency are personal beings who are on friendly relations with the people around them. I have no doubt that the youngsters in my area are just as capable of getting up to mischief as are people elsewhere. Indeed, when I was a youngster, we occasionally indulged in mischief. The police uniform is a mark of authority because the people say that the policemen are their friends and are still members of the community.
  Statistics show the number of crimes detected but they do not show the number prevented, particularly in my part of the world, because of the friendly relations which exist between the police and the community. There is a great deal more that I could say on this issue, but as I have no doubt that many hon. Members want the debate to come to a speedy close, I will not delay the House.
  We are often told that the police are equipped with modern devices. I accept that they have a number of what I would call "trinkets" which they did not have when I was a boy. Despite the latest technological equipment, the police are at their best when they have the confidence of the community. This helps them to prevent crimes from happening, which is far better than having to apprehend a criminal after he has committed a crime.
  What will happen when this Order takes effect? All that unity between the police and the rest of the community will be destroyed. The policeman will cease to be a member of the community; he will be moved from one valley to another valley, from one county borough to another county borough; he will become known, not for himself, but just because of his uniform, and he will enjoy no local confidences at all. He will become just an automaton representing a force,

  1727
  even though part of it is the force which we have and which is such a credit to us.
  I hope that my hon. Friends and I will be able to persuade the Home Office to withdraw this stupid and irresponsible draft Order against which we are protesting. I cannot help noticing—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take no exception to this, I hope—that the Home Secretary himself is not able to be here this evening. We were told about that. I am sure that he would be here were it humanly possible. I am sorry for my right hon. Friend because he has had this proposal foisted upon him, and the city which he represents is protesting very strongly about this Order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) will make abundantly plain this evening. I hope that this masque of a police force here suggested will be withdrawn and destroyed, and that we shall carry on as we have carried on extremely well in South Wales for many years.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: I would not like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) in his excursion to Merthyr, which he has defended so admirably over so many years, but I think there are few who do not regret that this Motion has become necessary, necessary because of the acrimony and internecine warfare which has broken about among the authorities involved in this amalagamation scheme, and which is tragic to the men and women in the forces concerned whose morale must have been battered by the comings and goings and the bitter disputes and arguments over the future of their careers. I do not wish tonight to go into a detailed, blow by blow account of the events which have led to this debate. Suffice it to say that it has become necessary as a result of the almost total breakdown of the relationship between the County of Glamorgan and Cardiff in the shadow police committee.
  As a Member of Parliament for Cardiff I must first and foremost confess that my own city was partly to blame for the difficulties over this amalgamation. The city itself has always been a very shy and reluctant bride in this marriage of police
  1728
  forces. Initially the city said it would remain outside the new force. It claimed that, as the capital city with separate policing problems, it should have a separate identity as the national capital and should remain outside such an amalgamation. We pointed out that other comparable forces, such as those of Bradford and Hull, and some even smaller in one or two cases, had survived amalgamation threats, but my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, felt that in the name of the greater overall efficiency of the policing of this area Cardiff should be included in this amalgamation. The city then put in a counter proposal, for an amalgamation par excellence, as it were, an amalgamation not only of the forces specified in this Order, but an amalgamation including also Newport and Monmouthshire—Gwent. I believe that it could have been a worth-while solution to the pressing problems of South Wales to combine what are now two separate forces. I am not certain why this solution was not originally considered by the Home Office. The protests that have been made by the Cardiff City Watch Committeee have come to naught.
  Eventually, on 27th February, 1967, the city agreed, albeit reluctantly, to work with others for a successful merger of the South Wales forces. But above all, a merger depends for its success on the essential good will of all parties to the merger, and their willingness to bury their own sectional and local interests in order to get the greatest good and the greatest efficiency. Even the most objective witness of the activities of the police shadow committee during the last year or so could hardly find that attitude to be present.
  Disputes between Cardiff and Glamorgan broke out on at least three issues: first, the constitution of the new shadow committee; second, the siting of the new headquarters and, third, believe it or not, the name to be given to the force. Glamorgan wanted to call the new amalgamated force the Glamorgan force, whereas I am sure that anyone in his right mind would want to call it at least the South Wales force. However, on the issues of representation and the name of the force some sort of agreement was reached before there was a public inquiry, but left unresolved was the major

  1729
  issue, which was the siting of the headquarters.
  When, eventually, a public inquiry was demanded by the Cardiff Watch Committee I welcome that decision because it seemed to me to give an opportunity for us to thrash out the issues and get an independent, objective opinion from someone who had no local axe to grind involving any sort of parish pump voice that had bedevilled the amalgamation. I may say, although slightly reluctantly, that I must agree with the findings in the report of Mr. Stephen Brown, the inspector. In particular, I must accept his finding in paragraph 62 of his report. This stated that the amalgamation scheme would increase the efficiency of the policing of the amalgamation area as a whole, and that Cardiff's fears of reduced efficiency in the event of amalgamation were unfounded provided—and these words really should be printed in capital letters—that the headquarters were sited in Cardiff.
  There might have been no need for this Prayer had Mr. Brown's recommendations been accepted in toto. Unfortunately typical sectional and parochial attitudes reasserted themselves. The dominant group on the shadow police committee—the Glamorgan group—was not satisfied with the decisions of the inquiry. It wanted its pound of flesh. It wanted to dispute the inspector on the one issue quite clearly recommended by him—the siting of the headquarters in Cardiff.
  This may appear to be a minor issue and something not worth quarrelling about. It is not a minor issue because, as I have already said, the inspector, independent of local issues and debates, made the siting of the headquarters a basic condition of the amalgamation. It was his proviso, his condition for giving his blessing to the amalgamation, when he said that Cardiff's fears were unfounded provided that the headquarters were sited in Cardiff. A contrary decision on the siting of the headquarters might put into jeopardy that measure of efficiency which might result from the amalgamation, which the public would expect, and which all the various police forces would like to give.
  That is what has happened, and that is what has led to this Prayer. The
  1730
  dominant Glamorgan group in the shadow police committee has decided to to overrule the independent opinion of the inspector; to overrule the view of Mr. Galbraith, the Inspector of Constabulary for South Wales; to overrule the generally known views of the chief constables of the existing forces, other than the chief constable designate; and to overrule the known wishes of the Home Secretary, who has previously expressed himself forcibly on this issue.
  It turned its back in so doing on the brand-new £1 million headquarters at Cardiff, which was opened only last year, a building adjacent to the Cardiff city hall, adjacent to the Glamorgan County Council hall, next to the law courts and the Welsh Office, and in the middle of the administrative centre of South Wales and of Wales as a whole. It turned its back on a building described by the independent inspector in these words:
  "having the overwhelming practical advantage of being superbly built and lavishly equipped headquarters building."
  The inspector recommended that the building in Bridgend which is at present the headquarters of the Glamorgan force could be admirably used for the training and communications centre of the new force.
  On what grounds did the shadow police committee reject the findings of the inquiry? It is impossible to discover from the inquiry itself. One can go through the transcripts of the proceedings and find not a shred of evidence. Not a shred of evidence has been given to support Glamorgan's case for siting the headquarters in Bridgend. Not a shred of evidence was given for the outrageous rejection of the inspector's findings, and neither did the legal representative on behalf of Glamorgan County Council, Mr. Myerson, offer any evidence. He could have done so. It has since been argued that he might not have been in a position to do so, but it was known that one of the specific issues into which the inspector was inquiring was the question of the site for the headquarters.
  Glamorgan County Council did not produce any evidence to justify its decision to site the headquarters at Bridgend. On the contrary, after overwhelming evidence produced by the inspector of constabulary for South

  1731
  Wales at the inquiry, when it became clear that there was a strong case for siting the headquarters of the amalgamated force at the new building at Cardiff, Mr. Myerson, on behalf of Glamorgan County Council, intervened to say that he had authority from his council to say that it would reconsider the decision which it had previously made to site the headquarters in Bridgend.
  I was not present—though I should like to have been—at the meeting of the shadow police committee following publication of the inspector's report, but I am told on good authority that the committee started to reconsider that decision by someone moving that it reaffirm its previous decision without debate. Unfortunately, that is typical of the attitude which has been taken throughout the discussions and negotiations on the amalgamation, and, moreover, it was the attitude taken on an issue which the inspector himself described as the condition for the continued efficiency of the policing of the Cardiff area and the efficiency of the amalgamation itself.
  Where is the case for the siting of the headquarters in Bridgend, which still remains the decision of the shadow police committee? As I say, it cannot be found in the proceedings at the inquiry. The only place where I have been able to find it, such as it is, is in the subsequent report, or series of reports, which the chief constable-designate submitted to the shadow police committee and to his own committee, the Glamorgan County Council's police committee, in defence of the decision to site the headquarters at Bridgend.
  Unfortunately—I am reluctant to say it—the chief constable-designate's report is a rather thin and desperate attempt to put in a favourable light a 28-year old former Royal Ordnance factory building in comparison with a new £1 million purpose-built building in Cardiff. We are told in the report that the Bridgend building offers the greatest protection against bomb attacks, and includes a basement to provide adequate protection in case of an emergency. In readiness for the unlikely event of the Luftwaffe once again trying to bomb South Wales, he should have looked at the basement of the new million-pound headquarters at Cardiff, where there is a special suite for use as
  1732
  war duties control rooms, to which all members of the administration of the new force could retreat if there were a bomb attack.
  Second, we are told that Bridgend is more capable of adaptation and expansion. But the new million-pound headquarters at Cardiff has generous space for the administrative headquarters of the South Wales force, and could easily accommodate a Welsh force if need be. I do not know what we are trying to build up in South Wales. A sort of police Pentagon seems to be implied in the comments of the chief constable-designate on the need for adminstrative space. The Inspector of Constabulary for South Wales, Mr. Galbraith, an independent inspector and the Home Office have all found that there was more than adequate space to accommodate the existing and foreseeable administration of the new South Wales police force at Cardiff.
  Third, we are told in the report that the Bridgend buildings are adjacent to the police sports ground. What in the name of heaven has a police sports ground to do with the central administration of a force of this size? It may have something to do with police training. It is perhaps of some value if training facilities are adjacent to a playing ground, but what has the central administration of a police force of this size to do with playing fields?
  The most curious and intriguing reason why we should site the headquarters at Bridgend is the argument of the chief constable-designate that the spendid and lavish facilities provided in the new million-pound police headquarters in Cardiff would have a tremendous impact on the young police cadet who started off his career in such an excellent building, that having been surrounded by modern, well-equipped facilities, he would find the contrast when he was transferred for duty elsewhere so shattering that he would be beset by disillusionment and might leave the force. On that argument, it would seem a good idea to have uniforms of mohair and facilities for the young police cadet sufficiently spartan to ensure that he was not disillusioned by any subsequent transfer to less adequate headquarters.
  Those are four of the many points made by the chief constable-designate in his report to justify the siting of the headquarters in Bridgend. But there is

  1733
  one factor he raises that I take seriously, namely, that if the new amalgamated force were organised on a district command basis the new million-pound building at Cardiff could be fully utilised as one of the three district command centres, and he appears to have favoured the district command organisation. But how many of the new amalgamated forces are organised on a district command basis? Am I not right in thinking that district commands are no longer generally considered the most effective form of organising the new large forces?
  Did not the Home Office inspector, in his evidence to the inquiry, suggest that the system of district commands was a possibility but a poor second choice for the organisation of the new force? Am I not, generally speaking, correct in assuming that the district command system is generally discredited and would be particularly unfortunate in the case of South Wales? Is it not something of an open secret that the chief constable-designate has already decided to rethink his original suggestion of having district commands? If he has the courage and honesty to rethink and change his mind on it, I hope that he has the same courage and honesty to go to the shadow police committee and say, "The last good reason why we should have the headquarters at Bridgend has been removed by my decision to abandon district organisation." There is every reason to believe that if he did this common sense would prevail and a rational decision would be taken.
  I have gone at some length into the issue of the headquarters because it is the kernel of the case of those of us who support the Motion. Are we to put through an amalgamation which will not be as efficient as it should be or could be just because a powerful group of members of the shadow police committee want to build a little empire elsewhere? They have demonstrated by their actions so far in regard to the issue of the police headquarters that their first interest is, unfortunately, not the greatest efficiency of the policing of the area as a whole or of the Cardiff area, which is the largest centre of population. They are prepared and are willing to sacrifice a measure of efficiency, to put into jeopardy some part of the efficiency of the policing of the area, just in order to satisfy some local empire building.
  1734
  I make a plea to the Glamorgan group on the shadow police committee to stop playing parish pump politics with the future of the police in South Wales. The police and the public have a right to demand that the issue shall be resolved by rational discussion conducted in the best interest of the amalgamated force and of the public that it will serve.
  This can best be achieved in a most objective manner—and I declare my interest as a Member for Cardiff. The impartial and objective findings of Mr. Brown, the inspector at the inquiry, should be accepted and observed. He has no local axe to grind. He has carefully studied the evidence submitted to him and has found, first, that amalgamation would improve the efficiency of the police in the area as a whole. I and the Cardiff Watch Committee and others in the city who tried to keep the city force out of the amalgamation must now accept, in the light of his evidence and his findings, that amalgamation will produce greater efficiency if Cardiff is included.
  But it must be a basic condition of this acceptance that Glamorgan County Council gives up its unreasonable and obstinate anti-Cardiff attitude on the siting of the headquarters in the new million £ building in Cardiff. This is one of the major issues. If no such co-operation is forthcoming, if the smoke signal of peace we have been desperately hoping for does not resolve the differences and the bitter disputes which have gone on among local authorities involved, then I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could look seriously at taking action.
  I realise that my right hon. Friend is sadly lacking in the power to prevent foolish decisions being made by the shadow police committee of any amalgamated force. He is powerless to prevent crazy decisions being made on, for example, the siting of headquarters. It is a price we have to pay up to a point for local democracy because these shadow police committees consist of local representatives. However, is the price of local democracy too high in this instance, in that the efficiency of the policing of the area as a whole might be diminished?
  Like others, I have looked around for ways and means to compel sense and reason on the shadow police committee

  1735
  in South Wales. I have considered using what is the sledge hammer of withholding the 50 per cent. grant given by the Government to the Glamorgan section of the new police force until Glamorgan comes to its senses. I would not advise that. The sins of those who are playing the South Wales police "Power Game" should not be visited on the poor innocent ratepayers of Glamorgan.
  But there are several alternatives which my right hon. Friend should consider. He should consider delaying the Order until he can get a firm assurance from the shadow police committee that it will listen to reason and accept the overwhelming evidence and the decision and the findings of the independent inspector, the Inspector of South Wales Constabulary, Mr. Galbraith, and that of the chief constables of the police forces other than the chief constable designate, all of whom have said that there is a powerful case for siting the headquarters of this force in Cardiff. I should like my hon. Friend to comment on that suggestion.
  Secondly, if that is not satisfactory, the Home Secretary could delay the Order until such time as he acquires power under a new Police Act, or through regulations, or in some other way, to direct the shadow police committee on certain vital issues. Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964, with which the Under-Secretary will be conversant, says that in amalgamations the Home Secretary has power in matters incidental and consequential to an amalgamation to make certain directions or recommendations and to force those recommendations through. I am not certain whether that would cover the siting of a headquarters, although in this instance it has been declared by the inspector to be a condition of the continuation of the efficiency of the policing of an area. If my right hon. Friend does not have such powers to specify the siting of a headquarters when that involves efficiency, he should delay the Order while reviewing his powers, because——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman may discuss only that which is in the Order.
  Mr. Rowlands: I accept that, but it is relevant to whether the House accepts the
  1736
  Order to consider whether one of the possible escape routes for the Home Office may be future legislation——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but although it may be relevant, it is not in order.
  Mr. Rowlands: I accept that. Fortunately, I have made the point and I pass to my third suggestion.
  It is that my right hon. Friend should state categorically that the siting of the headquarters should be in Cardiff.
  Secondly, if he allows the Order through, or forces it through, will he tell the Glamorgan police force that he will seek powers to enable him to make retrospective directions upon it? We have had an inquiry, gathering information and expert advice from all sources. It has led to one conclusion—that amalgamation of the police forces in South Wales is a good thing, provided that the headquarters are sited in the new £1 million purpose-built building at Cathays Park. I could almost put it to music. This is one of the conditions for the continuing efficiency of the policing of the Cardiff area in the new amalgamated force. This is not a minor, a fringe issue. It is central to the Order. For that reason, unless we can get the assurance that common-sense will prevail, I am not sure that this Order is good for the policing of the area of South Wales or Cardiff.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: My hon. Friend is talking about these wonderful new headquarters in Cardiff. Can he tell the House whether there is adequate room for extension, and if there is adequate room for car parking, which will be required for a police authority of this size?
  Mr. Rowlands: In the evidence given to the inquiry it came out that, administratively speaking, we could house an administration for the policing of the whole of Wales in the building. There is ample room. It was built to very generous proportions, for the simple reason that when the Cardiff Watch Committee planned this building it knew that it could not extend the site any further. It realised that it would not get additional money, so it built the building to a larger capacity than Cardiff requires. The car parking and other amenities are improving.

  1737
  My hon. Friend over-estimates the actual size of the administration required by a police force of this size. We are not including training or communications. These should go to Bridgend.
  The top administration of such a force ought to be sited next to the Law Courts, where most of the business is carried out, next to the Glamorgan County Council Chambers, opposite the Cardiff City Hall, and close to the Welsh Office.
  For all these reasons it seems absolutely crazy to turn our backs on such an excellent, purpose-built building which would give a new image to the new amalgamated force and launch it with adequate facilities. The buildings in Bridgend are not sufficient, and are already too small for an expanding Glamorgan County force, let alone a new force. For these overwhelming reasons there is a good case for the point that I am making.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) declared his interest as the Member for that constituency. I suppose that I should declare an interest in that my brother is chairman of the City of Cardiff Watch Committee. But against that interest, if such interest exists, must be set the fact that most of my constituency lies outside the administrative area of the City of Cardiff. I believe that I have succeeded in looking at this amalgamation with as great a degree of objectivity as most of us usually manage when considering matters of this kind.
  I have not been opposed to the principle of amalgamation in cases of this kind or in this case. I have been persuaded that, provided that a lot of other matters are correctly decided, benefits would accrue from a successful amalgamation of these separate police forces. But I call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the condition which I prescribe, namely, that a successful amalgamation can result only from the fulfilment of certain other requirements. I plead with the Under-Secretary of State, and indeed with the Home Secretary, to appreciate that this is a delicate operation. It is no easy operation to amalgamate four police forces as different
  1738
  in size and character as those affected by this Order.
  I commend and praise the Report of Mr. Stephen Brown, Q.C., for its clarity and fair assessment of a difficult problem. It is said in the Report, Cmnd. 3843, that a greater proportion of serious crime is committed in Cardiff than elsewhere in the amalgamation area. It is said that 34·7 per cent. of all crimes known to the police in the geographical area involved in the Order is committed in the City of Cardiff. That underlines the different nature of policing the city area of Cardiff and that of policing some of the other areas involved. Swansea has 12·6 per cent. of all the crimes known to the police in the amalgamation area and Merthyr 5·1 per cent. The balance is in the administrative county of Glamorgan. It is plain that the police constables and officers in the City of Cardiff are not necessarily more clever but certainly more experienced in dealing with offences.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: This forms no part of my case, but 40 per cent. of the population of the geographical county live within a 12-mile radius of Cardiff.
  Mr. Gower: Yes. But that does not affect by one iota what I have said. It may be for that reason that the officers of the Cardiff City police force are more experienced in dealing with these matters. I am not concerned with why that should be so, but they have to deal with this kind of crime. It is significant that the headquarters of the regional crime squad is situate in Cardiff.
  It is bound to be an extremely delicate operation to combine police forces which have to deal with a great variety of matters. Everything should be done to achieve agreement on the nature of the amalgamation. To make the amalgamation a success must be a very delicate and difficult operation.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North outlined in some detail the nature of the chief difference which has arisen. I am not opposed to the principle of amalgamation, either in general or in this case, but the way in which the siting of the headquarters has developed is not calculated to give the combined geographical area the sort of policing which

  1739
  it deserves and demands. The responsibility of the Home Office in this matter is very heavy, as is the responsibility of the shadow police authority. I hope that the Home Office will not fall down in its duty in this respect.
  It was originally proposed by the shadow authority that the headquarters should be at Bridgend, in the middle of the administrative area. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Galbraith, the shadow authority has persisted in this strange determination. The opinion of the Inspector of Constabulary was that the administrative headquarters should be in the City of Cardiff. Despite that, the shadow authority has stuck to its determination that the headquarters should be elsewhere.
  It was apparent at the beginning of the inquiry that the Home Office attached great importance to the siting of the headquarters in the City of Cardiff, when the Inspector was invited by counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Home Secretary, in his opening address to express a view on the siting of the headquarters. This obviously was a matter of importance in the opinion of the Home Secretary. But, as hon. Members have been told, all this appears to be of no importance.
  It is also noteworthy that when evidence was given at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Cardiff, Mr. Morris, his contention that the headquarters should be sited in Cardiff was in no way challenged by the Glamorgan County Council——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the amalgamation of some police forces. I do not see here, although I may have missed it, reference to the siting in Cardiff of the amalgamated police force.
  Mr. Gower: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but almost every hon. Member who has so far spoken has concentrated on this point.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for speeches which took place while I was not in the Chair. We are talking about the Order, and whatever the hon. Gentleman says must be within the Order which we are discussing.
  Mr. Gower: My objection to the Order is that what is proposed is in no way designed to provide a headquarters at the point which was recommended at the inquiry. I will not dwell on that, in view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, although I am severely handicapped by comparison with those who have spoken before me.
  It would be a disgraceful waste of public money if this splendid building were not to be utilised. It is a matter of the highest importance, and if the Order is approved, I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary and the Home Secretary will plead for a reconsideration of any decision which may have been made about this. It is the nub of the matter, and I regret that I did not speak a little earlier in the debate, since I should then have had the opportunity of saying what I want to say about it. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not be precluded from commenting on what was said earlier because it is of vital importance. I am prohibited by the rules of order from saying anything about this most important aspect——
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you a consideration in this matter? I think that it is germane to the opposition which some people have expressed to this Order that the headquarters is to be in one place rather than another. If that headquarters were moved, much of the opposition would disappear.
  I do not seek to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps you would agree that, that being so, it would be germane for hon. Members to discuss that aspect of the matter since, if the headquarters were moved, many of the objections to the Order would be removed.
  Sir David Renton: Further to that point of order. As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this Order does not specify where the headquarters of the new force shall be. As I understand it, that would be a matter for the new police authority to decide at or after its first meeting. The House cannot decide it. With respect to the Home Secretary, he cannot decide it, and there is no procedure whereby Parliament can make the passing of the Order dependent upon the whereabouts of the new police headquarters.

  1741
  I hope that it will be helpful if I reveal the attitude which I wish to put forward on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, having given the matter some consideration.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a characteristically British moment in which the Home Secretary is leaping to the defence of an hon. Member on the back benches opposite, and the right hon. and learned Member on the Opposition Front Bench is leaping to attack the Home Secretary for defending the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition back benches.
  I am afraid that I did not hear the earlier part of the debate. I must say, with all deference, that what the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said fits in with what I have said. We are discussing an Order. I have not found in the Order any reference to a site in Cardiff for the new amalgamated police headquarters. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) feels that other hon. Members have got away with more than I have allowed him to say.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: Further to that point of order. Having made my speech earlier——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not rule on speeches which I have not heard.
  Mr. Gower: I am sorry that I have caused this inconvenience. I was in great difficulty, because this is not a matter of a single remark or a single speech. It concerns a debate which has been going on for some time.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not recall to me what happened when I was not in the Chair.
  Mr. Gower: I regret the limitations on the Home Secretary's powers. I regret that he has not greater power in this connection. It is a pity that he has to draw the Order in this form, and I hope that it is a matter which he will examine in future.
  It appears that he has no power to prevent the waste of public money. He has no power to prescribe the use of a building worth £1 million. This is an absurd situation. I can only regret, therefore, the narrow limits within which the Order has had to be drawn. I am
  1742
  sure that I must be in order in saying that.
  This is a matter of deep regret to me. The Home Secretary has made his position clear. He wants what Mr. Stephen Brown, Q.C, wanted to see done. So do I, and so does the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. I hope that persuasion will affect this decision.
  The Order amalgamates these forces, and I suppose that the Home Secretary is determined to push it through. Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, it has occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman might possibly delay the Order. Could he not take it away and, before bringing it back again, use his persuasive powers in meeting the shadow authority?
  I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could say, "You cannot have the Order yet. I will withdraw it tonight and bring it forward again." I am sure that it must be within his power. Having read all the documents, the report of the inquiry and the report of the Inspector of Constabulary, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman would be amply justified in doing so. It seems that the shadow authority is determined to act in defiance of all expert opinion. Can the Home Secretary take the Order away, look at it again, and come forward with some other Order after discussion?
  I have never objected to the principle of the Order, which is to amalgamate forces. I believe that the purpose of the Order could be good and that the results could be good if agreement were reached between the parties. This is very important. This is just a piece of legal machinery, and I fear that in the present mood it will create a situation which may hold back the efficiency of the force unless agreement is reached.
  I am sure that the Home Secretary realises that these are serious matters. I plead with him to do all that he has power to do within the margins of his authority. There is grave anxiety among ordinary people not only in the City of Cardiff but in the surrounding areas and perhaps in other places, too, that the shadow authority may go on in defiance of expert opinion, with a great waste of public money, at a time when we are told that economic conditions prescribe care in the use of public funds. There is

  1743
  a serious background to the matter. That is why I am not happy that the Order should be approved at this moment.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East) rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) wish to address the House on the amalgamation of the South Wales police?
  Mr. Mapp: On the Order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mapp.
  Mr. Mapp: Far be it for me to intervene in a local domestic battle in South Wales, but the arguments are familiar with those on an earlier Order. I take the view that the Order, like its predecessor, has defects. Therefore, I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) and by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the Order should be withdrawn.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) spoke about an efficient police force. His argument was that the Order may bring about a more efficient police force. That is not the true criterion. The true criterion is: what is the most appropriate size of police area to sustain a modern force with efficient implements to combat the modern criminal?
  I put it to the House that, just as in Lancashire, the incidence of historical boundaries—in this case Swansea, Merthyr, Glamorgan and Cardiff—is the reason why the Inspector and others seek to argue that within those limitations this is undoubtedly the most efficient way, but not the most efficient way if he had a wider consideration. I am very much concerned about this aspect.
  The Minister is caught up administratively in the limitations of an earlier Act. I must not discuss that. However, if the Minister administratively were looking at the whole conurbation, if that is the right word, of South Wales in terms of police efficiency and crime, he might find that the words in the earlier Act about parts of police areas which he is unable to amalgamate were a hindrance. My right hon. Friend must therefore deal with
  1744
  this, as he has in Lancashire and in other parts of the country, on the basis of expediency. Within certain limitations, this is a fair operation for South Wales. Because of the amount of crime—I do not want to overstate this, fortunately it has receded—and because of the techniques which people are now unfortunately using to commit crime, I could not support an argument that Merthyr should stand separate from Cardiff, or that Swansea should be on its own. I take the view that the whole of South Wales west of the Severn, right up to the hills, should be looked at as one area in terms of providing an efficient police force. It would be pure coincidence if the judgment on the test of efficiency came down in favour of having police forces according to local government boundaries.
  My right hon. Friend knows his limitations. He knows that he can act only within administrative decisions, but this is a further example of an Order being introduced for reasons of expediency. The modern Britain needs a modern police force to deal with modern methods of crime. I shall not try to tell my colleagues from South Wales what the right answers are, but we have some knowledge of the requirements of a modern society from the point of view of having an efficient police force. The modern method of crime is not the jemmy, but the motor car——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member has considerable knowledge of magistracy and law, but he cannot amend the Order. He can oppose it or support it. He cannot amend it.
  Mr. Mapp: I was about to conclude my speech, having stated my reasons for thinking that the Order is not as good as it should be. For reasons which have been advanced by hon. Members, and for reasons which I have adduced, I think that the Order should be withdrawn for some months to enable us to get a greater measure of good will in Glamorgan and thereby avoid the difficulties and reactions which have followed in another county where an Order similar to this Order was pushed through the House.
  9.38 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South) rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) wish to address the House on the amalgamation of the South Wales police forces?
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but only briefly. Though I represent South Kensington, I was brought up in Glamorgan, and when I am not a Londoner I am a Glamorgan man. In case you think that I am speaking on a subject of which I have no knowledge, perhaps I ought to declare that in a small way I am a landowner in Glamorgan. My home is there, and I am frequently in that county. Indeed, I am there frequently enough to have seen the magnificent headquarters which have been discussed this afternoon going up in Cardiff, and to have been over them during the last few days.
  The House is in something of a dilemma, because we have to say "Yes" or "No" to this question of amalgamation. We welcome it on grounds of obvious common sense, but unfortunately we have excellent reasons to believe that if we approve the Order tonight common sense will be defied, and I am bound to join those who feel that the Order ought not to be passed tonight if it is going to lead to a scandalous waste of public money, as we believe it is.
  In general, I support the amalagamation of the four police forces and I would even be willing to listen to arguments that Bridgend might have been a satisfactory headquarters. Unfortunately, the decision in favour of Cardiff has already been taken in a convincing and final way in bricks, mortar and magnificent Portland stone. If this headquarters, which I believe cost £1 million, will be wasted if we approve the Order, as a responsible and honourable House we should not approve it. To allow this amount of public investment in a magnificent purpose-built structure to go to waste would be an inexcusable and scandalous error. The findings of the inspector in favour of amalgamation should be accepted in toto or not at all. I have learned the hard way what it is to be on the verges of being out of order, and I hope that my remarks tonight are acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.
  9.41 p.m.
  Sir David Renton: I do not seek to justify my intervention—as the Member for Huntingdon—by drawing attention to the fact that Oliver Cromwell was a Welshman of the name of Williams. I do so because I have had some previous ministerial experience with regard to at least two of the Welsh amalgamation Orders.
  But I also have strong nostalgic memories whenever Wales is mentioned in the House. I appeared as a young barrister for the Great Western Railway in most of the towns of South Wales. In particular, in 1934, the year that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) became the Member for that constituency, I had the unusual experience of having to have an interpreter in a case at Merthyr, when I was the only person in court who could not speak Welsh. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, I went to the mining valleys and always admired the charm and alertness of the Welsh and the wonderful way in which they managed to carry on controversy without indulging in ill-feeling. That is one of the great characteristics of the Welsh. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has addressed the House in perhaps the most worthy capacity that anyone can—as a voter in the area under discussion.
  I have great sympathy with those hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who wanted, in some way which was not consistent either with the legislation which governs us on this occasion or with the rules of order, to make the coming-into-force of the Order depend upon the siting of the new police headquarters. As you have already made clear, Mr. Speaker, we must carry on this discussion on the assumption that only the new police authority can decide that matter. The authority will be very wise to bear in mind what was said by Mr. Stephen Brown in his report. One can only express the hope it can be no more than a hope, because this matter has, in effect, been delegated to the authority by Parliament that it will take note of what has been said in this debate by hon. Members on both sides.
  It is no good Parliament blowing hot and cold. It is no good our granting

  1747
  responsibility to people carefully chosen by the electorate or appointed by an elected body and then saying, "We are not leaving the direction of affairs or decisions to you; you must do what we say in a debate". That is not a sensible way of carrying on Parliamentary Government; and one can do no more than express that hope.
  However, one can have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Barry when he found, not only in the rules of order but under the legislation, that even the Home Secretary is powerless to take a decision, veto a decision or make the decision of the police authority conditional. He can only at a later stage, if the occasion should arise, which seems unlikely in this case, frustrate its decision by refusing to approve capital expenditure which might be necessary in certain circumstances to enable a new police headquarters to be sited at a place chosen by a police authority.
  We would not ask the Home Secretary to declare his hand in this matter tonight. There is no reason why he should. There might be circumstances in which the Home Secretary would say to a police authority, "In my view the headquarters sited at the place which you have decided would require great capital expenditure and I must make it plain that on grounds of public economy I am not prepared to approve your expenditure". I am not attempting to draw the Home Secretary into saying that. I merely hope that, by stating the legal and constitutional position, my remarks may have been helpful.
  My hon. Friends and I are, in principle, in favour of police amalgamations in general. I can go a stage further by saying that we are in no way opposed in principle to this particular amalgamation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barry pointed out, this is a delicate matter. In my experience all police amalgamations involve delicacy. It is also a matter which gives rise to great opportunities for co-operation among public authorities which may or may not have co-operated fully before.
  Equally, it is an opportunity for increased efficiency on the part of the police in fighting the rising crime wave. I hope, therefore, that we will not allow tonight's debate to pass without recording
  1748
  our hope that this amalgamation will have that result. My hon. Friends and I extend to the new police force and the new police authority our best wishes for the future. We hope that the new arrangements will enable them to get on top of crime to an even greater extent than they have done before.
  9.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), speaking officially for the Opposition, for the manner and content of his speech.
  I join with him in hoping that if the Order is signed the new police authority and the members of the new force will have the good wishes of hon. Members in all parts of the House and our hope, expectation and belief that they will make a great success of this venture. Nothing said in this debate should detract from our hopes in this matter.
  I apologise for not having been in my place at the beginning of the debate. As hon. Members may be aware, I was attending the hustings at Walthamstow and, as the House will see, I have returned unscathed. It might be fair to say that I had more trouble from those who call themselves my friends than from those who call themselves my enemies, which is a well-known fact in politics.
  I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) had in mind because he was kind enough to talk the matter over with me beforehand. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) for missing his speech, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has informed me of the main points which he had in mind and later I will do my best to answer them.
  It is true, as I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North to say, that part of the difficulty about this amalgamation has been the breakdown in relations between the police authorities concerned, and this has caused me a very great deal of concern and anxiety. I would like to tell the House that I did my best in discussions with both sides, on an informal basis, to try to get an accommodation between them on the matters in dispute between them before I brought the Order to the House.

  1749
  This brings me to the point which has been made by more than one hon. Member, would it be sensible to withdraw the Order and have another try? Well, I naturally thought a very long time before I brought the Order forward. I would like to say I do not think this would work. These discussions have been under way now for nearly three years. May, 1966, saw the beginning of the talks. In that period my own city, Cardiff, decided not to enter into a voluntary scheme. It decided at a later date it would agree to a voluntary scheme. It then at a later date told the Home Office that an agreement could not be reached on a voluntary scheme. Then there were difficulties—I do not blame Cardiff for this—over the title of the new force. Difficulties then arose on a subject which I must not name but which, I believe, is present in the minds of us all. By this time Cardiff was willing to consider it but then backed out again in January, 1968, and in February, 1968, we urged Cardiff to resume negotiations on a voluntary scheme. Cardiff then came back and said, "No, we are not willing to go ahead with a voluntary scheme, but, of course, we must accept a compulsory scheme if you decide to enter into it" and at that stage Swansea and Merthyr and Glamorgan said, "We would like to go ahead with a voluntary scheme" but made a condition about the unnameable subject.
  I have given only, as it were, one side of this so far, and that is Cardiff's approach. I think hon. Members will see that this in-out, in-out approach which has gone on now for three years is not one which is likely, I should say frankly, to change very much if I were to withdraw this Order and seek to get voluntary discussions going again. If I thought there would be the slightest chance of their succeeding I would much prefer to have a voluntary Order than a compulsory Order but I must advise the House that I see no prospect of the differences between the parties being resolved.
  So what I then had to say was, "Do I ignore the report of the Inspector which was so overwhelmingly clear? Do I set that on one side because relations between the police authorities are so poor?" I had to ask, "Do I say, even though the Inspector found quite clearly,
  1750
  without a shadow of doubt, that the efficiency of the policing in South Wales would be improved by this amalgamation, that because of the relations between the police authorities I should set that on one side?" I do not think I would be justified in doing so and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire agrees with me, that it would be quite wrong of me to do that.
  What I do say to the police authorities in South Wales—and having made many efforts to get them together I am entitled to say this—is that they should remember that they are there to serve the best interests of the policing of the area, and the interests of the people of that area, in preventing crime. They are not for their own purposes. They are there to serve their people. The Inspector who had held an independent inquiry and my own Inspector of Constabulary who investigated this matter and everybody who has looked into it have come to the conclusion that there is no dissent at all that the efficient policing of the area would be substantially improved. I really think that in these circumstances it would be wrong for me to delay, unless I were of opinion—and I cannot honestly say that I am—that delay would enable me to get a voluntary scheme.
  Frankly, I think that it is only when they have had their heads knocked together, and then have to live and work together, that we shall get the co-operation we need. There is nothing like asking people to work together for them then to see where their own positions should be modified and can be improved. I believe that that will happen in this case, and that when these dissident authorities come together and recognise, as I am sure they will, that their responsibility is to the people of the area, we shall get away from these divisions which have dogged this scheme for the last three years.
  This scheme is one of only two schemes which are as yet unsettled. All the others have gone through, and have gone through without very much difficulty. I therefore cannot say to the House that there are any major difficulties in this case which are different from those in the other large number of other areas that have been amalgamated.
  Mr. Gower: The Home Secretary said that the report of Mr. Stephen Brown was that in his view amalgamation would lead to greater efficiency, but Mr. Stephen Brown added the important proviso that the headquarters were to be at Cardiff. These were the words of Mr. Stephen Brown, Q.C., himself.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is coming back to the question of the headquarters, but I know that he is not accurate in saying that the amalgamation proposals in Mr. Stephen Brown's report were conditional on the headquarters being at Cardiff. It would be fair to interpret Mr. Brown as saying that irrespective of where the headquarters were there would be an increase in efficiency through amalgamation, but that the increase would be even more enhanced if the headquarters were in Cardiff.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: Following on what has just been said by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I would point out that what was said in the report was that the fears of Cardiff about reduced efficiency of the police in the Cardiff area were unfounded provided that the headquarters were at Cardiff. It is to the policing of the Cardiff area that the condition is attached.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.
  I cannot tell the House that delay would be likely to improve the relationships or enable a scheme to go through on a voluntary basis. There has been plenty of time for that. Every effort has been made by many people, privately and publicly, to get these people to come together. I therefore hope that the House will accept that I do not feel it right to accept this Motion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), in a most percipient speech, indicated some of the thoughts on the matter which naturally have been in the minds of the Home Office. I should be out of order to go into those in detail—I see your eagle eye on me, Mr. Speaker—but perhaps I may be allowed to utter the aphorism which will answer my hon. Friend, which is that the best is always the enemy of the good. I have to go for the good, and
  1752
  not for the best. There may be an opportunity later to do something different, but I do not think that I had better go any further in that connection.
  Even though I am not free to refer in detail to the question of the headquarters, I ought to say in relation to the efficiency of the policing of the Cardiff area, which is obviously a matter of importance arising out of the Order, that the Home Office intends to maintain a very vigilant eye on what happens about the policing of the capital city of Wales. There are responsibilities in this matter which devolve upon the Home Office and they will be exercised. I shall see that my officials pay very close attention to what happens in that case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North is right to say that there was a proposal that there should be a district command organisation. This is an indication of where the influence of the Home Office can be brought to bear, because the chief constable designate had discussions with Her Majesty's Inspector from the Home Office and with the other chief constables, as a result of which the chief constable designate has now decided not to recommend a district command organisation for the new force in South Wales. That is a significant indication of the value of discussion in these matters.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Police may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Callaghan: The chief constable designate is now making special administrative arrangements following his discussions with the Home Office, in particular, about the provision of a support headquarters to meet the needs of Cardiff. I am not discussing where the operational headquarters should be. I am at the moment discussing whether Cardiff will be efficiently policed under this system. I make that point in order to safeguard myself in the course of discussions.
  I think that I can say—as far as it lies within my power, I am determined that

  1753
  it shall be so—that the fact that the district organisation is not now going on, and the special administrative amendments which are being made, including, in particular, the provision of a support headquarters, will meet the needs of Cardiff in an efficient way so that crime will be kept down as far as is possible. In my view, this is not as suitable as having the unnamable subject based at Cardiff, but the abandonment of the district proposal does not affect the assessment that the amalgamation will increase the efficiency of policing over the whole of the combined area. This is where I start on this matter.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who is a great local patriot, objects, though naturally enough, to the amalgamation of his beloved police force. He is right to be proud of it, and I should not wish anyone to think anything else. There is no reflection on the efficiency of Merthyr or its police force in the scheme for amalgamation. I wish to make that entirely clear to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with him in his view of the need for the local policeman who is known to the local citizens. The unit beat policing system recently introduced is a means of ensuring that there is closer local contact maintained than there was even heretofore.
  My hon. Friend, who, as well as being a local patriot, is always forward-looking in these matters, knows that crime nowadays is not always confined within the boundaries of Cardiff or of Merthyr. Unfortunately, criminals, would-be, potential and actual, travel from one place to another. We must have regard to the mobility of the criminal in these matters.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: My right hon. Friend has been very kind to my constituency, and I appreciate that, but he must be aware that the police in Merthyr Tydvil co-operate without hesitation or difficulty with the police of Monmouthshire, of Glamorgan and of Cardiff, and that they have done so over the years. There has been no difficulty whatever in that respect.
  Mr. Callaghan: I accept that. I ask my hon. Friend to accept in return that a single administration of a force with single communications and with single, united and combined transport will add to
  1754
  the efficiency of policing for the citizens of the area. That is the test. Will it improve the policing of the area?—not will it support the local pride or local stubbornness of any particular police authority? We are not concerned with that here. We are concerned with the efficiency of the policing of the area.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), although I regret the decision of Glamorgan on a particular matter, nevertheless, the fact that Cardiff will not have the place which the House unitedly believes that it should have in this matter will not lead to what he feared, namely, a scandalous waste of money. In other words, the building will be used. It will be used very fully. I have had some discussion with the chief constable of Cardiff about his proposals for it and, subject to the chief constable-designate and the new authority, full use will be made of the building. It may be that in due time the new authority will decide that Cardiff's building should have a different purpose. I shall not particularise more than that. The purpose for which the Cardiff building now exists is rewarding and economic, but it could serve another purpose, and maybe it will. I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire that this is a matter for the policy authority and not for me. I may regret that. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) thought that I should have these powers, but I have not.
  If democracy means anything, it is that there must be an opportunity for police authorities to make their own mistakes, to learn from them, recover from them, and correct them. The pressure of local democracy on the new police authority may lead it to that conclusion.
  I think that I have covered most of the points raised, although I was not here throughout the debate. If I have missed any point, I shall be glad to give way to any hon. Member who wishes to remind me of it.
  Experience elsewhere shows that whatever differences exist before amalgamations of this sort the new forces soon settle down and develop a high morale. As everyone has agreed, the case for amalgamation here is not in doubt. It would be stronger still in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are not

  1755
  for us to determine. I recommend to the House that, despite some of the doubts expressed, it should agree to the Order going through because I cannot see that
  1756
  by delaying it I should stand any greater prospect than I have had up to now of promoting a voluntary scheme.
  Question put and negatived.

  DRILL HALL, TOTTENHAM
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  10.6 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: The proposed use of the Tottenham Drill Hall as a reception centre for homeless men solves a problem for the Department of Social Services, but poses a very serious problem for the part of Tottenham in which it is situated, which is in my constituency. The Department intends to use the drill hall, simply because it happens to be available, to meet its problem of relocating some of the many homeless men who now live in the Camberwell Centre and a variety of other centres in London. No question arises as to the suitability of the drill hall. It just happens to be available, and so far as I can ascertain the Department has made no examination of other possible sites in North London which might be more suitable.
  The building, like so many drill halls, is a great barn of a place which is completely unsuitable for residential purposes. Its adaptation for its proposed new use would be extremely difficult and costly. A figure of about £50,000 has been quoted. In my view that would be totally inadequate, bearing in mind that two small huts which have been erected there have cost £9,000. Even when adapted, the building would hardly be the kind of place in which men could be expected to live and be resettled.
  Not only is the building itself wrong, but it is in the wrong place. More than 3,400 people living in the locality signed a petition which I presented to the Minister, in which they pointed out that the drill hall is less than a quarter of a mile from five infant and primary schools, with Army and Air Force Cadets on the same site, the Boys' Brigade in the Baptist Church next door, the Council's Youth Club in Park Lane opposite, and Scouts and Guides meeting nearby. It is in an area frequented by an unusually high number of children, the majority of whom are between the ages of 5 and 11. Not unnaturally there are considerable fears among parents as to the fright, to put it
  1758
  no higher and no more strongly, which the children in the area will receive when they encounter some of the men who will be using the centre.
  The other point which is of very great importance is that this part of Tottenham is in a state of flux. There has been extensive redevelopment and slum clearance which is still going on. Whole streets of small houses have been torn down and replaced by large blocks of flats. It is one of the Plowden education areas. The schools are out of date and overcrowded and there is almost complete lack of other facilities. An area under stress like this cannot possibly be a suitable place for the rehabilitation of men under stress. Resettlement of men who are unsettled will be extremely difficult in an unsettled community.
  In addition to the other problems this local community faces, once a week, sometimes twice, there is a great influx of all kinds of hooligan elements. The Spurs Football Club is very close to the drill hall and this again presents a great many problems for those living in the area.
  That is the negative aspect of the problem for Tottenham, but on the positive side there is great need for the drill hall to be used as an indoor sports centre. There are many young people in the high blocks of flats in the vicinity and there is little provision for them of any kind of activity of this sort. We desperately need the facilities which the drill hall would offer and it is an ideal building for an indoor sports centre. It could also be combined with some public use and, of course, while the drill hall was being used as a drill hall, the public had access to it by arrangement with the military authorities. If the Ministry takes it over, the public will have no access to the building.
  I assure my hon. Friend that the suburbs of London are not just places where Ministry establishments can be placed without regard to local interests. The reorganisation of London government, redevelopment, road schemes—all these are combining to disintegrate this local community and it is necessary to take positive action to keep the community together and to improve the quality of living and environment. It is more necessary in deprived areas like this

  1759
  than anywhere else, and the area needs relief from some of its problems and not an addition to them.
  This is why when, in November, 1966, the Greater London and South-East Sports Council wrote to Haringey Borough Council, in whose area the drill hall is situated, saying that it was reviewing the use of drill halls and that it regarded the Tottenham Drill Hall as a building highly recommended for indoor sports use, Haringey Council proceeded to apply for the drill hall to be used as an indoor sports centre.
  The Council raised the matter with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and in June 1967 I myself made representations to the Ministry on the Council's behalf for this purpose. It was after this that the Council was informed that the post office and the Ministry of Social Security had an interest in the drill hall and that neither was prepared to withdraw. So when, in February 1968, the Council was asked to give planning approval, it did so with great reluctance but was under the impression that it had no alternative. This is why planning approval was not withheld from the Ministry for use of the drill hall as a reception centre. I stress this because the Council is now renewing its efforts to get the drill hall as an indoor sports centre. I would not want my hon. Friend to think that this is something which has just arisen. It has been a matter of very long standing concern to the Council to provide facilities of this kind in the area.
  There has been no inquiry into the use of the drill hall. It is not normal procedure to have an inquiry and, as a result of there not having been any inquiry, many questions have been unanswered. The people in the area do not know how many men will be using the centre at night. They do not know the type of men. We have been assured by the Ministry that they will not be "meths" drinkers or other undesirables, but I have recently had sent to me a newspaper article drawing attention to the numbers of "meths" drinkers and other undesirable men who have congregated in the Camberwell area in the vicinity of the reception centre. The views of the local police about the use of the centre have
  1760
  not been obtained and there are many other questions to which the local people are entitled to have answers. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is now the Paymaster-General, for coming to see the drill hall for herself and to her successor for his help in considering some of these problems, but there is still a great deal more we need to know.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows quite well that his Department has the power to go ahead with this centre. I am sure that he will say that it will go ahead with this centre at the drill hall. But I ask him to consider that this is a choice between two social needs, between socially deprived men and a socially deprived area. It is a question of sufficient importance for there to be a public inquiry as to which of these needs should be paramount in a consideration of the future use of the drill hall. I know before he speaks that my hon. Friend will not accept my request, for I asked the Minister whether he would hold a public inquiry and he refused. But I am asking again tonight that this be reconsidered, because it is important that local opinion should not be over-ridden in this way.
  Although my hon. Friend may think that once the centre is established, local opinion will simmer down, I can assure him that it will not. Although he may say that this has happened in other areas, it may not have been apparent that opposition continued in other areas, because people know that they do not have power to change these Ministry decisions and that it is too late.
  I ask him to look again at this question of a public inquiry, which is all I am asking. I am asking him not to change the Ministry decision, but to have an inquiry when all points of view may be expressed. It would be a good essay in public relations. It would be an excellent example of a democratic decision publicly arrived at. That is what I am asking tonight and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to the decision.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recognise and sympathise with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood

  1761
  Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) that everything possible should be done to help areas such as Tottenham. But I am confident, too, that the people of Tottenham want to help others as well as to receive help themselves.
  The men we are dealing with at Camberwell, who come from all over London, need help. These are the men who could not keep up, who have nearly dropped out of our modern society, but who have fallen into the safety net which the State has provided through the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  The Supplementary Benefits Commission took over in 1966 the duty placed on the National Assistance Board in 1948 to make provision whereby persons without a settled way of living might be influenced to lead a more settled life. Every night it provides accommodation for upwards of 1,200 men in its 18 reception centres. Nearly half of these men are in London at the Camberwell centre.
  Camberwell on a very cold night has 800 or 900 men sleeping in it. On a more normal night the number may be between 500 and 600 men. They sleep on double bunks, many in dormitories which hold 120 men each. Those who agree to stay for resettlement are only a little better housed.
  All of them share one enormous dining room with bare wooden tables. There are no proper day rooms. The workshop is inadequate for the numbers of men. It looks what it is: a Victorian workhouse of the 1870s in which people are trying to do a 1969 job of work.
  The Camberwell Reception Centre was run by the London County Council up to 1964 as agents for the National Assistance Board. The Board was not happy with the centre then, any more than the Commission is now. Very early on efforts were made to find a site for a second centre, somewhere in north London. Those plans fell through and it was not until the surplus Territorial Army Centres became available—by which time the Commission had become directly responsible for running the Reception Centre—that there was a glimmer of hope that we might be able to set up a series of small units to replace the monstrously outsize unit at Camberwell.
  In the provinces no reception centre houses more than 150 men. The staff can
  1762
  get to know the men and that is the first very necessary step if they are to be influenced to settle down.
  We want these men to find in the reception centres a friendly, though disciplined atmosphere. We know that many of them will respond to it. When they come to the centres some have been sleeping in lodging houses and some have been sleeping rough. When they arrive each man has a bath. If he has any ailments he is encouraged to see the doctor, who calls regularly at the centre. If he is suffering from malnutrition he benefits from the regular meals provided.
  If he needs hospital treatment he is helped to get it. If he is an older man in need of permanent care and attention, the staff collaborate with the local authority in finding him Part III accommodation. A young man who is fit for work is helped, first, to get back into the routine of a normal settled life. Then he is placed in work, but may still live in the centre for a small weekly charge until, finally, he is able to move into lodgings and start living an independent life again.
  About a quarter of the men who use Camberwell Reception Centre are on the borderline between fitness and unfitness for work because of mental disorders. Where necessary, arrangements are made for hospital treatment, but in most cases this is neither necessary nor of use. We find the men need kindness and a measure of care, acceptance by the community, and help to find whatever corner there may be which they can fill.
  About as many are alcoholics or have drinking problems. They are "dried out" and, if they are trying to stay off drink, they are given help and encouragement to build up their self-respect.
  Most of the rest are rather ineffective, inadequate people, who just cannot make their own way or who have at some time suffered a loss or a tragedy which has deprived them of the will to do so.
  Men who come to the reception centres have to hand in any drink they have with them. They are not allowed to drink on the premises. In the mornings they help to clean the place up before leaving.
  Those who agree to stay on for resettlement, help to run the centre itself

  1763
  or do simple work—mainly woodwork—in the workshops. In the evenings most of the men watch television.
  However, some men will not come to reception centres. These are the men who regularly sleep rough on the bomb sites and in derelict houses, and they can be a nuisance. They are the kind of people whom the hon. Member's constituents are bothered about. Such men, who are not attractive, do not want to hand in their bottles and be "dried out" or to accept any kind of rules, however reasonable they may be. But they do not come into an area because there is a reception centre there: rather the reverse.
  My hon. Friend suggests that putting a Reception Centre in Tottenham will result in the area being plagued by undesirable people such as schools of meths. drinkers. I am informed that there may be some confusion here, because all our evidence, including a report from the police suggests that the men using the Camberwell centre present no problem in the neighbourhood. However, there is a voluntary organisation in Camberwell which gives shelter to alcoholics including the crude spirit drinkers, and the local controversy centres round the work of this voluntary body.
  My hon. Friend asks: why choose Tottenham? When the Territorial Army centres became surplus, the normal drill for surplus Government premises was followed. The Ministry of Public Building and Works circulated details to other Government Departments and we, with others, considered all of them to see whether they looked to be convertible and were not too far from central London, accessible by public transport, and with relatively good opportunities for work not too far away. In the event, there were five drill halls scattered round London for which our claim was thought to be stronger than that of any competing Department, and Tottenham was one of them. We want to turn each of them into a Reception and Resettlement Centre for between 100 and 150 men.
  The Ministry of Housing and Local Government later asked us to relinquish the project and let the local authority have the premises. We did not feel able
  1764
  to do this. We have waited a long time for suitable premises and the longer we wait the more costly to maintain the old unsuitable buildings in Camberwell become. These five drill halls provide an opportunity which may not be repeated to achieve an advance in this field at a lower cost than purpose built accommodation. This question of cost has still to be fully worked out and no final decision can be taken until full details are available.
  My hon. Friend referred to the unsuitability for conversion of the drill hall for a reception centre. The professional advice we had from the Ministry of Public Building and Works is that the drill hall can be adapted to meet our requirements unless serious structural problems are discovered. But a conversion such as this obviously is not an ideal solution. It would be better to acquire a site and build from scratch, but, as my hon. Friend will agree, an undertaking of this order in the London area would be prohibitively expensive.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, when she was Minister of Social Security, visited the drill hall and toured the surrounding area with my hon. Friend. She considered all the points put to her with great care, and wrote a long letter going into considerable detail in explaining why she was unable to accept the representations made. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of State for Social Security also visited the drill hall and Camberwell Reception Centre, and, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works, he met my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. I am advised that the matter has been studied very carefully, and we shall certainly look at the points made tonight.
  This is an important piece of social work and, knowing my hon. Friend as I do, I think she knows in her heart of hearts that the job we are trying to do in Camberwell is worth doing. I hope that she, and the people of Tottenham will help us to continue with this very necessary social work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Army General Reserve
  Army General Reserve
  Persian Gulf (British Forces)
  Persian Gulf (British Forces)
  Devonport Dockyard
  Devonport Dockyard
  Aircraft Carriers, Commando Carriers and Cruisers
  Aircraft Carriers, Commando Carriers and Cruisers
  Ordnance Clerical Work
  Ordnance Clerical Work
  Territorial Army (Pay)
  Territorial Army (Pay)
  Flying Training
  Flying Training
  Far East Naval Task Force
  Far East Naval Task Force
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  H.M.S. "Resolution" (Refit)
  H.M.S. "Resolution" (Refit)
  Oceanography
  Oceanography
  Marine Sciences
  Marine Sciences
  Hydrographic Department
  Hydrographic Department
  Coastal Pollution
  Coastal Pollution
  Sea-bed Gravel
  Sea-bed Gravel
  Royal Navy Diving Establishment, Alverstoke
  Royal Navy Diving Establishment, Alverstoke
  Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham
  Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham
  Military Headquarters, Rhinedahlen
  Military Headquarters, Rhinedahlen
  Nuclear Reactor Programme
  Nuclear Reactor Programme
  Marine Science Research (Boom Defence Vessels)
  Marine Science Research (Boom Defence Vessels)
  Leander Class Frigates
  Leander Class Frigates
  Fleet Submarine
  Fleet Submarine
  Recruiting Offices, Brighton
  Recruiting Offices, Brighton
  Cruisers (V/STOL Aircraft)
  Cruisers (V/STOL Aircraft)
  Service Pensions
  Service Pensions
SCOTLAND
  Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee
  Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Schools (Clerical Assistance)
  Schools (Clerical Assistance)
  Primary School Places
  Primary School Places
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Uncertificated Teachers
HOUSING
  Ronan Point Type Blocks
  Ronan Point Type Blocks
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
TRANSPORT
  Speed Restriction Signs (Metrication)
  Speed Restriction Signs (Metrication)
  Car Parking, London
  Car Parking, London
ROADS
  M27, Ower—Chilworth
  M27, Ower—Chilworth
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Currency Speculation
  Foreign Currency Speculation
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Emoluments (Taxation)
  Emoluments (Taxation)
  Decimal Currency (Equipment)
  Decimal Currency (Equipment)
  Inland Revenue Department (Chief Inspector of Taxes Branch)
  Inland Revenue Department (Chief Inspector of Taxes Branch)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  SECURITY COMMISSION
  SECURITY COMMISSION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat Products (Import)
  Meat Products (Import)
  Grendon, Northamptonshire (Flood Alleviation Work)
  Grendon, Northamptonshire (Flood Alleviation Work)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Scientific Establishments
  Scientific Establishments
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Married Women
  Married Women
  Top Salaries (Report)
  Top Salaries (Report)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFADIS
  Ocean Floor
  Ocean Floor
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Marine Environment Development
  Marine Environment Development
  Diplomatic Service
  Diplomatic Service
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Coroners (Committee's Report)
  Coroners (Committee's Report)
  Police (Delivery of Urgent Messages)
  Police (Delivery of Urgent Messages)
  Justices of the Peace (Manual)
  Justices of the Peace (Manual)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
PAYMASTER-GENERAL
  Problems of Youth
  Problems of Youth
POST OFFICE
  Telegrams
  Telegrams
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Installations
  Installations
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Married Women (Pensions and Maternity Grants)
  Married Women (Pensions and Maternity Grants)
  Rent Allowance
  Rent Allowance
  Strikers Families (Supplementary Benefit)
  Strikers Families (Supplementary Benefit)
  Ford Strike (Supplementary and Unemployment Benefit Payments)
  Ford Strike (Supplementary and Unemployment Benefit Payments)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Venereal Disease (Basildon and Brentwood)
  Venereal Disease (Basildon and Brentwood)
HOSPITALS
  Cray Valley and Sevenoaks
  Cray Valley and Sevenoaks
TECHNOLOGY
  Tall Structures (Wind)
  Tall Structures (Wind)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Chrome Imports
  Chrome Imports
  Commonwealth Preferences
  Commonwealth Preferences
  Hamilton (Grants)
  Hamilton (Grants)
  Trade Marks (Registration Fees)
  Trade Marks (Registration Fees)
  Consultancy Aid Scheme
  Consultancy Aid Scheme
  United Kingdom (Norwegian Trade Conference)
  United Kingdom (Norwegian Trade Conference)
  Hearing Aid Council
  Hearing Aid Council
WALES
  Housing (Additional Subsidy)
  Housing (Additional Subsidy)
  Forestry Commission (Jubilee Year)
  Forestry Commission (Jubilee Year)
  Rates
  Rates

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD CONSTANTINE
Sir Learie Nicholas Constantine, K.B.E., having been created Baron Constantine, of Maraval in Trinidad and Tobago and of Nelson in the County Palatine of Lancaster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Brockway and the Lord Beswick.

LABELLING OF MEDICINES
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the increased support in the medical profession and generally for the labelling of medicines, they will make regulations to provide that in the case of National Health Service prescriptions the pharmacist must label all medicines unless the prescribing doctor has indicated that this is not to be done.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, the present convention is that a pharmacist labels a dispensed medicine with the name only when instructed to do so by the prescriber. Any alteration of this convention is a matte' in the first instance for the medical and pharmaceutical professions. I think, however the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that in fact the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society have proposed detailed revised procedures to be adopted for both National Health Service and private prescriptions, on the general basis that in future the name would be written on the
1260
label unless the prescriber gave contrary instructions.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer? In view of its satisfactory nature I will not ask a supplementary question.

WASTE-PAPER STOCKS
2.42 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the representations of the Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council regarding the dangerously low levels of waste-paper stocks, and whether they are taking any action to encourage local authorities to collect waste paper separately from other refuse.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I have seen a statement recently issued by the Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council. It points out that the substantial increase in consumption of waste-paper in 1968 was achieved partly by reduction of stocks. It recommends that local authorities should expand collections of wastepaper, in consultation with their mill and merchant outlets, on the basis of long-term contracts at realistic prices.
Demand for waste-paper is not constant, and past experience has demonstrated the need for better gearing of recovery to demand. The Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council, which is composed of representatives of paper and board mills, waste-paper merchants and local authorities, was formed to keep trends of demand and recovery under review, so as to give advance warning of future requirements. I welcome the efforts of the Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council to provide authoritative forecasts of future demand; these will be especially valuable if they can be broken down by geographical areas. I particularly welcome the emphasis which the Joint Waste Paper Advisory Council places on long-term contracts. I am convinced that contracts which are realistic in terms of duration, price and basic tonnage are the effective way to encourage local authorities to

1261
recover the waste-paper that the mills require.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that there seems to be some controversy in the London area as to whether the responsibility lies with the Greater London Council or with the individual boroughs? There are some areas in London, as I think my noble friend will accept, that have a high proportion of paper disposal. Will he make representations to the G.L.C. to permit borough councils in these areas of high paper disposal to opt out of any G.L.C. general scheme and institute their own collection of newspapers, which could be of a very high order indeed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am not informed in detail on the matter which the noble Lord has raised, but I will have it investigated and, if it suits him, I will write to him on the matter.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could not my noble friend help waste-paper collections by destroying the White Paper that was issued yesterday on the salaries of Chairmen of nationalised Boards, which will surely destroy the Government's prices and incomes policy?

SPEED LIMITS AND BUILT-UP AREAS
LORD FERRIER: 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, in the light of the Statement on speed limits of March 5, they will encourage local authorities to superimpose 40 m.p.h. limits at each end of existing 30 m.p.h. limits in locations where the latter are being treated with particular contempt.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Transport and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales intend
1262
to issue new criteria which will allow some use of such transitional lengths. In cases where a 30 m.p.h. limit is widely disregarded the better course may be to review the limit on the road as a whole, and to consider whether it should be raised on the whole road, or a substantial part of it, to a level where most drivers will accept the need for it and observe it.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will the noble Lord's right honourable friend look into the long time-lag that occurs between recommendations of the local authority and approval from the Ministry or from the Secretary of State, in order to keep that time-lag to a minimum? I further ask the noble Lord whether, if this proposal that a 40 m.p.h. "count down" is to be imposed, his right honourable friend will suggest to the Road Research Laboratory that they might investigate the effectiveness or otherwise of such a "count down" limit?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, I will certainly investigate whether there is an unnecessary time-lag. I think the noble Lord will accept that time-lag there must be.
LORD FERRIER: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: On the second point, I will draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, did the noble Lord use, in his original Answer, the words, "a new criteria"?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I had ever been tempted to do so, the presence of the noble Lord would have been sufficient restraint. I did not do so.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we are already suffering from a surfeit of speed limits, and that any additional limit will only add to the confusion and not help to ease it?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this would not add to the number of speed limits. There are already 30 m.p.h. limits and 40 m.p.h. limits.

GREECE AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Gifford, I ask leave of the House on his behalf to put the Question which is on the Order Paper in his name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their deliberations within the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe they propose to urge that the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly, that Greece be suspended from the Council of Europe, be implemented.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the recommendation made by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on January 30. This does not, of course, recommend the suspension of Greece. We are, however, in close touch with other member Governments about the recommendation it does make.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he saw the extraordinary statement in The Times yesterday, signed by judges, professors and officers of the military forces who have been dismissed in Greece, few of whom could be Communists? In view of the fact that there is now a Commission of Inquiry in Greece, could Her Majesty's Government at least give the assurance that if that Commission of Inquiry reports adversely about the democratic authority of the Greek Government Her Majesty's Government will be able to support its suspension from the Council of Europe?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I did see the item in the Press to which my noble friend refers. As he says, the question of the fitness of Greece to remain a member of the Council of Europe is being investigated at this moment by the European Commission of Human Rights—and I presume that that is the Commission to which he referred. Clearly, it would be quite improper for me to prejudge the findings of that Commission.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, in order that the position may be absolutely clear, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that the recommendation to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, refers was in fact Resolution No. 361 which was passed in January, 1968, and that this resolution was superseded by Resolution No. 547 of January of this year, to which the Prime Minister referred in the other place on February 25 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Col. 1278]?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not, of course, aware of everything that goes on in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. If he was in fact referring to Resolution No. 361 of January, 1968, then the noble Lord is right in his presumption that this has been superseded by the resolution of January of this year. Indeed, the resolution of January this year made reference to Resolution No. 361 and went on to make certain recommendations, which, as I have said, did not specifically include a recommendation to suspend Greece from the Council of Europe.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend (and I am not aware of all that is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Gifford) whether it is not the case that the second resolution which was adopted authorised a Commission of Inquiry, which is now taking place? And will it not be upon the recommendations of that Inquiry that the final decision will be reached?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. This resolution did not authorise the establishment or the operations of the Commission of Human Rights. It made certain recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. If it would be useful to the House, I might briefly recall them. It recommended the Committee of Ministers to take such action within such specified period as is appropriate, having regard to certain articles of the Statute of the Council of Europe and to the resolution of the Assembly. That is what this resolution did.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to unite Europe rather than divide it, as now appears

1265
to be suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot accept that what my noble friend Lord Brockway, or indeed my noble friend Lord Gifford, has said is in any way designed to divide Europe. I have the greatest sympathy for the motives that have led my noble friend to put down this Question and for the motives that have led my noble friend to say what he has just said. I can, however, confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to move towards a united Europe.

PARLIAMENT AND DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on declaration of interest.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MISUSE
2.52 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to draw attention to the problems and dangers of drug dependence and misuse in contemporary Britain; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this House yesterday spent many hours discussing a grave matter of life and death. To-day I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to a grave condition in our society: dependence on and misuse of drugs, a condition which can only too often mean a sort of death-in-life—which can indeed mean death itself—for a growing number of our fellow citizens. I can, I fear, bring no special expertise, unlike some of the speakers who are to follow me in this debate, to this matter. I did once, I must confess, try my hand at hashish when. I was in the Middle East, but the experiment was a total failure, like my other and earlier experiment in cigar smoking as a small boy at
1266
Winchester. I derived no pleasure from it; only intense nausea.
Be that as it may, this is, I believe, a great and growing problem within the doors of our society, and it is right that this House should from time to time take stock of it. That is my simple purpose in proposing this Motion. I do not in fact propose to discuss those drugs, the old familiar friends and killers, like smoking and alcohol, with which most of us are probably fairly well acquainted. I shall concentrate rather on the less familiar area of the opiates and cocaine, the amphetamines and the barbiturates, cannabis and the hallucinogens, about which perhaps we should all, whether we be Parliamentarians or private citizens, or just plain parents, try to learn a little more.
First of all, the very hard drugs, cocaine and heroin, whose treatment is covered by the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967. I suppose that this is the area where the cost of drug dependence, in social waste and in intense personal suffering, is the greatest. In this area, heroin is perhaps the gravest menace. It is of course literally a killer and as often as not it kills indirectly via septicæmia caused by infected syringes. It is only eight years ago. I think in 1961, that we read in the first Report of the distinguished Committee presided over by the late Lord Brain that we had no cause to fear that any real increase in addiction in this area was occurring. I wish that that could be said to-day, in 1969. We can now read in the text of a formidable address delivered by Professor Paton to the British Association last summer that we are now "dealing with a major medical emergency" in this sphere.
And so, my Lords, we are; or so the grim escalation of the statistics would suggest. In 1960 there were only 68 known heroin addicts in this country. By 1966 that figure had become 899. By 1967 it had risen to 1,299; and by last year it had climbed to 2,096—a 30-fold increase in a bare eight years. That may be bad enough, my Lords, but the worst of it is that a new element has recently crept into the national picture of heroin addiction. In 1960 only one known heroin addict in this country was under 20 years of age. By 1964 that one had become 40; by 1966 that 40 had become 300, and by 1968 that 300 had become 785. Thus, heroin addiction is not only searing the lives of

1267
the old and the middle-aged; it is now starting to wreck the lives of young people who have never had a real shot at living.
We should, of course, keep these figures in perspective, By our standards they are beginning to look pretty frightening, but not of course by North American standards. In the United States there are some 60,000 heroin addicts in one city alone—New York. All the same, our national acceleration rate, which suggests that the number of our addicts is doubling about every 18 months, cannot be ignored. Mr. Jeffery, one of the admirable Home Office inspectors for drugs, recently told us that there could be 10,000 or so registered heroin addicts in Britain by 1972. If heroin addiction continues to spread like myxomatosis he may well be right. And what thereafter, if this acceleration rate of doubling every 18 months goes on?
I do not wish to be alarmist and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be able to confirm the very tentative impression which I have formed, that the action which has followed from the 1967 Act may be serving to arrest this grim upward spiral. From the figures with which I have been kindly provided by the Department concerned, there seem to be some hopeful trends. The increase in the number of out-patients at the hospital treatment centres seems to be levelling out; the amount of heroin prescribed by hospital doctors seems to be falling. And we can take some comfort from the apparent fact that about one in seven of a sample of out-patients seem to have withdrawn, maybe only temporarily, from all narcotics.
It is now almost a year since the new system of treatment for these dangerous drugs was started. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us more about that first year's experience and to indicate to us what comfort—and, more important, what lessons—for the future can be drawn from it. Specifically, could he assure me on two particular points? First, I have been struck by the relatively small number—less than 10 per cent.—of in-patients among those addicts attending treatment centres. In our debate on the 1967 Act the noble Lord expressed the view that it is:
"reasonable to suppose that many who attend the centres can be persuaded to attempt a
1268
cure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 20/6/67, col. 1276.]
Is this hope being realised? My second question is this. If I am right (I hope I am), in assuming that the road which leads via over-addiction to heroin addiction is being blocked, are the other, alternative, routes also closed? What can the noble Lord tell us, for example, about the very disturbing report, which I read to-day on the left-hand front column of The Times, that heroin is now being imported, smuggled, into this country? And are there not incipient signs that the flank of the 1967 defences may be being turned by another route?
I wish to tread warily and responsibly in this area, but my information is that in the last few months there has been a sharp but significant increase in the number of persons suffering from addiction to morphia and another narcotic, a synthetic called physeptone. Both these drugs have the same effect as heroin; both are just as dangerous, and both, I understand, are now being prescribed, with a total lack of responsibility, by certain doctors. It would seem that we may still have the Swans and Petros of our outrageous society with us. In this sensitive area I do not wish to press the noble Lord who is to reply for over-much information, but I do wish to press the Government for action.
I now turn briefly to my second chosen area, the amphetamines. I am inclined to think this could be the area which may well present us with the greatest difficulty in the coming years. Of course many of the amphetamines are household names—benzedrine, dexedrine, methedrine, and so on—and have legitimate medical uses. But, like other drugs, they are double-edged weapons; they can only too easily be misused or abused, and such abuse can well involve intense psychic dependence—to use the technical term. To quote the sober words of a World Health Organisation study, referring to amphetamines:
"Although an individual may survive the oral administration of very large quantities, such ingestion may produce profound behavioural changes that are often of a psychotic nature, including hallucinations, illusions, etc."
Given those properties in amphetamines, I was glad to learn (and I hope the noble Lord can confirm that this is so) that the Advisory Committee of which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of

1269
Abinger, is the Chairman—and I am very glad that she is able to take part in this debate to-day—are now seized of the amphetamine problem. It is, of course, a large one. Nearly 4 million prescriptions for amphetamines were made out in this country in 1965, comprising a total of some 100 million tablets. Here again, American experience can show us what we may be in for. There, some 10,000 million amphetamines and barbiturates are manufactured each year, and it is estimated that of this total perhaps 5.000 million tablets are sold illegally. That, my Lords, is quite a lot of tablets. And there is a major security problem here. In London alone, in 1966, over 650,000 tablets were stolen, 800 prescription forms were forged and 500 blank prescription forms were stolen. I understand that regulations covering the security of these supplies in factories and wholesale depots and chemists' shops are now being drafted. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that those regulations will soon be laid before Parliament.
Amphetamines, of course, cover a wide spectrum. But I am particularly concerned at what I have learned about the increasing tendency for amphetamine tablets not only to be swallowed orally but also to be dissolved in water and to be injected intravenously. This gives a far greater and quicker "kick" to the human brain and the human body. I understand that the problem here centres largely on methedrine. In Sweden something of a cult surrounds the intravenous injection of this drug. Methedrine absorbed in this way can, I understand, lead to a psychotic condition with very dangerous paranoic tendencies. I am glad to say that, from what I have learned, this mad craze has not really caught on in this country. I am also glad to learn that last autumn the pharmacological industry reached an understanding with the Government, by voluntary agreement, to restrict the supplies of methedrine exclusively to hospitals. This seems to me to be a wholly admirable piece of common sense and self-discipline on behalf of those concerned, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm that this arrangement is watertight and working well.
The other area of drug dependence on which I want to touch is that of the hallucinogens—the drugs which alter the
1270
senses: marajuana, cannabis, pot—call it what you will—LSD, STP, and so on. Cannabis, as your Lordships well know, has recently been the subject of—I was going to say a controversial Report, but I will say a Report which has aroused some controversy, by the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, of which the Chairman is Sir Edward Wayne. The sub-committee which did the donkey work was presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I should like first to say that those who wish to criticise the Report—and I shall voice some criticisms of it—should first read it. Personally, I have found it quite absorbing, not least the review by Sir Aubrey Lewis, who is, I suppose, the most distinguished neurologist of his generation in this country, of the vast literature on the subject. This review is attached as an Appendix to the Report.
Given the emotion which surrounds this subject, it was perhaps inevitable that this Report should have aroused controversy. What I find less excusable and less inevitable is that the Committee's carefully considered and carefully weighed views should have been so distorted in certain instances. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who has only just returned to this country, will be speaking in this debate. She is well able to defend herself and her committee. I am not saving that she is necessarily méchante, although I think at times she can be, but in any case, "cette animale se defend bien". However, some of the comment on this Report has been so distorted that I feel, even though the noble Baroness is here, I must just say a word on it. For example, it has been claimed that the Committee stated that cannabis consumption was not dangerous. A glance at paragraph 71 of the Report will show that that is not the case.
Then it has been claimed that the Report recommends the legalisation of cannabis. Once again, a glance at paragraph 71 demonstrates the falsehood of that assertion. To quote the Committee's words:
"We conclude, therefore, that in the interests of public health it is necessary to maintain restrictions on the availability and use of this drug."
I personally cordially agree. More surprisingly—and I must confess thought just a little unworthily—the Home Sec-

1271
retary himself has suggested that the authors of the Report may have been unduly influenced by the pro-pot lobby.
The Committee's central recommendations—or at least those on which comment has fastened—concern the penalties for the possession of, and trafficking in, cannabis. At present, as I would remind your Lordships, the maximum penalties are: on summary conviction a £250 fine or 12 months' imprisonment, or both; and on conviction on indictment, £1,000 or 10 years, or both. These are also the penalties which apply to heroin and the other opiates, and the Committee's central recommendation was that:
"the association in legislation of cannabis with heroin and other opiates is inappropriate and new legislation to deal specially and separately with cannabis."
should soon be introduced. They then went on to recommend that the existing penalties for cannabis should be lowered.
I frankly say that I have found myself torn on this question. Much of the Committee's argument I have found compelling. It seems to me to be a nonsense to lump heroin and cannabis together in our legislation—their effects are so utterly different. It seems all the more a nonsense when one reflects that we rightly regard and treat the wretched heroin addict as a patient and not as a criminal. Moreover, if this seems a bit of a nonsense to me—a 50-year old "square" Peer—how much more of a nonsense is it likely to seem to some of the younger generation? If we allow too large a gap to appear between legality and what they hold to be reality we are only too liable to encourage an element of sheer defiance among the young. My feelings on all this are reinforced by paragraph 80 of the Report, where one reads that 17 per cent. of cannabis first offenders are sent to prison.
Yet, my Lords, I have my doubts. In the first place, it is obvious that we are still groping in the dark. We do not even fully understand the chemistry of cannabis itself. Nor do we know very much about the interaction between cannabis smoking and other forms of drug taking. The Committee state quite categorically that:
"it can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis does not lead to heroin addiction".
1272
But can it, my Lords? Sir Aubrey Lewis himself confirms in his survey which is attached to the Report that there is support for
"the view that marijuana users are more likely than non-users to progress to opiate addiction".
And in his address to the British Association, from which I have already quoted, Professor Paton quite firmly states—and again I quote his words:
"I think one is bound to conclude that there is, at least for our culture, a far closer connection between cannabis and the opiates than is generally recognised".
If one accepts this view, that there may well be a progression from relatively harmless cannabis (if one may so describe it) to the highly lethal and dangerous drugs, then surely there is a strong case for proceeding cautiously. But at the end of the clay, one has to declare one's stance on these matters. I have considerable sympathy with the Home Secretary's view that unless we are faced by some emergency we should not legislate for one drug alone. I would not therefore myself—and here I am speaking quite personally—favour an immediate change in the law relating to cannabis. Nevertheless the equivalence of pot and its penalties with heroin and its penalties, I must confess sticks in my gullet. So does the equivalence of penalties in this field for the trafficker and the consumer. I should myself hope that we could introduce a separate offence in this area for possession with intent to supply compared with possession with intent merely to consume—with the former offence attracting far more stringent penalties. When we legislate—and I hope that the Government will soon legislate in this area—I would go some way with Wootton. I would personally accept her lower penalties or something like them for mere possession. But I would opt for a separate offence for trafficking in cannabis, if this can be devised, and the higher penalty for that suggested by Mr. Brodie, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his note of reservation to the Report.
So much for the drugs themselves. May I, as I come to the end of my remarks, offer one or two more general observations? First of all, there is the Government machinery. Some doubts have been expressed before about the adequacy of the Government machine

1273
to tackle this growing problem. Both here and in another place there has been pressure for a more powerful focus of Government authority. I understand that although other Ministries and Departments are deeply engaged, the commander-in-chief on this front is the Home Secretary. Is there under the Home Secretary sufficiently powerful machinery—I should have thought there was a case for something like a standing inter-departmental Committee under a Minister of State—co-ordinating and driving forward the work of the various Ministries? One reason why I ask this question is my understanding that even at the Home Office there is no Assistant Secretary engaged full time on this grave and infinitely complex problem.
Next, there is legislation. I am glad that the Home Secretary has foreshadowed new and comprehensive legislation in this field. The present law here is complex and scattered. We need, I believe, to codify. New drugs and new ways of taking old drugs, sometimes just as important, spread with the speed of a prairie fire. We need to introduce a quicker and more flexible procedure. We also need to close some obvious loopholes. All that I can accept. Where I am less certain is whether in framing new legislation the Government should pursue the 1967 Drugs Act route or whether they should pursue the Brain route, if I may so term it; namely, to try, as recommended by Lord Brain in his Second Report, to secure a far greater measure of quick response from and self-discipline by the medical profession and the pharmacological industry. I personally believe that there is a lot to be said for going the Brain way if we possibly can. In any event, the Government would be wise to encourage public discussion of these issues—they are very difficult ones indeed—before they seek to legislate. I hope the noble Lord will therefore be able to confirm that there will be legislation next Session and that it will be preceded by a White Paper.
My Lords, this is a vast field. There is so much else that I could ventilate: the absolute necessity for more research; the relationship between drugs and delinquency; the problem of drugs and school education; the police powers of search and arrest—and I am glad that there is a sub-committee of the Advisory Com-
1274
mittee under my right honourable friend, Mr. Deedes, looking into this matter; the relationship between road safety and drug dependence; the crying need for greater public understanding and information, and so on. But I shall confine my concluding remarks to one need on which I personally feel very strongly, the absolutely crying need to put more drive behind the rehabilitation of the drug addict.
I must ask the noble Lord to tell us what the Government's plans in this field are. I understand that a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee under Mr. Blenkinsop have drawn attention to the need for more hostels. Some months ago the Ministry of Health issued a slim memorandum on rehabilitation, calling for more hostels and suggesting that this was a good area for voluntary endeavour. Extrapolating my experience in other fields, I am sure that Blenkinsop and the Ministry of Health are right. But where are the hostels—where? I was talking last night to a very distinguished practitioner in this field. He told me that if he wished to get one ex-addict into a hostel in the London area this would simply not be possible for him.
This is a very serious matter and a very serious deficiency. There are now over 1,000 people attending treatment centres in London alone. This has been going on for nearly a year. Some have been cured; some will be cured. But all will need support—many, I suspect, in hostels. Without that support they will relapse, and then the whole dreary cycle of relapse and infection will start again. But the problem is not only a problem of bricks and mortar—that is the easiest side of it to remedy: it is a deficiency in skills as well. I am sure that there is a real part for the voluntary worker to play here, but there is also a need for specialised skills. It is not as if something could not be done here. I am convinced it can. New York, for example, with the Phoenix House Organisation working under the New York City Agency, have shown what can be done, given the impulse and support from above, given the resources and given the right leadership. But what is happening here in this country and in this city? I understand that the London Boroughs Committee of the G.L.C. is looking favourably at the idea. I know that there

1275
are splendid organisations like the Richmond Fellowship, eager to help. But can the noble Lord tell us when all this is going to get off the ground? Above all, can he tell us what the Government propose to do?
Before I quit this field and leave it for other more informed speakers, may I say just this? As I have tried to learn a little more about this taxing problem—one of the most demanding and difficult with which our society has to cope—I have become more and more conscious not only how little I understand about it but also how baffling it is even to the experts. But one thing I have learned We may approach this matter of drug dependence and abuse from a moral standpoint. That I can very readily appreciate. Nevertheless, unless we recognise that we are also faced with an infectious disease, and one which could all too readily assume epidemic proportions, we are likely as a society to find ourselves in very deep water indeed. There really is here a need for speed and a need for speedy action. I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be as grateful as I am to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising the very important drugs issue at a time when the Report on Cannabis is still very fresh in our minds. We are grateful to him also for the wide terms in which his Motion is drawn, and, if I may say so, for the very objective and helpful speech which he has just made, although, as he will appreciate, he has posed to me rather more questions than it would be tolerable for me to attempt to answer. I will do my best with as many as possible, and my noble friend Lady Scrota, who is to wind up the debate, will deal with some of the other points.
I would assure your Lordships that we regard this as an extremely important debate and that every word said here will be most carefully studied. I should like in the course of answering the noble Earl's points to single out, as it were, some features of the general position and try to put them, as he himself said, in perspective, and I hope helpful perspective.
1276
I would first stress the need for a sense of proportion and a realistic attitude. The other day I was present at the opening of a conference in Westminster about addictions. The agenda covered drugs, alcoholism, smoking and gambling, all serious social problems. But the newspapers reported only the speeches on drug-taking and its dangers. They seem to think that the drug problem is special, even though fewer people are affected by misuse of drugs than misuse of alcohol, or indeed by the other addictions I mentioned. Perhaps it is because it is a new problem in the Western world and therefore alien and malign and a direct indictment of our way of life. One finds the drug problem described as a "scourge" or "menace" which should be "stamped out". I am quite sure that the noble Earl will agree with me that stamping is least likely to do any good. We live in a drug-using society and are subject to intense personal pressures and conditions for which drugs are an immediate relief. Drugs have come to stay. Our task is to come to terms with them.
I am glad that my noble friend Baroness Wootton of Abinger has returned to us from the Far East like a lion refreshed. After shedding her light over Asia she is in time to favour us with pearls of wisdom. After a lifetime devoted to social reform in this country my noble friend is no stranger to controversy or the roughness of the stony path trodden by reformers. Even so, my noble friend must, unfortunately, have been sorely tried by some of the more personal attacks for her part in producing the Report on Cannabis. It was understandable, if scarcely necessary, that the Advisory Committee at their last meeting should have declared their complete confidence in her and in their Chairman. The Advisory Committee have come to know, as we have long known, my noble friend's honesty, humanity of purpose, and outstanding intellectual gifts. We can be more confident of successfully dealing with the drug problem while we have her at our side.
My Lords, it is fitting that I should begin as did the noble Earl, with some remarks about the Advisory Committee's Report on Cannabis. It was the first appraisal of its kind. We are all most

1277
grateful to my noble friend and her colleagues for producing such an informative, clear and readable analysis (I stress "readable" because I think one can detect my noble friend's hand in it) even though, as the Committee explained, the Report could not be regarded as either final or definitive. It is unfortunate that controversy over penalties overshadowed much of great and continuing value in the Report. In my personal view the most notable feature was the declaration by this distinguished Committee including eminent doctors, that whilst cannabis is a "potent" and "dangerous" drug, it is, in terms of physical harmfulness very much less dangerous than the opiates, amphetamines and barbiturates, and also less dangerous than alcohol. It may comfort some noble Lords in view of those last words, that the Report also says,
"that alcohol, with all its problems, is in some sense the 'devil we know'; cannabis, in Western society, is still an unknown quantity".
It was the Committee's own decision to look first at this subject, but their initiative proved particularly timely when public interest was stimulated by The Times advertisement in 1967, and by controversy abroad about the dangers of the drug.
It is easy to underestimate the difficulties which faced the Committee. Cannabis is a drug whose active principles have yet to be fully understood and made readily detectable. It has no medical value. It comes from abroad where it is also prohibited. The literature about it is vast and confusing. We do not yet know its effects upon our own society, or what long-term effects it may produce on individuals. It is to the credit of the Committee that the Report went beyond stating these negatives. Instead, for the first time in the United Kingdom, an attempt was made to measure the apparent harmfulness of a drug from a wider frame of reference; to translate that measurement into the terms of the criminal law; and, as it were, to make "the punishment fit the crime". This constructive approach led the Committee to recommend recasting of the general drugs law, further inquiry into police powers and further study of possible refinements in the nature of the offence of unauthorised possession. The Report makes clear beyond dispute that there
1278
must be co-ordination of policy and a common frame of purpose for dealing with individual drugs. Where my right honourable friends and I differ from the Committee is which should have first priority, alteration of cannabis penalties, or general recasting of the law.
I do not want to go into detail about the Committee's views about the use of penalties by the courts. Since the Report was published, there has been further controversy about whether, and if so to what extent, there is a link between cannabis-taking and subsequent heroin addiction. There has also been some comment in the Journal of the Probation Service seeking to show that the courts in disposing of cannabis offenders have been less severe than the Committee asserted.
The two crucial issues to which want to draw your Lordships' attention are these. The Committee forecast wider use of cannabis and recommended recasting of the law, further research, further inquiry into police powers, and further study of the offence of possession. Would it, in the face of these recommendations, be sensible to make immediate drastic reductions in maximum penalties? Would it be desirable to do so without assessing or preparing public opinion? In my view the answer must surely be, "No". The primary objective of even reduced penalties which the Committee still recommend—to deter and discourage use and trafficking of the drug—would be defeated if the public were not properly prepared to understand the meaning of such a move.
So long as misuse of drugs is subject to the criminal law, penalties must have a special significance. No doubt they must and will be changed from time to time. But multiple drug use and scientific, social and political factors will always make it difficult to relate the penalties simply and directly to the accepted harmfulness of an individual drug. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Wootton and her colleagues fully appreciate these points, and accept the Government's view that their recommendations on penalties would be best reviewed in a general revision of the law.
I turn now from, as it were, opinion, to the facts of what has been achieved by our legislation on hard drugs. As I

1279
think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned, a year ago we were understandably impatient and perhaps sceptical about what would be achieved by the hospital treatment centres. It is the more pleasing that I am able to report that the work of these centres has already made a significant contribution to the battle against drug addiction. Two major problems faced us: how many heroin addicts would there prove to be, and under what conditions would they be prepared to attend, and continue to attend, hospital clinics? On the first point, we made the best estimate possible from such information as was known; this was that there would be about 1,200 in the whole country of whom about 1,000 would be in London. On December 31 last there were 1,252 of whom 985 were in the London area. We made a remarkably accurate estimate. That figure has remained fairly constant in the most recent months after the expected high rate of increase in the early months. Thus, once the hospital facilities were fully developed, they have been able to cope with the demand made on them.
The second problem of persuading addicts to attend hospital clinics regularly was the more difficult. The object was to halt the upward trend in heroin addiction. But could this be achieved by a tough policy of cutting down dosages drastically, perhaps refusing heroin, and offering only a substitute drug? It certainly could not be achieved by continuing the high level of prescribing which had been criticised by the Brain Committee, so we followed the middle way of a gradual reduction in individual doses—in many cases complete withdrawal has been possible—with the overall object of reducing the total pool of heroin available from which excess supplies could be obtained and silently traded.
In this we are succeeding. Last August the average total amount of heroin supplied to addicts was 145 grammes per working day—that was the size of the heroin pool, about 5 oz. per day. By January the daily heroin pool had fallen to 111 grammes, about 4 oz., a drop of over 23 per cent. Let me illustrate what this means to individual patients. In December we made a survey of 702 patients under treatment for heroin addiction. It was not the lot, but a very sub-
1280
stantial number. This showed that out of that 702, 214 were receiving heroin on a non-reducing basis (but also on a non-increasing basis); 217 were on reducing doses; and 271 had been weaned from heroin altogether. Of this last group as many as 111 were off all narcotics. The noble Earl asked me if I could give any indication of whether our hopes of cures were being realised. I know it is early days, but that begins to give real hope.
The noble Earl also asked me about the in-patient figures. The position is that at any one time there are about 100 heroin addicts undergoing in-patient treatment, and they represent, as I think he said, one in twelve of those undergoing hospital treatment of one kind or another. But, as I have already indicated, out-patient treatment has led to this significant number of withdrawals from heroin, and in-patient treatment alone is no indication of the extent to which patients are being weaned from heroin. I think that this success in so short a time not only shows a very hopeful trend but reflects very great credit on the hospital staffs concerned.
The noble Earl spoke about a forecast, a somewhat alarming forecast, of the possible continued escalation in numbers, and made reference to Mr. Jeffery of the Home Office. I am glad he raised this point because it gives me the opportunity of telling your Lordships that Mr. Jeffery was not expressing a Home Office conjecture; he was referring to an estimate made by a Research Institute in New York which was based on a simple projection of the early trend, and his words were taken out of context.
No one can be certain about the future in this subject, and I am not saying that we can yet draw any firm conclusions about the future, but certainly we reject the forecast that the noble Earl mentioned and we direct attention to this and to other encouraging pointers to a diminution of the heroin problem. The number of new cases notified by hospitals has fallen from the rate of over 38 a week when the legislation first became operative, to less than eight a week in January. Set against the upward curve which was noted by the Brain Committee, that is very significant. It is also not without significance, as the noble Earl himself said, that problems with other

1281
drugs have arisen—serious problems which we are facing. So far as his mention of morphia was concerned, I have no evidence to confirm the suggestion that has been made to him about a transfer to and increase in use of morphia. Because I have no evidence, it does not mean that it is not happening; I am merely saying that we are not aware of it at present. But this change is another indication that at least to that extent we are beginning to be successful in the campaign on the heroin front which he said is the killer, the worst of all.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse my interrupting, could he tell me, in taking into account these figures as far as the new centres are concerned, how many heroin addicts formerly unknown to the Home Office have now declared themselves and therefore swelled the numbers? This would have been likely to happen, particularly at the beginning, when the new centres were starting to operate. Could he say, therefore, whether the decline in new known heroin addicts is a real figure or somewhat illusory?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I quite follow my noble friend's point, but I would ask him to let me deal with these figures—they are difficult to grasp—in the course of my speech, when I will answer the point that he has raised. I first wanted to deal with the matter the noble Earl raised: that medical treatment is not adequate by itself; that drug dependence is as much a social as a medical problem, and patients need support. All the hospital clinics dealing with significant numbers of heroin addicts have the services of social workers, who have a vital role to play in the patients' rehabilitation. The recommendations made a year ago from the Advisory Committee were very valuable to us in pointing to this need in out-patient clinics where the process of rehabilitation begins.
When the patient is off drugs, often after a spell of in-patient treatment, his social needs assume even greater importance. Many drug addicts have told me personally, when I have seen them in clinics, "We must have support when we go outside; otherwise we have no confidence that we shall not be back again", and all the good work of the hospital
1282
can be undone if the patient does not get the support he needs. This support is in the form of counselling from social workers, and in some cases, as the noble Earl indicated, special accommodation will be required for those who, for one reason or another, cannot be discharged to a suitable home. This is a responsibility of local authorities. Advice has already been passed to them on these aspects, and I look forward to the publication shortly of the Advisory Committee's final Report on this subject which my right honourable friends will be commending to all the statutory authorities concerned. I know that the noble Earl is perfectly well aware of my own anxieties on this particular point and the pressures which are needed.
I want now to deal with the subject which was just raised in an intervention by my noble friend, namely, the number of heroin addicts. I said just new that on December 31 1,252 addicts were receiving treatment at approved centres. But on the same date, as the noble Earl mentioned, the Home Office had received 2,096 first notifications of persons found or suspected to be addicted to heroin. At first sight it would appear that mote than 700 are not being treated at approved centres. Fortunately, there are reasons for believing that this large gap is more apparent than real. Before 1968, our information about individual cases of addiction was obtained from routine police examination of records kept by pharmacists of prescriptions for dangerous drugs and by other means, and from this information the Home Office established each year an index of individual persons known to be regularly receiving supplies of dangerous drugs without therapeutic justification. These figures did not purport to represent a current addict population at any given date. They simply indicated the numbers of persons coming to notice in a given year who were described as addicts.
Since February 22, 1968, when the Notification Regulations came into operation, every doctor has been under a duty to notify particulars of any patient found or suspected to be addicted. Since April 16 last, when the Addicts Regulations came into force, the supply of heroin to addicts has been confined to licensed doctors at hospital treatment centres. These changes have introduced two new

1283
sources of information from which I want to give a provisional assessment of the position as it appeared at December 31 last. I stress the word "provisional", because the "numbers game" with drug users is notoriously difficult, and it is easy to gain, and to give, false impressions. Of the 2,096 first notifications, 1,562 were made by hospitals. 295 came from other institutions and 239 from general practitioners; but 149 notifications from these sources were subsequently repeated by hospitals. That is one duplication.
I would make three general comments. First, the Regulations do not require a doctor submitting a notification to declare whether he is convinced of the patient's addiction or to confirm or deny suspicions about addiction. Second, the doctor is not required to "de-notify"—for example, if the patient dies, moves away or transfers to a non-narcotic drug. Third, a doctor is not required to notify changes regarding the particular drug prescribed or administered. A general practitioner may notify addiction to heroin and then treat the patient by a substitute drug without reporting this. There are a number of possible reasons why some people did not present themselves at a hospital by December 31—for instance, death, emigration, serving a prison sentence, reversion to illicit heroin, transfer to a drug other than heroin, and of course not being truly addicted to heroin. It is significant that some 612 second and subsequent notifications were received from prison doctors among 1,612 such notifications received by December 31. All these facts account for the difference.
In any case, my Lords, I do not think that the picture needs more elaboration. The notification scheme brought to light more than 1,000 possibly addicted persons previously unknown, most of whom have been seen by the treatment centres. The number who remain unnotified is anyone's guess, but it does not appear likely to be substantial. The weekly rate of notification has been steadily dropping for some time. Allowing for the unknowns, the doubtful diagnoses, the dropouts, the experimenters, and the addicts withdrawn from the drug by treatment, the current number of addicts seems to be rather smaller than some of the estimates freely made before the new
1284
measures came into force. Of course it is too early to say whether the spread of heroin addiction has been checked or is petering out. But it is certainly our view that the measures recommended by the Brain Committee are proving to be of great value.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned the report in The Times to-day of heroin being smuggled into this country. So far, the seizures have been few and the amounts very small. The information so far available is too meagre for us to speculate about likely trends or implications for the treatment centre system. There is no evidence as yet that organised traffickers are trying to exploit heroin addiction in this country. Everyone knows the risks of such a development and the Department and enforcement authorities will continue to watch the situation very closely.
I turn to some recent problems. It is a feature of drug addiction that as fast as one problem appears to be near solution another takes its place. When the restrictions were applied to the prescribing of heroin and cocaine certain doctors began to prescribe large amounts of injectable methylamphetamine, better known as methedrine. Abuse of this drug, considered by many experts to be potentially more dangerous than heroin, started to spread rapidly. As an indication of what one evilly disposed doctor can do, Dr. Petro, in the month of May last year, was know to have prescribed 24,000 ampoules of methedrine to 110 patients. That is an average of over 200 per patient in a single month. That was just one doctor. It gives some idea of the kind of problem which we are up against when one has a few rotten apples like that in the barrel.
Unfortunately, we had no suitable powers of statutory control available to us in respect of methedrine, but with the ready support of the medical and pharmaceutical professions my right honourable friend, the then Minister of Health, introduced last October a scheme for the voluntary restriction of supplies of injectable methedrine to hospital pharmacies only. These arrangements have satisfactorily resolved the methedrine problem, at least for the time being. But we must watch it. But "one down t'other come up"; and we then began to see the prescribing of powdered amphetamine,

1285
clearly for intravenous injection in solutions. Again, no suitable statutory powers were available to check it. My right honourable friend, the then Minister of Health took prompt action to check this development, and after consultation with the medical profession the Pharmaceutical Society recently issued a warning to its members against dispensing any prescription for powdered amphetamine. We believe that this will be similarly successful, particularly as the B.M.A. have just made the welcome statement that there is no justification for prescribing amphetamine in powdered form.
It would be wrong, my Lords, to conclude from these recent experiences that over-prescribing by doctors is the beginning and end of the drug problem. The matter is much larger than that. The doctor has as important a part to play as the drugs industry, but his problem is one of particular difficulty. In, I believe rightly, regarding the heroin addict and other drug dependent persons as patients, and offering treatment, we expose the doctor to the pressure of his patient's craving. If all doctors prescribe responsibly and cautiously the challenge can be withstood. But once drug users find a compliant doctor, not only is there a risk that he will create the nucleus of an epidemic, but other doctors are put under special pressure to conform, so as to keep their patients. There is a very delicate balance here of which the staff in the treatment centres already have much experience, and about which they inevitably feel concern when prescribing by general practitioners seems to threaten their own dedicated efforts. I will leave it to my noble friend Lady Serota to say more about this aspect. But it is clear that as more and more stimulants, sedatives and tranquillisers are developed, new abuses and new dangers will threaten the delicate balance to which I have referred. For this reason it is particularly heartening that the B.M.A. have decided to set up a working party to explore with my right honourable friend ways of preventing the misuse of potentially dangerous drugs.
That brings me to the much-needed revision of the law. Our present drugs law was mainly constructed before the United Kingdom had a drug abuse problem, and we have added to it piecemeal. It is plainly unsatisfactory. First, it is
1286
fragmentary. We have restrictions of sale to prescription only: that is under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1935. The Dangerous Drugs Acts 1965 deals only with substances controlled under the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961; the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 is available for yet other drugs, such as amphetamines, LSD. The Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 gives power to regulate the notification of, and the prescribing to, addicts of 1965 Act Single Convention drugs. Secondly, the law is inadequate. The 1965 Act contains absolute prohibitions on opium prepared for smoking, but it does not allow for total prohibition of other substances controlled internationally and scheduled in the Act—for example heroin. The 1967 Act does not provide for control of over-prescribing of all drugs liable to abuse, or for reporting all forms of drug dependence. The 1964 Act authorises possession for a variety of professional purposes, but gives no power to control either manufacture, supply or export.
Thirdly, the law is inflexible. If the international authorities decide to schedule a drug under the Single Convention, Section 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 obliges us to schedule it under that Act. But Section 12 does not conversely allow us to schedule a substance in the Act on our own initiative. The controls under the 1965 Act are largely applied by regulations which have stood without much change for many years. New drugs are subject to this common code. The 1964 Act does not allow the Home Secretary to limit authorised possession; and although it requires manufacturers and dealers to be registered, it does not allow him to limit the numbers on the register. If a new drug is scheduled, all those given authority to possess under the Act, and all those already on the register, have their authority automatically enlarged.
In the light of recent experience and the challenges ahead, there is a clear risk that each new fashion of drug abuse will find new gaps in the defences which can be plugged only by voluntary steps or by ad hoc legislation like the 1967 Act. There is great temptation to plug the holes with more ad hoc legislation. We must resist it. What is needed is a single comprehensive code covering the

1287
whole field of drug abuse; a code which would rationalise and strengthen the Government's powers and enable us to deal selectively and flexibly (flexibly above all) with individual substances whether produced by the industry or by the "underground".
The Home Secretary has made clear that he will be looking to the Advisory Committee for their full help and advice in preparing this legislation. A subcommittee has been working for several weeks now reviewing police powers of arrest and search as recommended in the Cannabis Report. Another sub-committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Wootton is studying the problem of central nervous stimulants and the hallucinogens. We hope that conclusions from these studies will be available for consideration in the legislative programme.
The Home Secretary is also continuing his consultations with the Law Commission about the desirability of modifying the drugs law to exclude absolute liability and will take account of the Advisory Committee's recommendations in this regard. We intend to consider further the recommendations in the Cannabis Report for possible redefinition of the offence of possession. Much careful consultation will be needed if new legislation is to be soundly based, but my right honourable friend is determined to bring forward proposals without delay and we are working on them with this object in view. I cannot be more definite than that. I can only hope that "soon" will be soon. The noble Earl asked whether it might be a good idea for the Government to issue a White Paper outlining their proposals for new legislation. I assure him that his suggestion will be carefully considered, though of course I cannot commit myself this afternoon.
The law is important, but legislation alone cannot solve the drugs problem. There is one important field, however, in which sensible precautions can do much to protect the public, and in particular young people, from "exposure" to drugs. That is the safe keeping of drugs. I do not wish to exaggerate the threat from that source, but there is continuing evidence that retail chemist shops are vulnerable to attack by break-
1288
ing and entering, and that wholesale manufacturing chemists continue to lose substantial quantities of tablets through pilfering, and from the occasional large-scale robbery. We have worked out a specification, in consultation with the police and other experts, for constructional standards for safes, cabinets and stores. There are points still to be settled; for example, about the value of alarm systems, particularly in the larger premises.
It must be remembered that in dealing with drugs scheduled under the 1964 Act, we are dealing with much larger quantities than with the so-called dangerous drugs. Some requirements will have to be determined according to the circumstances of the individual premises and this will be done through the Home Office Inspectors. Consultations with the various interests have been going forward and we hope to be in a position soon to prepare a draft set of regulations for agreement with them. But I cannot, for reasons which the noble Earl will appreciate, yet say when the regulations will be laid.
I turn, finally, to the important subject of research. Behind all our concern about the drug problem and its future resources lies the basic question: why people misuse drugs and fall victim to dependence. If we knew the answer to that we should be a long way on the road to understanding what we should do. Our ignorance is enormous, and it is no comfort that it is shared by the international bodies and other communities overseas. We cannot assume that better knowledge will be quickly available. I assure your Lordships, however, that we fully appreciate the importance of research and will do all we can to encourage and promote promising lines of inquiry. One difficulty is the vast range of relevant material to be explored. Another is to avoid waste of effort by selecting the significant fields for study.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will no doubt have something to say on this subject. He is a member of the Council of the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence, which is holding a reception in your Lordships' House on April 1 to celebrate its first anniversary, and next month has arranged a scientific symposium on the chemistry and botany of

1289
cannabis. The Government warmly welcome the establishment of this body and look forward to co-operating with its programme of studies and other activities. Noble Lords will have noted from the professional journals that the momentum of drugs research is increasing. The Advisory Committee's Report on Cannabis made some important recommendations which have been brought to the attention of the Medical Research Council and the Social Science Research Council. Meanwhile the Addiction Research Unit, established by my right honourable friend the former Minister of Health in 1967, has been extending its range of activities. Plans have been made to exploit information collected by the treatment centres.
We have learned a good deal in the past few years, particularly about the value of the inter-disciplinary approach. Much, however, has still to be done to harness effort from official sources and voluntary organisations of all kinds. It is tempting to think that we could do better if control and responsibility were placed in some specialist central body. There are precedents overseas for this, though constitutional and other circumstances are very different in those cases. We do not have closed minds towards such a possibility, but the problems need very careful study in the context of our administrative and other arrangements. At the present time we think that our machinery is working effectively enough and my right honourable friends are satisfied that no changes are called for at present. I am confident that at the end of the day, although we may differ on details, we shall be at one in our concern about the dangers to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has drawn attention, and I hope I have convinced your Lordships that the Government have demonstrated, and will increasingly demonstrate, their resolve to meet them with realism and resource.

PARLIAMENT AND DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat to your Lordships a Statement that has been made
1290
by the Prime Minister in another place. It is as follows:
"The House will recall that on 4th March I was asked by my honourable friend the Member for West Fife 'Whether in view of the increasing number of honourable Members being remunerated by outside bodies, he will re-examine the desirability of legislation to establish a public register of such interests.' I said that the Government were continuing to watch the position and in answers to Questions by the right honourable and learned gentleman the Member for East Hertfordshire referred to the disparity between the treatment, so far as this House is concerned, of honourable Members who are required by long-established practice to declare their interest, and others who are not so required.
"I should now like to tell the House the results of the Government's examination of the issues raised.
"As I have more than once suggested there are two separate issues here.
"The first is the position of Members of Parliament who by virtue of some paid connection with an outside interest, be it domestic or overseas, are involved in matters which are the concern of Parliament and of Government. As I indicated in reply to my honourable friend, it is important that the position of such Members should be made clear in all matters which affect their responsibilities to the House and to their Parliamentary colleagues.
"This is an issue for Parliament. After consultations with the Opposition Parties, the Government have therefore decided to recommend the House to set up a Select Committee to consider the rules and practices of the House in relation to the declaration of Members' interests and to report. The form of the Select Committee will be discussed through the usual channels. This relates only to the House of Commons, but I understand that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will be having discussions on parallel action that might be taken in another place.
"There is however a second issue about which there is considerable public concern, and concern in this House.

1291
This relates to the operation of public relations and other organisations holding an account or a commission on behalf of an overseas Government, or an overseas political interest. The activities of some of these organisations have been mentioned in this House on a number of occasions, and there is concern about their activities, whether or not they employ on any basis individual Members of this House. What is important is that Parliament, and the public, should know when activities of this kind are being conducted. Many of these organisations do valuable work in informing Parliament and the public: the danger occurs when it is not done in an open way. There is increasing evidence that some of these organisations are concerned with operating outside Parliament as well as on Parliament and on the Government. Again the public has a right to know.
"Equally, it is right that the House should be aware of the problems associated with the administration of any scheme designed to bring these activities into the open. The House will be concerned to ensure that whatever is finally decided reflects a fair balance between protection of Parliament and the public, on the one hand, and free and legitimate expression of opinion, on the other.
"The Government have given urgent consideration to this question, including the possibility of legislation requiring registration. I now propose to initiate discussions with the Opposition Parties to see how far agreement can be reached on the best way of proceeding."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, much of which does not directly concern us in this House at all, although I thought it would be advantageous for the House to hear it. Since the Statement clearly bears on Parliament as a whole. I should like to add a few words in regard to your Lordships' House.
Clearly, if in another place they are going to give consideration to the question of declaration of interest—and this is the subject dealt with in the first part of the Prime Minister's Statement—it is
1292
for consideration whether we should mount a similar exercise. My impression is that we interpret the rules on declaration of interest somewhat more widely in this House than they do in another place, but it may well be that some further guidance would be helpful. I have already had a preliminary discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I would now propose to have further discussions with them and other noble Lords. It is for consideration whether it would be desirable for us to set up a Select Committee of our own in this matter, though if we do decide to do so it may be thought better to defer the appointment of such a Committee until the Commons have got further with their own inquiry.
Although this is obviously, so far as this House is concerned, a matter for your Lordships, none the less it seems to be an area where it is obviously at least desirable for both Houses to keep broadly in step, though I emphasise again that our privileges are our responsibility. In any event, following the consultations I would certainly intend to report our views to the House; and, obviously, if it is decided to recommend the setting up of a Select Committee this will require the approval of the House, as of course would any Report made by such a Committee. I hope the House will approve the approach we have adopted and the way I have suggested that this matter should be handled.
So far as the second part of the Prime Minister's Statement, which deals with overseas interests, is concerned, I do not think we need take any initiatives ourselves at this stage pending the outcome of the further Government consideration and the discussions referred to in the main Statement, but I shall naturally be very ready to discuss this also in the course of the consultations that I am proposing to have with other noble Lords.
4.6 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should have thought that the procedure outlined by the noble Lord the Leader of the House was perfectly satisfactory, and that your Lordships would agree. I must say I also agree with him that this is a matter entirely for your Lordships' House. It has nothing whatever to do with the

1293
House of Commons, nothing whatever to do with the Government and nothing whatever to do with the Opposition. It is for your Lordships to decide about your own privileges. But, my Lords, I should have thought that it might be wise to wait and see what the Select Committee of the House of Commons report before we do anything ourselves, because we could then read what they had said and decide among ourselves whether or not it was applicable to this House. I feel that to have two Select Committees sitting at once would not be very sensible, but no doubt these views will be taken into consideration, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House will let us know what has been decided.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I too should like to endorse the proposals which have been made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. There are definitely two separate issues here. The question of a declaration of interest must be one for each House acting for itself; but when we come to the second part of the Statement, which is the operation of organisations holding a commission or a brief from overseas interests, this is surely a matter which affects Parliament as a whole—and, indeed, goes even wider. I wonder whether the noble Lord would perhaps consider this a fit subject for consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses, rather than leaving it to one.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I could comment on what the noble Lords have said, and I am grateful to them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in their general approach. I think it is for consideration whether we may not be wise to have a Select Committee actually in being. We do not quite know what may start developing in another place, and it may well be that there could be useful communication at some point. But certainly at the moment I am less inclined to set one up now, before the House of Commons Select Committee have reported, though I think this is a matter to which we could give some further consideration. As I have said, if it was felt that a Committee should be set up this House would obviously have to approve it, and there-
1294
fore would have an opportunity to debate it. It might well be that one might set up a Committee and have it in being, and that it might then choose to suspend any work it was doing until a later stage.
On the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, about whether there should be a Joint Select Committee, there is not, as I understand it, any proposal at the moment that the question of outside interest, foreign interest, should necessarily be dealt with by a Select Committee at all. It is a matter for general discussion, and in the end the Government will probably have to make tip their mind whether to introduce legislation or in what other way it is appropriate to proceed. It is not, as I made clear, primarily directed so much at Parliament as to those who are operating in these activities, and may be operating on the Press or on any other body. The suggestion is that it is desirable that when such operations are going on everybody should know that they are on. But, as I said, I would also be willing to discuss this aspect further with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, though I do not think we can get very much further until the Government have carried their own consultations further on the second part.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind the special tradition of this House in which noble Lords speak upon their honour.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this has always been implicit in our operations in this House. I have no reason myself to think that any Member of your Lordships' House at any time speaks in any other way.

DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MISUSE
4.11 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I bring you back to the subject of the misuse of drugs? We have heard two very interesting speeches from both sites of the House which have given us the facts of drug dependence and drug misuse. The facts, briefly, are that we are faced with an alarming increase in the use of drugs

1295
and that most of this alarming increase is by people under the age of 30. Your Lordships have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, say that legislation alone could not cope with the problem. I want to look at it from the angle of legislation alone not being able to deal with this problem.
I think it would be useful if we tried to find out what it is, what particular malaise in our urban and industrial society it is that makes people want to take drugs. I do not think that it is altogether escapism, because so far as the young are concerned—and this applies to everybody else—the world we live in now is infinitely more attractive for most people than it has ever been. But I think it is a sort of frustration—so near and yet so far. We are on the verge of being richer, with more leisure and with a more delightful society in every way than ever before, yet somehow it is just out of our grasp. I think that this leads to a sort of flight from reason: that over the last 300 years by the use of reason, and by deductions made from it, we have achieved a material society in the space of a very short time which is quite extraordinary. Yet this material society has failed to produce the one thing that we feel that life is worth living for; it has gone sour on us, it has defeated its own objects. I think that it is this flight from reason that we see in political violence in all its aspects; the feeling that reason is not enough.
I think that this has led many people to feel, and properly, that reason is not the only activity of the human mind by which you can find the answers, and that you can find truth by methods other than reason alone. Because drugs sometimes help to do this, it has led a great many people to use drugs to try to help them to make their minds get at those things that they feel that reason has failed them over. I think there is a great deal in this way of thinking which has caused people to turn to drugs (and young people in particular) in this quite alarming way, and suddenly and so quickly; because I do not think it is really just for "kicks" alone that the young have turned towards drugs. It is for something much deeper. I have an idea that the reasons that I am putting forward are the kind of reasons, if we are going to master this problem,
1296
that we must look into closely; because, as has been said, we are not going to be able to cope with it entirely by legislation alone. I have the feeling that trying to look at it in this way, trying to find out what are the springs that cause people in this sudden way to turn to drugs, will help us to solve the problem and will help us to find some sort of social philosophy about it.
Prince Vladimir of Kiev, when Kiev was the most powerful State of all the Russias, about 1,000 years ago was considering what religion he should recommend to his people. He was much taken with Mohammedanism, but he knew that if you were a Mohammedan you would have to foreswear alcohol; and so he adopted Christianity, because he felt that no one should be asked to live in Russia without alcohol. We adopted the same sort of approach to life in the worst days of our own industrial beginnings about 100 years ago. The rum ration for a sailor was a pint a day. A pint of rum is a large amount of alcohol to drink; and if you have it as a matter of course, with the blessing of the Government, it suggests an inordinate degree of misery, does it not? The same applied to the submerged urban tenth; that they were sodden with gin which was bought for far less than even beer fifty years ago; their babies were sodden with laudanum, a derivative of opium. We, too, in the 19th century were rather following the Prince Vladimir of Kiev line.
My Lords, what now? What about the 20th century? We have, it seems to me, a problem even more acute. We have this kind of emotional, psychological, spiritual malaise which is upsetting us to such a degree that we are searching for new drugs and for some way of trying, through their help, to arrive at the truth. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to substitute pot for alcohol and tobacco? Could we substitute pot for alcohol and tobacco? We can add it to our drugs, but I do not know that we can just substitute it, even if there is a case for saying that pot is less damaging than alcohol. Should we sit back and do our best not to let things escalate into hereoin; or are we to hope that some new drug will be devised which will give us all we want with no side effects at all? I do not know. But at any rate we have to make

1297
up our minds how we are going to approach the problem.
Are we to approach drugs from the point of view of Prince Vladimir, that they are an anodyne, or from the other point of view, which is the one that I think is so attractive to a great many people and which, for want of a better example I might call the Aldous Huxley approach; that is, that by taking certain drugs (which one hopes in a modern way will have no side-effects) one will have heightened perception and will be assisted to arrive at the truth. I do not know. I am suggesting that if we try to examine the problems behind drug taking, what makes our modern society want drugs, this will help us to find a way of using and not misusing these drugs and to evolve some social philosophy about the whole problem.
My Lords, there are very few matters of fact that I want to touch upon. Most of these have already been exhaustively dealt with by the two noble Lords who preceded me. The first is the question of enforcement. We are shortly to have drugs manufactured very nearly on the do-it-yourself principle; or, at any rate, if not as easily as that, they will be so easy to produce that the police will be almost incapable of coping with enforcement. This makes one feel the need for a double-pronged approach, the approach of trying to make it as easy as possible for the police to prevent misuse but at the same time providing a very considerable degree of education to make people realise that by taking drugs you almost always defeat your own ends: that you do not in the long run get better perception, you do not make yourself happier, and you do not see God—and I use "God" as a shorthand term to embrace all those things which even the most dedicated atheist would also accept.
Next, there is the question of commercial interest, which I regard as a very important point. I do not mean just the commercial interest of the drug pedlar or pusher; I mean the kind of organised commercial interest. I do not wish to say what I do not mean about the drug industry, which has served us very well. The drug industry is a great and a sensible industry which does not wish to do damage. Nevertheless, even with the best will in the world, accidents can happen because drugs are being comer-
1298
cially pressed, in the way in which thalidomide was, without due care and attention. I think this is a very important point to watch. We have heard already about the "pot lobby". I am not suggesting that "pot lobbyists" are the sort of people who are comm2rcially interested: I do not think that they are. I believe that a great many of them are people who rather like to feel "with it", and these are just the sort of people who are wide open to being used by commercial interests in a way in which they should not be.
Lastly, my Lords, there is the question of the international interests. This is one of the matters in which we cannot "go it alone". I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us, about what the Government are thinking and doing, and I shall be most interested to hear what the noble Baroness Lady Serota, has to say at the end of this debate. I also hope that noble Lords like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who are particularly interested in the aspect of the matter on which I touched before, will themselves have something to say about it.
4.22 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I wish first of all to add my voice to those who have expressed the gratitude of this House to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject and for introducing it with the comprehensive survey that he presented to us. I feel that the debates in this House have a special significance when we are concerned with the health of the society in which we live and the happiness of the individuals who compose it. There are few matters which concern the stability of society more closely than the problem of drug dependence; therefore this is entirely a proper matter for your Lordships' House to discuss.
Yet, as one comes to study the subject in preparation for it, one appreciates how difficult it is to have a debate on such a subject as this, since the horizons that it presents are so wide, the literature on the subject is so voluminous and the ramifications are so widespread that it is impossible to do justice to the subject in the course of a debate lasting for a few hours. Nor, indeed, ought we to try to

1299
categorise this subject into neat compartments, for it does not lend itself to that treatment. If we try to do so we shall not be covering the matter in the way we ought. Therefore I would begin what I have to say to your Lordships by asking your forbearance if I touch on two or three matters which are relevant, without necessarily trying to say something about everything. I hope that if I and other noble Lords follow this course, as the debate goes on the picture will build up and we shall be able to see the whole problem in its wide range.
First, in order that we may get this subject in the right perspective, I think it important that your Lordships should appreciate that it is no new problem. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already reminded us of that. But the problem goes back a good deal further than Prince Vladimir and the unusual reasons he advanced for converting the Russians to the Christian faith. It goes back, I think, as far as the beginnings of man; for he has never been able to equate himself with the circumstances of the life in which he finds himself and he has had to resort to outside aids in order to make life tolerable in certain circumstances. Sometimes the aid has been very innocuous, like the Psalmist's glass of wine, "that maketh glad the heart of man", or the pipe of tobacco which some people find a useful sedative when they are working.
My Lords, it has also gone on to matters of far greater moment. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, reminded us that it is not so very long ago since gin palaces thrived in this country and thousands of people resorted to the drug alcohol in order to achieve a short time of escape from the miseries of life which they could not bear. So it is not a new problem that we are having to face at this time, but undoubtedly it is a problem with new acuteness. It is, of course, impossible to analyse altogether the reasons why in our day and generation this is so pressing a problem. I think there are at least two factors: one is the greater tension under which we all live and the other is the discovery of synthetic drugs, by the ingenuity of the pharmaceutical industry, with their immediate potency and with their much greater availability for everybody.
1300
The second point which I think we ought to bear in mind in getting a full view of this problem is that it is not only a problem for teenagers and for adolescents, though it is generally presented as such. In fact, it is a problem for the whole of our society, and I venture to think that the atmosphere in which we have all been involved, and for which we are all partly responsible, is responsible for many of the more obvious cases of drug dependence among young people.
A lady who is very much experienced in the treatment of drug dependence used to me the phrase that our society is "pill happy", and doctors whom I have consulted have borne out this judgment upon our condition. They pointed out that the old quasi-priestly function of the family doctor has gone, simply because the doctor no longer has the time to be the counsellor of the family, able to give to the members of it much advice and consideration. At the same time patients are becoming more sophisticated. They are no longer satisfied if the doctor just gives them a bottle of medicine; they demand drugs that will bring quick results. And so, as a doctor has said to me, many doctors feel that they are trapped and that, to a large extent, patients regard their doctor as a kind of grocer who will deal out to them the pills which they think they need. This, certainly, is a phenomenon of our society and our experience, and I think it is one of the things which has high-lighted the particular problems which apply to our young people.
The third matter I wish to urge upon your Lordships is that in thinking about this problem, especially as regards young people, we should adopt a very compassionate attitude towards their problems. In the first place, we should appreciate how easy it is for them to get into trouble and to find themselves enmeshed in the coils of this problem of drug dependence. We all know the difficulties that were high-lighted for us in the case of Sweet v. Parsley. Many of us were profoundly grateful to the noble Lords of this House who produced a judgment in that case which seemed to accord with reason and common sense. But that is not the only way in which unsuspecting and quite innocent people can become involved in this problem. Some noble Lords may have teenage children who are

1301
living by themselves. They will know how easy it is for the children to entertain a few friends and, before they know where they are, find that a "pot session" has started in which they are involved. And they feel a sense of guilt at what has happened. Again, we have to recognise the pressure of the sub-culture in which so many young people live to-day. The "pop" culture or "hippy" culture—whatever you may call it—has its characteristics, one of which is the taking of drugs, either for fun or for "kicks", or for intellectual curiosity. Those who are enjoying many of the features of this sub-culture find themselves caught up with drugs in this way.
Thirdly, we ought to remember the tensions which particularly afflict so many young people. I think of those who are in the public eye in show business, who have to bear with the adulation of thousands of people—a pressure upon their lives which not many of us would feel strong enough ourselves to carry—and whose work makes great demands upon them. It is very unfortunate that, just because they are in the public eye, their experience in using cannabis, for instance, becomes high-lighted, and their sense of responsibility is not as it should be. But they are under great tension. Equally so are the young people, for instance, at the universities, who know that the consequences to them if they fail their examinations will be far greater than to us in our generation. It is only natural and easy for them to become dependent upon drugs in order to keep themselves awake and to work, or to recover from the effect of having taken such stimulants. So my third point is that although I hope we shall treat with the utmost severity those who are responsible for peddling these things, yet we shall bring a spirit of compassion to bear upon those who have become victims of this scourge.
That leads me on to say something about the question of cannabis. There is no one in this House who commands greater respect than the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and we regard her experience and her voice with the greatest of authority. It was therefore with almost incredulity that we read of the views that were attributed to her when the Press published the outcome of the Report on Cannabis. My tutor at Oxford always used to exhort me to go
1302
back to my sources, and therefore I did what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has exhorted us to do. I have read the Report, and I appreciate from that that the noble Baroness has been the victim of quite unnecessary misrepresentation. She is quite able to look after herself, but I feel bound to point out some of the things which I think have been utterly unreasonable in the public judgment en this Report.
Thus, for instance, one sentence has been lifted out of paragraph 29, in which the Committee say that:
"The long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects."
That is simply quoting, or re-quoting, the opinion of two authoritative bodies, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission and the Mayor of New York's Committee on Marijuana. Indeed, the Report would have been culpable if it had not drawn our attention to those views. We have not been reminded, as we should have been, of the many pages in the Report, some 17, at least, which drew attention to the grave dangers which cannabis can bring.
Also, we have been reminded of the opinion of the Committee that the association in legislation of cannabis with heroin and other opiates is inappropriate. I think that opinion struck a very sympathetic note in the minds of most of us. At the same time, we felt the dilemma mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, because none of us, I believe, would want to give the impression publicly that there ought to be any relaxation in the censure which society passes upon the use of this drug, cannabis, which can be very dangerous indeed. At the same time, one appreciates that both in justice and in expediency it is unwise to link the penalties for the use of this drug with the penalties which are attached to drugs which are far more dangerous. Therefore I hope that the suggestion which the noble Earl has made, that there should be a re-examination of this drug in such a way that the abhorrence of society about its use is in no way diminished, will be acted upon while a more rational situation is created. I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind my having referred to this matter in this way. As I have said, she is quite well able to look after herself, but I thought that someone from these Benches ought to say that

1303
there has been a serious misrepresentation which ought to be put right.
There are one or two matters about which I should like to comment in detail, which have already been touched upon directly or indirectly in the debate but about which those who are concerned with the problem are particularly anxious that something should be said. The first is that there are a good many proprietary products which are still very dangerous. I will not mention them because I do not think that it would be responsible to do so. But I understand that there is one reputable sleeping pill which can be easily obtained on prescription and which, taken in large amounts, can be dangerous, and particularly dangerous when, as I understand, the practice is growing up of taking this particular drug with alcohol, for this results in severe poisoning and in severe hallucinations.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has mentioned the danger of the drug physeptone. Getting heroin, of course, is becoming difficult because of the opening of the clinics, but physeptone is used in order to wean heroin addicts away from the more dangerous drug. I am told that physeptone, which in the United States is known as methedone, is very dangerous. It is an injectible substitute and needs to be very carefully watched.
What is to be done in order to minimise this great danger to society? As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has pointed out, prevention is extremely difficult. It is very difficult to prevent smuggling, and I understand that some of these drugs can already be made by those with a minimum of knowledge of the science of chemistry. Therefore, the greatest bastion that we can build against this danger is, first, education and then social service. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible, through whatever means might be best suited, in the schools and universities, to make known to young people how gravely dangerous these things are; that they are not to be played about with and not to be used for intellectual curiosity, for so easily and so unsuspectingly can people become their victims.
Next let us step up as best we can the after-care of addicts. Again, those who know about after-care tell me that it is very important that lengthy rehabili-
1304
tation should be provided so that the addict can be given a real opportunity of recovery before he or she is restored to society. But generally the great thing is that we should educate society into understanding this problem, being sympathetic and compassionate and doing something to help in rehabilitation. We are already involved in that exercise in re-educating society to understand the real nature of mental ill-health and of receiving back into its midst those who are making the very difficult journey back from mental hospital to society.
Much can be done in local areas to aid this work. For instance, in my own cathedral city of Chester it is on the initiative of the doctors that a local conference is to be held of all those who are concerned. I am told by those who have experience of this subject that one of the things they need most is the knowledge of stable, healthy homes where some of these young people, possibly deprived of any home background, can be introduced during this period of rehabilitation, so that they can find their feet again within a healthy society. They need to know of such families all over the country, so that those who possibly gravitated towards London and have become drug addicts here can be restored to their own home area, and within responsible and healthy conditions.
Moreover, my Lords, I am told that there is a great need for psychiatric treatment centres, not necessarily devoted directly to the treatment of drug addicts, because a good many of these drug addicts have become so as a result of a deeper and more basic trouble. I have been given evidence, for instance, of a young man who was a homosexual and who took the drugs because of his own personal troubles. I was told that the worst thing that could happen to him was that he should go to a centre directed solely to the treatment of drug addicts, since he might there pick up with other people and get himself more deeply into trouble because his basic trouble was not being treated.
I want to end with two points, one a question and one a commendation. The first is a question about amphetamines, which have been referred to both by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I understand that there is no legal control over

1305
the manufacture, the distribution or prescription of amphetamines. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke about the danger of methedrine. There was a very serious epidemic—and no doubt it is still serious, though I understand that a good deal of the impetus has moved away to other things. But if it is the case that the Government are powerless to do anything about the control of amphetamines, surely this is something that ought to be remedied. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, will be able to tell us that the Government have some plans in mind in order to control this matter.
My last point is a commendation. I think the House ought to recognise and be grateful for those people who are doing such selfless and admirable work in the care and rehabilitation of those who are drug addicts. I think, in my own Communion, of the Reverend Kenneth Leach, working in the parish of St. Anne's, Soho, who has made himself a real expert in this subject. I think also of the Wantage Sisters at Spelthorne St. Mary, a home which for many years has been dealing with women drug addicts. I want also to reiterate the gratitude which I have heard expressed by those who are concerned in this field to the Home Office Drugs Branch, a body which has made itself very much available to all who are in trouble. It cannot often be said of a Government Department that it can claim the confidence of young people who are in trouble. Yet, so I am told, that is the position which those who are responsible for the Home Office Drugs Branch have created for themselves. One who has great experience in this said, "They are absolutely marvellous". My Lords, if there can be that spirit which is motivating the top, and if that can go down through the whole of society, then we shall create a sympathetic public opinion which is perhaps the best way of helping us to control and overcome this dreadful scourge.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for having introduced this debate, and I have particular reason for gratitude inasmuch as he very kindly postponed the date of the debate until I could return from an assignment overseas. I should like, further, to express my warm appreciation of the generous
1306
references that have been made in this debate to myself and my colleagues on the Cannabis Sub-Committee. The right reverend Prelate who has just sat, down said that I was well able to take care of myself. But it appears to me that there is no need for me to take care of myself in a community where I have so many and gallant defenders. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear with me for a short time if I say something purely on the subject of cannabis and the Report of the Cannabis Sub-Committee.
I think it will be agreed that the Report of this Sub-Committee provoked what can only be called an hysterical reaction from a great part of the Press, from a considerable part of the public, and, I regret to say, apart from one or two outstanding exceptions, in the discussions in another place. I think the causes for this hysteria are quite familiar to students of social psychology. They occur also in other connections, particularly in relation to sexual crimes, and they are always liable to occur when the public senses that some critical and objective study threatens to block an outlet for indulgence in the pleasures of moral indignation. It is an occasion for very grave concern when young people ruin their health by taking drugs, without knowledge of the consequences or without regard for the consequences; but it is not a subject for hysteria.
I very much appreciate that this hysterical atmosphere has in no way penetrated into your Lordships' House, and that this debate has so far been conducted, and I am sure will continue to be conducted, on a plane of rational and thoughtful appreciation, and in an attempt to understand the real difficulties of the situation. I was therefore particularly glad when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in the course of the debate in another place, said that it would be as well if there were a cool and dispassionate consideration of the approach that we should make of this complex problem of the use of drugs. Whether his own speech measured up to that standard is a matter for everybody's individual judgment; but certainly I shall do my best to maintain this cool and dispassionate approach, while at the same time not minimisin3 the grave concern that any serious parson must feel about a problem of this order.

1307
I should like briefly to summarise, for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not taken the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and read this Report, what the Report said, what it did not say, and who said it; and I should like to take those points in the reverse order. First of all, as to who said it, the Report, one would gather from the Press, was the diseased brain-child of my own disordered and, in the opinion of some papers, senile imagination. But I would remind your Lordships that it was nothing of the kind. Among the signatories to this Report were some extremely distinguished medical men with specialist knowledge in this field, notably Professor Sir Aubrey Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Psychology in the University of London, and formerly head of the Maudsley Hospital; Dr. Philip Connell, a member of the World Health Organisation's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence and himself a specialist in the treatment of and research into questions of drug dependence; Dr. Thomas Bewley, also a psychiatric consultant specialising in this field; Dr. Nicholas Malleson, the head of the University of London Student Health Service, who is naturally very closely connected with the undergraduates in the university who may be liable to be interested in drug taking; and Mr. Kenneth Barraclough, a stipendiary magistrate in the London courts, who naturally sees before him a large number of cases of people of all ages charged with drug offences. I might even perhaps, at the bottom of that list, mention my own experience as the senior justice of the peace in the County of London, where I too have had to deal with a considerable number of drug charges. These distinguished gentlemen were not only signatories of this Report; they also contributed to its content and its shape far more than any layman like myself could possibly hope to do. So much, then, for who said it.
Next, what did it not say? I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for pointing out that it did not say that the sale of cannabis should be legalised. It did in fact say the exact opposite. I think I may save your Lordships the trouble of hearing again paragraph 71, in which the opposite was said, which the noble Earl quoted in the course
1308
of his speech. At the same time, there are serious arguments in favour of legalisation. I think that this Committee would have failed in their duty if they had not given those arguments very considerable and careful attention. I suppose the most fundamental of these arguments is the argument from personal liberty; the argument that adult men and women—juveniles are another matter—should be allowed to decide for themselves what substances they will consume, and that the State has no cause to interfere except when it can clearly demonstrate that damage is done to other people. In this connection, the Sub-Committee have been widely accused of taking yet a further step in the direction of what is nowadays called the "permissive society". Apart from one small point, which has not yet been mentioned and which I will come to later, I might say that this Report did not propose to make anything permissible which is not permissible already. There was no proposal to widen the area of permitted action, with one small exception which I will come to.
Here I should like to interpose a protest against the current habit of using the term "permissive society" with sinister undertones. I should have thought that any society which valued personal liberty would feel that the onus of proof was upon those who wished to restrict liberties rather than upon those who wished to preserve or extend them. This surely is the more important in view of the fact that a very large and varied number of restrictions upon personal behaviour are demonstrably and indisputably required by the complexities of our modern society. This, surely, is ground for looking with increased attention at, and scrutinising particularly carefully, any further proposals to restrict the liberties of personal behaviour.
The second argument in favour of legalisation is that so long as cannabis is a prohibited substance, anyone who consumes it breaks the law and, by necessity, associates with law-breakers; and he may associate with persons whose interest in this is far more sinister than his own. His own purpose may be purely experimental—rash and foolish, but difficult to describe as criminal. This is where the one serious danger of progression from cannabis to other drugs occurs. There is no physiological ground for

1309
supposing that such progression must take place. Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence that cannabis, unlike most other drugs, or many other drugs, does not induce a tolerance so that more and more has to be taken as time goes on in order to produce the desired effects, with the result that the person who is taking the substance loses his appreciation of it and turns to look for something else. Actually, in the case of cannabis there is some evidence of a reverse tolerance, a negative tolerance, and the desired effects are produced by smaller doses as the taker becomes accustomed to the substance, instead of demanding that the dosage should be increased. But so long as cannabis is illegal there may be social pressures which lead those who are taking cannabis into forming acquaintance and experimenting with more dangerous drugs.
This is the one serious ground for supposing that there may be progression, and even this has been rather considerably exaggerated, since it is clear that it is after all only a minority of those who use cannabis who ever progress to the use of the opiates. The argument the reverse way round, that every heroin user has probably at some time taken cannabis, is no proof at all. What one wants to know is how many of the cannabis users do or do not go on to heroin; and it is perfectly clear, although we cannot give exact figures, that the great majority do not progress. Those, then, are the two solid arguments in favour of legalisation, and they deserve to be considered.
Against them, on the other hand, are other arguments, and the Sub-Committee over which I had the honour to preside felt that the weight of these other arguments was greater than that of those I have just mentioned. First of all, cannabis is a very tricky drug. It is in some respects like alcohol. It is like alcohol in that it is usually consumed as an aid to social intercourse. Like alcohol also, its effect upon individuals is very variable, and its effect on the same individual at different times may be very variable; but this variability in the case of cannabis appears to be very much greater than it is in the case of alcohol. Some people undoubtedly take moderate amounts of cannabis quite safely over considerable periods, but immoderate usage, equally clearly, has
1310
considerable dangers. It might well be said that we have had quite enough trouble with alcohol, quite a large number of human wrecks who have become complete alcoholics, to warn us against extending the use of substances which might produce similar results, and unless and until it can be shown that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and would be an effective substitute for alcohol, it is far better to keep it on the danger list and let it remain prohibited.
The second reason relates to the very important question of road traffic legislation. We have found it necessary to lay down a maximum concentration of alcohol in the blood with which it is permissible for a person to drive a motor car. Unfortunately, up till now it is not possible to detect the presence of cannabis in the body fluids, and it is likely that since the consumption of cannabis distorts the sense of space and time it is extremely dangerous if taken by someone who is going to drive a motor car. Thirdly, we know very little about the really long-term effects. It was, after all, a very long time before we discovered the dangers of tobacco; and having had these warnings, the warning from tobacco and the warning from alcohol, it would, I think, be foolhardy at the present moment, with our knowledge in its present state, deliberately to expose ourselves to this substance which is relatively new to us.
Why then did we propose to lower the penalties? We proposed to lower the penalties partly on the principle which I think runs through the whole of our criminal law: that the maximum penalty that may be imposed bears some relation to the gravity of the offence. We wanted to make clear that cannabis is not heroin and that it is quite inappropriate that it should be bracketed in law with heroin and that the penalties for possession or sale of both these substances should be the same. We are interested to learn, since we produced our Report, that Dr. Dale Cameron, the Secretary of the World Health Organisation's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, is reported to have given it as his personal opinion that to impose the same penalties for cannabis as for the opiates is to defy logic. I am sorry that I have not his exact words, but the effect is that it is monstrous that a

1311
pot smoker should be imprisoned for years and years. Just as in the case of the motoring laws speeding carries lower penalties than drunken driving, so we think it appropriate that the consumption of cannabis should carry lower penalties than the consumption of the more dangerous opiates.
Secondly, we were concerned that this difference was not apparently fully appreciated. We were concerned that whereas nine out of ten of the persons convicted of the possession or sale of cannabis were found with only small quantities in their possession—less than 30 grammes—nevertheless, one quarter of all the persons convicted of these offences are sentenced to prison, or, in the case of juveniles, to the equivalent places of detention. Seventeen per cent. of the first offenders in 1967 have also been subject to prison sentences. A prison sentence is a serious thing, and it is particularly serious in the case of a young person, if only because it is an absolute bar to certain professions.
We were asked further why we did not discriminate between the trafficker and the possessor. If your Lordships will refer to paragraph 84 of our Report you will find that we wanted very much to be able to make a distinction of this kind, and we did recommend that the possibility of such a distinction should be further considered by the Home Secretary. But at present, after looking at the practical aspects of the matter, we thought a test of intent would produce further uncertainty in the law, which in fact it was our wish to remove. That is why we did not recommend that that distinction should be made, much as we should have liked it to be effectively made. We felt that the best we could do was to leave a two-level penalty, one in the magistrates' courts and the other higher penalties on indictment. Prosecutions in the higher courts require the consent of either the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. We thought we must leave it to those officers and those Departments, in the knowledge that it is difficult in an Act of Parliament to sort out who were likely to be traffickers and who were only relatively harmless users.
It has also been said that we know all that we need to know about the dangers of this drug and it is quite unnecessary
1312
to have further research. Anyone who has read the Appendix to our Report, so ably compiled by Sir Aubrey Lewis, will appreciate that further research is extremely necessary, since from that survey of the literature it is possible to quote instances of diametrically opposite views on practically every aspect of the taking of cannabis. I would refer your Lordships to some of the more valuable researches that have been initiated, more particularly in the United States of America.
I would mention particularly the researches of Professor Zinberg, who has made a serious attempt to make a completely objective study, with a control group, of the effects of cannabis upon volunteers. He has had two sets of volunteers, some whom were accustomed to cannabis and others who were, as he put it, "cannabis naïve", who had never taken it. These two sets of volunteers were supplied with a high-dose cigarette, a low-dose cigarette and a cigarette which contained no cannabis at all—a placebo. This was a double-blind test, in the sense that neither the recipients nor the researchers knew which of the subjects had received which type of cigarette. Immediately afterwards they were tested by various psychological tests on their skill at performing the kind of tricks which psychological tests expect you to perform, and no difference was found in the performance of these two groups. Professor Zinberg's own conclusion is that cannabis appears to be a relatively mild intoxicant, and one of its features is that those who use it and are subject to its effects are better able to suppress those effects, if they want to, than are the users of alcohol; and this he thinks is an aspect of the subject that deserves further examination.
My Lords, I think I can speak for my Committee without any hesitation when I say that we were glad to hear from the Home Secretary, and again from my noble friend Lord Stonham to-day, that it is proposed to have a complete overhaul of the drugs legislation at the earliest possible moment, and that it is proposed that we should adopt some form of legislation which will give us greater flexibility. At the same time, I would throw out a warning that the sanctions of the criminal law have not yet proved very effective in this field, and I have great

1313
sympathy with the points that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as to the remoter causes of the addiction of the present generation to the consumption of these particular substances. This has not only been the experience of our own country but is the experience even in countries where the criminal sanctions against the consumption of cannabis and other drugs are infinitely more severe than they are in this country at the present time. In all parts of the world it seems that the consumption is increasing, and it is clear, therefore, that whatever may be done with the criminal law this will not of itself be enough.
I hope that I have not taken too much of your Lordships' time in summarising the Report, which I think you will agree has been represented in very distorted terms in the public Press. My contributions to your Lordships' debates are not very frequent, and I think they have generally been fairly brief. If I have outdistanced my normal time I hope that I may be forgiven, on the ground that this is a matter of very great public importance and, indeed, of some personal importance to myself.
Perhaps I may conclude upon a slightly lighter note, one that will illustrate to your Lordships the extreme difficulty of arriving at accurate opinions as to the effects of various drugs. I am going to refer to a drug which was known early in Chinese history and was then commended as:
"highly prized for possessing the virtues of relieving fatigue, delighting the soul, strengthening the will and repairing the eyesight."
A good many centuries later—namely, at the beginning of the present century—the same drug was referred to, in a standard medical textbook by the then Regius Professor of Medicine in the University of Cambridge—a distinguished-looking old gentleman whom I can just remember from my own childhood. In that textbook it was said of this particular drug:
"It is especially efficient in producing nightmares, with hallucinations which may be alarming in their intensity. Another peculiar quality of this drug is to produce a strange and extreme degree of physical depression. An hour or two after it has been taken, a grievous sinking may seize upon the sufferer so that to speak is an effort. Speech may become weak and vague. By miseries such as these the best years of life may be spoilt."
My Lords, I regret to say that this is a drug to which all the evidence shows your
1314
Lordships' House is seriously addicted; and the drug in question is tea.
5.10 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for bringing up this subject in your Lordships' House and, if I may do so, for the way he did it. I have little to pontificate about—that is particularly lucky for someone who has to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, with her deep knowledge of the subject. I hope noble Lords of wider experience and knowledge will correct me if I have my facts wrong, but it may be of some use if I, as a 23 year-old, attempt to examine how the problems of drug dependence relate to young people.
At the risk of vain repetition, I would remind your Lordships that cannabis convictions in 1960 amounted to 255, in 1964 to 544, in 1965 to 626, in 1966 to 1,119 and in 1967 to 2,393. I would accept the view of the Wootton Report that the rise is in part due to the increased formation of drug squads. Yet we should also look at the growth of the total number of heroin addicts under 20 known to the Home Office. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, reminded us, in 1960 there was one, in 1964 40, in 1965 145, in 1966 329 and in 1967 395. I could get figures only as far as 1967, but I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, said that in 1968 the number was over 800. The numbers are not large, but once one has started on heroin the chances of getting off it are very low. The long-term cure rate in the U.S.A. is about 5 per cent. I believe.
The mortality rate of the British male heroin addict is nearly twenty times as high as that of a normal cross-section of similar age. And each new addict is a source of infection to others. Convictions under Section 1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 amounted to approximately 1,017 in 1965 and 1,330 in 1966. For 1967 there are figures available for adults and minors separately. Adults accounted for 857 convictions, while minors provided 1,059, more than the total for all convictions only two years before. The position is not improving, to say the least. Young people are increasingly drawn to drug abuse.

1315
In some ways it could be said that Her Majesty's Governments have been to blame. The climate of opinion is a nebulous thing, but when the general feeling is "Feel ill, take a pill", people grow used to filling themselves up with all sorts of substances. Many very powerful drugs are readily available on a prescription, which can be obtained at little cost and effort. Amphetamine abusers sometimes find, or used to find, a doctor with a blind spot and have access to large supplies. I am not, of course, suggesting that National Health Service doctors deliberately contribute to the problems of drug dependence, but they habituate people's minds to taking stimuli. I am here touching on some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
The public has become used to being given powerful drugs on medical advice. The old-fashioned and ignorant pride over never going to the doctor has been stood on its head. I gather that 4,000 million tablets of acetylsalicyclic acid were sold last year in this country. I cannot believe that all those aspirins were really necessary. Every day new drugs come on the market. Many of them can be abused. One pill looks like another. And if the general public is so used to mucking about with their bodies and minds young persons in uncertainty or rebellion may well go further.
But still, drug dependence in the limited sense I have been talking about is not as serious in this country as dependence on alcohol. As your Lordships will know, there are some 200,000 alcoholics in this country. But alcohol is not so trendy as, for example, cannabis. Why is cannabis trendy? Partly because of its pleasant effects, but more importantly because of its social implications. Here I endorse much of what the right reverend Prelate had to say. Cannabis is a relatively new phenomenon for most people here and therefore the subject of curiosity. It has a mystique, not the mystique of Dennis Wheatley or Khubla Khan, although its image is exotic. It is perhaps held to be the key to a secret garden full of special beautiful people. The young cannabis abuser may not enjoy his experiences at first, or at all. But he feels, in Francis Thompson's phrase, an "elect outcast". Perhaps we can liken
1316
the young cannabis abusing groups to the schoolboy gangs that smoke up the chimney; there is the thrill of joint forbidden activity. Each individual has proved to the others that he is one of the boys, one of the hard men.
Cannabis abuse among the young tends to be a social activity, a group pastime. This is in part due to the conformity of teenage groups. The code, dialect and appearance of the "hippy" was as rigidly prescribed as that of an army officer, at least in some cases. The embryo drug abuser has often discarded many usual standards and chosen new ones. So the abuse of cannabis is a secret sign, a private caste mark, an act that demonstrates independence from generally held views. Two other linked factors add further attraction; constant publicity and the connection of the "pop" world with drug abuse. And, as with the schoolboy, some of the attraction is the opposition of the authorities.
The law is not my province, but I must touch on it briefly, if only to extend my analysis of the social causes of drug abuse among the young. The seriousness of legal penalties influences the attitudes of parents and educational authorities, who may be ignorant of the true nature of the dangers of drug abuse. But if they know nothing else about drug abuse, they know that it is illegal, and as a result cannabis abuse becomes even more of a "Here I stand" for the young experimenter. It is not desirable to make it easier for the 16-year old, or the 14- or 12-year old, or younger, to start on the road to heroin. If I may say so, with all respect, I found the Wootton Report's section on progression (paragraphs 48 to 51) rather unsatisfactory, although I was somewhat reassured by the speech of the noble Baroness this afternoon.
Again I echo the views of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. We know that psychic or psychological dependence on cannabis can help alienate the abuser from society. Furthermore, my view follows that of the World Health Organisation as expressed by Mr. N. B. Eddy in their fifth bulletin of 1965—and I may be out of date—which says:
"Abuse of cannabis facilitates the association with social groups and sub-cultures involved with more dangerous drugs, such as

1317
opiates or barbiturates. Transition to the use of such drugs would be a consequence of this association rather than an inherent effect of cannabis. The harm to society derived from the abuse of cannabis rests in the economic consequences of the impairment of the individual's social functions and his enhanced proneness to asocial and anti-social behaviour."
Progression is still debatable. Changes in the law must not fail to take this into account.
How do we make drug abuse less attractive? As is generally known, cannabis is not physically addictive; one does not acquire a tolerance, or so it seems likely; harmful side effects have not yet been proved. Indeed these points encourage the hesitating to try: "Go on, it does not harm you". Much more research is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, pointed out, although I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness had to say about developments in the United States. But so far as I can tell there are no carefully controlled clinical studies of the effects of cannabis on the central and other nervous systems.
I hope that this and other important areas of ignorance will be explored by the three working parties set up to study the problems of drug dependence and by the new Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence which were mentioned in the Wootton Report. If possible, the results of tests on the effects of drugs on artists should be published and publicized. Would-be creators think that drugs may help them. The young often believe this and think that they will be the next Rimbaud if they have a few puffs of cannabis. Is this true? Kenneth Allsop, in a recent article in Encounter, noted that the perceptions, poetic or otherwise, induced by a particular drug do not vary widely from one person to another; the visions are all much the same. But this is tentative. Another view to which I incline needs exploration. I think that many drugs, whatever they do for the creative urge, dissipate the self-control needed for effective artistic creation. The technical skills and the power of direction seem to be dissipated. Miss Alithea Hayter, in her Opium and the Romantic Imagination, when she was talking of Coleridge, de Quincey and others and their dependence on opium, said:
"Many of these writers felt that they had been endowed with an exceptional insight into
1318
the secrets of the universe and could reveal its philosophical framework for the enlightenment of mankind; but the great work could never be finished, because the power to hold things together had gone, everything disintegrated, fell away into fragments."
I suspect that this statement applies to other people too.
Professor Bergel, F.R.S., whose help I should like to acknowledge, had a letter in The Times on January 22 of this year. His attitude on the problems of drug dependence and misuse is mine, but he puts it better than I can, so I hope that your Lordships will bear with yet another quotation. He said this:
"I am convinced that the main approach to the whole drug problem should be an intensification of the education of all age groups, by giving them as much information as is available. In my humble opinion, far more imaginative and convincing discussion by educators, youth leaders, friends, former addicts, and, last but not least, parents should take place to help urgently all who are exposed to fashionable temptations. This can be supported by equitable penalties, which however, cannot adequately replace instruction s and educational programmes, backed by physicians, surgeons and general practitioners. As the American Committees say"—
he was referring to the Council of Mental Health Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence of the American Medical Association and the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence of the National Research Council—
"an informed citizenry is the most elective deterrent of all."
By all means, my Lords, let us be generous to the youthful experimenter who gets caught and by one piece of folly may prejudice his whole career, but let us stop him reaching the point where temptation is too strong. To present the facts, and to make drugs, especially the commonest, like the amphetamines, cannabis, and the nasty LSD, seem ordinary, unnecessary and, if possible, boring is the best answer. I think a good approach is that healthy people do not need drugs. Little ground will be gained by glutinous appeals to morality or by inveighing against drug takers. Pupils may admire Charlie Parker or de Quincey (to name only the dead) more than their headmaster.
The legal and medical position must be made clear. The glamour will be reduced if the squalor is made obvious. Some local authorities are sending round films. This is a vivid way of explaining the pitfalls. But the aim should not be,

1319
"Terrify them!". Information, frightening information, too, must be presented, yet it is condescending to think that terror alone will work. Inside the school, which apart from the home is the best avenue for deterrence, a combination of several approaches must be tried. Discussions on the medical facts, led by a respected teacher, will probably be more effective than a lecture from an outsider. Both techniques could be used, with films and leaflets providing ballast. Ex-drug addicts could come and talk. Prefects must be briefed properly, and the whole process should start quite young—at least in the 14 to 15 year old age group, if not before.
I have made private investigations into the paths which the schools are pursuing to deal with the problems of drug abuse among the young. It is vitally important, for the young abuser, if he continues, will be a pocket of infection in the society of the future: and from experimenting he may end in dependence. The fashion must be stopped before it gets any nearer to being endemic. While some schools—and I sampled both private and State schools—were realistic in their outlook, some can be described only as shortsighted, complacent or foolhardy. In some cases the underlying attitude seemed to be "it would not happen to our pupils". In others, the problem was thought to affect only the more senior boys. This is not good enough. In this country young abusers tend to be the better educated, or so I gather: the reverse of the situation in the U.S.A. Drug abuse is prevalent at places of further education. Without wishing to sound elitist, I would say that it is surely undesirable that those who are capable of advanced courses of study should be handicapped by drug abuse which could have been prevented by a better system of health education in its widest sense. Otherwise, what a waste of money! What a waste of talent! What a waste, too, perhaps, of life!
Your Lordships may have read a rather highly coloured article in the Daily Express of March 11 of this year. A Dr. Blum, of San Fransico, was reported as saying:
"In the last eight years we have watched the age level of drug users in California drop from adults to elementary school children."
1320
The Report said that Dr. Blum had found that many 10 and 11 year olds were being exposed to cannabis. My Lords, there is no need for panic. But all social workers, youth leaders, teachers—anyone who has responsibility for the young—must be provided with the right information, so that curiosity and inquisitiveness are satisfied before the pressure to be "one of the gang" leads young people to experiment with drugs. I understand that in Jersey a standing group under the education authority, and consisting of one or two parents, one or two teachers, one or two lawyers, and one or two doctors especially interested in drugs, will be set up shortly. This sort of corporate effort can do nothing but good, especially if it brings in the parents as well, for a good home is the best safeguard of all. So the better informed the parents are, the better for the children.
It was only in 1961 that the first Brain Report found that the taking of habit-forming drugs was not increasing in this country. As was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, they soon had to think again. The situation must not be allowed to grow any worse any faster. Let us try to limit the drug habitués' menu. The pusher must be dealt with severely, and when young people are tempted they must know what these attractive-sounding items really involve.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I think that in this House we should all agree about the danger of drug addiction and the horrifying effects it has on the wretched addict, particularly the addiction to heroin and cocaine which are absolute killers. At the same time, I should like to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has said, that we must not become hysterical over this matter. It is a matter which we should examine carefully and coldly in order that we may take the best course of action and get the best results. I am afraid that if the prevailing hysteria is carried further we may take steps which ultimately would make the results far worse than the present situation.
I should like to add how much I, too, regret that the Report being discussed this afternoon was received in such an adverse manner. It seems an extremely good and fair Report, for which I am sure all your Lordships are most grateful, as

1321
you will also be for the speech of the noble Baroness which was most enlightening and helpful to us in our discussion on this subject. I am frightened as a result of the experiences I had in America before the War. I was there for about three and a half years, mainly during the prohibition period. There was the same sort of hysteria and the same fear generally spread throughout the United States after the First World War as we have here. It resulted, as we all know, in legislation which totally prohibited the sale of alcohol in any State.
This legislation was brought in by the most well-intentioned people to try to stamp out a great deal of drunkenness which was endemic in America at that time. I can assure your Lordships, from my own experience, that the results were absolutely catastrophic. Not only was there far more alcohol consumed, but drunkenness increased enormously, and as a side effect in many cities gangsters practically took over and ran whole districts. Worse still was the spread of corruption all through society, including even the police and, in some cases, city councillors.
There were two reasons for this spread of corruption. One was that public opinion did not respect the law; people did not really believe that such a law was right; they were determined to have their drink and they thought they were entitled to it. The other cause was the profitability of selling liquor of all kinds on the black market. There was an enormous black market with ramifications spread all through the States bringing really the most ghastly results. There was the selling of bad liquor which made people blind—they literally lost their sight—and there was the spreading of ill-health and alcoholism everywhere. Incidentally a very peculiar phenomenon arose, in that towards the end of prohibition there was this strange alliance, an undercover alliance you might say, between the prohibitionists, the people of good intention, and the bootleggers and those manufacturers of what they call "soft drinks", who naturally profited by prohibition, who were all working together to keep prohibition going. There was a great deal of difficulty in repealing the legislation because unfortunately it was written into the Constitution.
I have mentioned this example only because I think that the danger we have
1322
to guard against is the spread of a black market in drugs, which could very easily happen. Once there is a profitable black market the whole situation becomes infinitely worse almost overnight. So much has been said that there is very little one wants to add, but I personally hope that in this future legislation—which I am glad to hear is to be considered—drugs will be divided into the different categories, and that such drugs as heroin, cocaine, and so on will be separated from the milder drugs such as cannabis.
In the past few years I have lived for quite some time in North Africa, in Morocco, and there the smoking of what they call kief, which is the equivalent of cannabis, is almost universal. I believe that one of the reasons for the start of the habit—a habit which has been going on for a very long time—is that the Koran forbids the consumption of any alcohol, and that therefore instead of alcohol kief is smoked. I have spoken to many people, both Moroccans and foreigners living there, and so far as I could see—although there were obviously some terrible cases of real drug addiction—on the whole the effects were not as bad as the result from alcohol in this country. There were a few cases of people consuming to excess with unfortunate results, but I do not think it affected the mass of the population so very seriously. That is one of the reasons why we should make the punishments much less for the milder drugs, and possibly even consider legalising them in due course.
I should like to support two things which have been said this afternoon: the extreme importance of research in order to find out what causes people to want to take drugs, what the effects of the drugs are and how these can be coped with. I believe that very little research has been done in relation to the amount which is needed. I think a great deal more money and attention should be devoted to that question and obviously a great deal more can be done in education. I think the one hope of checking this very serious state of affairs is by educating the young in order to get a climate of opinion which appreciates the danger from drugs and which would encourage people to reform and not to take them. As has been mentioned, highlighting the idols of the young, the "pop" singers, and

1323
trying to make spectacular cases of them, is having exactly the reverse effect to what is intended: it is making them glamorous and making drug-taking glamorous instead of discouraging it. But I agree that this may be a matter of opinion.
The last point I wish to make is that I think it is very important to keep the good relations between the public and the police. If you give too much indiscriminate power to the police I think you not only hit at the liberty of the subject—which we are all trying to preserve—but you might well alter this good fellowship, this co-operation which I think we get in this country and which is so vitally important to us. I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time, but I would plead that in any review of legislation we should examine this matter rather more calmly and scientifically in order that the best results should follow.
5.36 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, at a time when "drug" is becoming almost an emotive word it is fitting that we should discuss this very vital and serious social problem, invoking the wisdom of your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe (whose speech I unfortunately missed, as I had to go to Essex to a school prizegiving; and I apologise to the House for being late in arriving here for that reason) has performed a most useful service in bringing this problem before your Lordships' House.
I would endorse what has been said about the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, although I think the Press were not quite so unfair as has been made out. I think there was one particular section about which they were critical, and that is paragraph 89, when it came to the subject of penalties. The person responsible for the Reservation, Mr. Peter Brodie, the Assistant Commissioner of Police for the City of London—I believe I have the title right—is a man I have known for some years. I knew him, when he was Chief Constable of Stirlingshire, as a man of much wisdom and experience, and I think his Reservation was one of restraint and wisdom, because there is no doubt that those who peddle drugs, particularly
1324
cannabis and the like, must face the full blast of the law if this particular aspect of the problem is to be solved.
I have given the noble Baroness notice of two or three questions that I wish to ask. The first is on the subject of education, already touched upon by a number of noble Lords, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whose very wise speech I am sure we all listened to with the greatest interest. It is very important that a person of his age should be able to make his views known on a subject of this kind, particularly when done with such knowledge and wisdom.
I should like to know whether in schools and technical colleges, where one can reach the older children and youths, regular lectures and talks on this subject are given by those qualified to do so. Doctors and magistrates could be put to good use by going round some of these schools and talking about this problem; and they could perhaps illustrate their remarks by pictures since children are always more impressed by picture than by word of mouth. Older children should be visited also by representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. There may be a danger that drugs are regarded as evil and undesirable (as indeed they are if misused and put in the wrong hands), but many people owe their lives to the enormous amount of research that has been carried out, not only by the pharmaceutical industry but by all the people who are concerned in the matter, into the manufacture and testing of drugs. This aspect of the matter needs to be put on record.
There is also a danger that the extent of the problem of the numbers who get hooked on these drugs may be exaggerated. One does not want to minimise the problem. Anybody who has served on a hospital committee (I serve on a hospital committee in Epsom, an area in which there are a number of drug addicts) and who has seen, as I have, a young person hopelessly hooked on a drug of this kind, will not easily forget the problem or seek to minimise it. Similarly, magistrates will always remember those hopelessly addicted to drugs who appear before them in the courts. I do not think that the number of such people is large, but that does not make the problem any less distressing.

1325
I turn to the question of security, which is a vital matter in our hospitals. I do not know whether there have been any instances of serious thefts or robberies from hospital pharmacies where large quantities of drugs are stored. I am thinking particularly of mental hospitals, where at night the main gate may be manned by only one person. It would be comparatively easy for a gang to overpower that man and to gain access to the hospital and possibly to the drug cupboard. I do not wish to make a great issue of this point, but in the context of this debate it needs to be looked into. Is the noble Baroness who is to reply able to give any information about security measures contemplated in the new legislation which is foreshadowed for the whole of the drug industry?
The pharmaceutical companies, a number of which I have visited, go to considerable lengths to ensure that neither their employees nor visitors get hold of drugs, and particularly the amphetamines. To quote one example, when my wife and I visited a large pharmaceutical factory in Hertfordshire, we handled one of the "purple hearts", as they are popularly called. As soon as we had handled it, the person who was showing us round took it from my hand, threw it on the ground, and stamped on it. We were bluntly told that whoever goes round the factory has that kind of treatment meted out to him, and it is right that that should be the procedure. Such caution can help to give people in general the right sort of attitude. Then there is the danger of the hi-jacking of lorries on the motorways on which drugs are carried. Serious problems undoubtedly occur if these drugs get into the wrong hands. The industry has a very good record in security matters, and I believe that its labelling procedures have greatly improved.
In the matter, of drug dependence one must differentiate between those who take drugs for therapeutic reasons (and a large number of people fall into this category) and those who simply take them and get hooked on them. Then can the noble Baroness say anything about the number of hospital beds which are at present occupied by those receiving long-term treatment for drug effects? This is a serious problem at a time of serious shortage of hospital beds. Legislation in this matter is urgent. Finally, could we
1326
be told when the names of the personnel of the Medicines Commission will be announced? Have the Government any idea what is the situation following the important legislation emanating from the Medicines Act?
5.48 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to speculate on the particular and profound reasons why this increase in drug-taking has taken place. Because I wish to devote my speech almost entirely to what seems to me to be the most penetrating of all the aspects of the case as presented to your Lordships by the noble Earl who introduced the debate, I will mention only two which bear on the topic on which I wish to say something.
I believe that we need to look with much greater care at the rehabilitation of those who are affected by drug addiction. In the largest sense of rehabilitation, we must address ourselves to the whole attitude, the Weltanschauung, of older people and younger people to-day. There seems to be a profound difference between the reasons for the addiction to alcohol (which John Wesley described, with fluency and accuracy, as "Two-pennyworth of gin to get out of Manchester") and the reasons for so many young and older people to-day being addicted to drugs. In the past, for many of those who resorted to alcohol it was an escape from misery. To-day, it is an aspect almost of affluence for many of those who resort to drugs. Far from thinking that most of them begin this activity by reason of some deep-seated motive, I suspect that a great many of them start for nothing more profound than the "kicks". Having no taboo or religious principle to deter them, they see no ethical problem in treating any new adventure as perfectly acceptable.
To this there may be added one other characteristic which seems to me to be fairly prevalent to-day, and that is the almost complete breakdown in the minds of many young people of the 19th century aberration from truth which asserted the general progression and inevitability of moral and intellectual progress. Many of the youngsters with whom I have to deal—and I do not pretend to be one of them—profess an interest in to-day because they have very little confidence in

1327
to-morrow. If we are to rehabilitate those who have become the victims of either of these attitudes, then how right the noble Earl was in saying that at one stage in this process we must seek the means of the hostel of one kind or another! I shall not delay your Lordships long, but I would point out straight away that there are three sorts of custodial, or semi-custodial, treatment which may supervene upon an earlier period of compulsory segregation; and to this matter I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will address himself.
There is, in the first instance, the clearing house, the short-term residence for those who can be taken off the streets, or those who have wandered in in a vagrant fashion to the centres of drug addiction, many of which are not far from your Lordships' House. This has to be a very short-term exercise, but unless there is somewhere to which, immediately, the drug addict who is prepared at least to consider such domiciliary residence can be taken, it is highly likely that with his bird-like mind and attitude of vagrancy he will not in fact submit to a longer-term rehabilitation process. It so happens that I was within half-an-inch of acquiring such premises, which must be in the centre of the area where the drug addict is likely to be found. I shall come to that in a moment, because the reason why it failed is very germane to your Lordships' concern.
The second kind of hostel is the hostel required where the prospect of rehabilitation is fairly high. This would probably have more to do with those who have not yet matriculated from the softer drugs to the harder and more potent drugs. Here it would be necessary to mingle an atmosphere of friendship and of community with all the technical skills that would be required to wean the young—and particularly the young—would-be addict at the stage at which he is amenable to discipline. Unless he can be so domesticated, it is idle to think that most of such young addicts will subscribe for any length of time to the outside extra-mural opportunities which will be offered to them. It is a matter of absolute cardinal importance, in my experience, that, unless you have a reasonable hold which is both voluntary and yet stringent upon them in the earlier
1328
stages, it is foolish to think that your hostels will be filled; and it is even more foolish to think that the rehabilitation process will be successful.
But I am afraid there is a third group. We have talked a good deal about the rehabilitation of the drug addict. I wonder how many of them will never be rehabilitated but can be brought to a certain stage of convalescence. But if they are to make any "fist" of the remaining years of their lives—which may not be very many—these derelicts who have lost many of the dimensions of recovery will need assisted housing of a very radical kind. If we are to face this problem with any sense of rigour and urgency, then this type of hostel must be considered as part of our programme; a hostel in which we must be prepared to see for very long periods the recidivist addict at least protected from the worst aspects of his addiction. Those are the three kinds of hostels.
Are they to be voluntary? I am sure they must be. If they are to be voluntary, why are there not more of them in existence now? When it was found that the particular hostel in Soho, in which I and friends of mine were interested, was to be a hostel for addicts, there was immediately a brouhaha. Indeed, there was more than that; there was such violent, immediate and uncritical opposition that the whole project fell to the ground. I was disagreeably reminded of precisely what happened in the last days of the L.C.C., when we were concerned to try to find a hostel for the poor relations of the alcoholics, the spirit drinkers; of how we found an excellent hostel in another part of London, and of how, as soon as it became known that it was to be such a hostel, there was a similar programme of antagonism, uncritical, most of it visceral rather than cerebral—the kind of opposition which made it completely impossible for us to go forward. We had acquired two other sets of premises only last week. These premises also have been unattainable for precisely the same reason.
I have great sympathy for those who fear that such hostels next door to their residences would prove sources of infection and of all kinds of disagreeable conduct and performance. But I should like to tell your Lordships that, having been responsible for a hostel for alco-

1329
holics in a crowded part of South-East London, I cannot record in the last ten years more than one complaint by residents of behaviour that was detrimental to the amenities of the particular area. In any case, the community in which we live must take a greater measure of responsibility, particularly because one of the reasons for drug addiction is the cultivated indifference of so many people to the welfare of those who live near to them.
Therefore, my Lords, I very much hope that there will be a greater sense of responsibility among people who perhaps would have to face a little inconvenience. I also hope that there will be a much more determined effort on the part of voluntary societies to find the kind of accommodation which is sufficiently remote to offer at least an answer to those who would profess that such accommodation was unacceptable to them. Of one thing there is no reasonable doubt at all; and that is that a process of education, which is imperative—a process, I think, of the rehabilitation of idealism—and which is also peremptory, will have little effect unless we can create in the addict who has become a lone wolf the new sense that he belongs to a community which does not condone his vice but understands his condition, and which is, above all, concerned to seek his rehabilitation.
5.58 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think I can be very brief in what I have to say. I shall confine myself to the question of heroin, to the matter of treatment and aftercare, and to the experience of the Prison Department in this respect. Curiously, this subject has been left out of the debate this afternoon. Most of the people we have been talking about end up, sooner or later, in front of a prison doctor, so this is not an experience to be ignored.
It seems to me that there are three stages. There has to be a drying-out stage, which can be, or which certainly used to be, a very terrible stage with hard drugs. Then there has to be a long stage of complete separation between the addict and the drug. Thirdly, there has to be the stage of support outside. I went this morning to the drug addict unit of Brixton Prison and talked to the doctors
1330
and to one or two of the people receiving treatment there. The doctors surprised me by saying that they are now quite capable of weaning any addict from his drug by use of the alternative drug, physeptone, of which we have already heard. It is obviously a dangerous and difficult drug, but it is administered under 100 per cent. medical supervision. The men are in a ward with a nurse, and are dealt with by a doctor. I saw a man who had been on full drugs up to 48 hours ago. He had been weaned straight across, and although he complained of feeling rather uncomfortable and not very happy he was no worse than that. This apparently is standard, as a matter of weaning. If the weaning can be done as efficiently as this in prison, it leaves us with the usual problem we always meet when we turn people out of prison, namely, that after that they are left to float, and all the good is undone.
I think it is worth looking at some figures. Last year, 235 heroin addicts passed through this unit. Each one was successfully weaned and no heroin was administered at all, although the unit has the right to do so. They reckon to see about one-third of the total of male heroin addicts, and Holloway reckons to see about one-third of the total of female heroin addicts. There is one rather interesting point there. Although the females in prison comprise 3 per cent. of the total population, the females under the addiction of heroin comprise between 20 and 25 per cent. of the heroin-addicted population, which is rather a terrifying thought.
A year or two ago, 94 heroin addicts passed through this unit—they go there on remand—and Dr. James, who is in charge, made a record of what had happened to them afterwards. It is quite interesting: 25 were conditionally discharged, 19 were put on probation, 24 were put on probation with attendance at a hospital as a condition, and 8 were given a suspended sentence. Only 24 went to prison. Of those 94, in my view the only ones who had the faintest chance of surviving were the 24 who went to prison, because there was nothing to keep the others away from Piccadilly Circus. I think there is absolutely no hope that people who have been properly addicted can, after three or four days'

1331
weaning, look after themselves. Therefore, it seems to me perfectly clear that there must be a sentence which includes the weaning period and a period of something like eighteen months or two years, where, under perfectly tolerable conditions but maximum security in relation to drugs, these people can be cured. After that, we come to the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Soper, but I would hesitate to send drug addicts to him until they had reached the end of the second year, or that sort of period, because I think their chances are otherwise very slim.
I consider that it is most important that the Home Office and the Ministry of Health between them should lay down what they want in the way of after-care centres. If they do that, people like Lord Soper and other friends that we have will provide for them. There is no particular difficulty in this matter. What we do not know is what is required or how to deal with it. So I think there is a three-fold sentence required. I should like to see a man sentenced to a period under anti-drug detention, or whatever it may be called—semi-penal detention—with a parole period afterwards of compulsory after-care in some kind of hostel. I should not hesitate to use compulsion. I have always been bitterly opposed to compulsion in the cases of other categories of prisoners. I do not believe in compulsion for inadequates, homosexuals or anybody else; I do not think it works. On the other hand, I do not believe that in these cases anything else works.
My Lords, there are two other points that I should like to make. The first and main one is to support my noble friend in his remarks about the difficulty in finding a site. He quoted his own case and another case in which the neighbours objected. But most of us here know of the case of the Simon Community, where it was the local authority who objected. They objected because they said that "meth" drinkers were being brought into the area, whereas in fact the Community were picking up "meth" drinkers who were lying about in the area. It is hopeless if people of good will get so little encouragement. I know that the Ministry of Health or the Home Office cannot give advice directly to local
1332
authorities, but I feel that if, somehow or other, they could give some sage advice it might make all our lives rather easier.
I understand from what my noble friend Lord Stonham said that there are one or two drugs of the LSD type which ought to be on the index (or whatever it is called) in the Schedule to the 1965 Act and which are not. He said that the authorities cannot put them on. I think that is absolutely absurd. If they cannot be put on, then let us have a short Bill—it would take a quarter of an hour—and do it in that way. Nobody can think that drugs of the LSD type ought to be easily available. I have not actually taken mescal for about forty years, but when I did it was in company with the Knightsbridge Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge and under the soothing and careful supervision of my noble friend Lord Adrian, who sometimes sits on the Cross-Benches. But the result was absolutely awful. I did it twice, and each time it was the most beastly experience—quite as bad as that which my noble friend Lady Wootton reports of the regius professor when he drank tea. One had a feeling of appalling and universal depression. It is a very terrible thing. It is perfectly clear that anything which can change one's personality in that sort of way must not be let loose on people, even though some people see new colours—which is what we were hoping to do at that age but did not. But that is no excuse.
My Lords, that is all I want to say. I feel that there is a three-fold form of treatment and after-care which is absolutely obvious, so please let us administer it. It will mean legislation, I believe—I do not know—but, if not, it is perfectly clear that nothing else is much good. Secondly, if really dangerous drugs cannot be listed in an existing Act, may we please have a Bill in which to put them?
6.7 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, when I was 14 years of age a friend came to stay with my widowed mother and brought her husband with her. This shadow of a man was the holder of the Victoria Cross, which he had won as an officer in the R.A.M.C. for tending the wounded under fire. He was a hopeless morphia addict. He had been, I understand, a particularly strong character,

1333
physically and in every way, and he had picked up the addiction through giving himself stimulative shots during his arduous duties in hospitals during the South African War, believing that he could resist the hooks of addiction. This he failed to do. He had also, as so often is the case, become somewhat addicted to the bottle; and I shall never forget that, as a boy of that age, I was frightened by this great, big, quiet figure moving about the house, sometimes at night, mumbling and singing below his breath, and so on. In fact, this has had an effect upon my attitude towards this question of drug addiction all my life.
For some years, not so long ago, I was connected with a company manufacturing opiates, and I was consequently continually in contact with people who knew about the subject and who handled their problems and the stuff itself as part of their daily lives. I was particularly impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said as to his impressions of a pharmaceutical establishment. One of the things that impressed me was that these people, who were in close contact with the whole matter, had the most rigid code of discipline—not only the discipline of the parade ground, as it were, but a discipline of the mind arising out of the respect which they had come to have for the terrible dangers of drug addiction. In the course of that connection I also had occasion to have dealings with the Home Office, and I should like to reiterate what has already been said by other speakers about the great respect in which they are held in the industry and about the wonderful work which they do in connection with protecting our community from this dreadful drug problem.
So, my Lords, at the two ends of the scale I have reason to be deeply impressed by the problem which confronts us; and, as the father of a family, I have warned and warned again that no one should ever experiment with a drug of addiction. No "new adventure"!—these were the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. It is not every experimenter who might be as lucky as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who got one of the effects of hashish. Another, I understand, is loquacious euphoria.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think that that is a drug of addiction.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I was going on to that. I believe that it is. Despite what the noble Baroness has said, I believe that no society should permit such experiments, and I agree very much with the right reverend Prelate—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I point out that I never said, and neither did my Committee, that such experiments should be legalised?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I was going to confirm what the noble Baroness has said. I agree. I am simply saying that it should never be legalised. I agree with the right reverend Prelate, with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and others who emphasised the importance of education in this matter—not only education from the schools, from travelling experts and the like, but education in the family. Right from the beginning of children's up-bringing they should be made conscious of these dangers. I think it a pity that the Press do not play as strong a part as they might in this particular problem. Let there be more "sheer defiance" against the resorting to drugs of addiction. I use the words from the noble Earl's speech in which he said (and he is right) that it is possible that with a youth you can provoke sheer defiance by being unreasonable. But this is a reasonable objection.
Because of the many years that I spent in India, I believe that bhang, chharas, hashish, by whatever name it is called, (and from the word "hashish" stems the word "assassin") is recognised as a drug. It is true that the Report quoted what was said by the Indian Hemp Commission about hemp drugs and general health, but anyone who has been in contact with people, and particularly the less educated, who have been addicted to it—although it may not strictly be a drug of progressive addiction, which was pointed out by the noble Baroness—got pretty sharp at spotting somebody who was inclined to take it. One could not help seeing that while perhaps physically they were perfectly well, mentally they were not. In India the problem is different from here. In that climate cannabis grows luxuriantly, as it does in Australia. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness talking of the connection between heroin and cannabis, if any. I heard only the day before

1335
yesterday from a daughter of mine in Australia that in that country it is more or less recognised that "junkies" grow cannabis which they market under the counter in order to pay for their own particular addiction. This was new to me.
But the problem is different here in that the plant does not grow luxuriantly. Therefore I think we can say fairly that we can approach the problem of cannabis here in a different way. As I have said, I believe that it is more than possible that once the "new adventure" has been taken with cannabis, a certain fibre is not as firm as it might be and the "new adventure" might then lead to a really hard drug. Therefore, I believe that we should set our face against the "new adventure" of whatever sort.
So, with other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the promise of comprehensive legislation. I roundly support what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said; but I would go further. I would ask the Government this question. Need we wait all the time that is obviously necessary to prepare a really comprehensive drug law before putting up the penalties for those who possess cannabis for supplying to other people? Would it not be possible—and this point was made by the noble Earl in his opening speech—no matter that it would be what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, called piecemeal legislation, to do that now so that what the noble Baroness said—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that we should put up the penalties for possesing and trafficking in cannabis above 10 years imprisonment, plus a £1,000 fine?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct in drawing attention to that. I did not mean so much the penalties for that offence but for being in possession with intent to sell. This is not in the existing legislation. That is the point I wanted to make; and it is the point made by the noble Earl. It is not just being in possession but being in possession in order to corrupt others.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he really suggests that even those people should be subject to more than 10 years in prison plus a £1,000 fine?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, that I leave to people wiser than myself. The fact is that the noble Earl made this suggestion. As in the case of robbery generally, where it beats me why we cannot get at the fences, so, in connection with drugs, I feel that the sinners are the people who corrupt others.
My Lords, I gave Lady Serota notice of a question on the subject of heroin. Can she tell us whether all the heroin used in this country (except for a comparatively insignificant quantity which may be stolen from manufacturers, stockists or hospitals) is either on prescription or else imported? If the latter, does it follow that it is smuggled? I ask this because, like the noble Earl, I was upset by the article in The Times this morning. I was confused because I was under the impression (and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to make it clear) that heroin which is used other than on prescription in this country must inevitably have been imported or stolen. I set aside the heroin which is consumed on a forged prescription. But this brings me again to the fence. Where does this stuff come from? Is it from Syria, the Middle East, the Far East, South America? Do we know from where it is pouring into this country? Can the Press or public opinion, or the United Nations, do more than they are doing at the moment to limit the source or trace the people who are undoubtedly making a small fortune out of this vile trade? Of course there are those in this country (I am not one of them) who say, as I mentioned earlier, that there may be an international underground power that is only too glad to see our society subverted by means of drugs of this nature.
My Lords, I would end on a more trivial though not altogether frivolous note. In the course of this debate no-one has mentioned the drug of noise, of din. This drug is something of which one of my young people talked to me the other day: it has a curious effect on the mind. Surely this eternal canned music from "tannoys", in stations and aircraft, the amplifiers on the guitars, and double basses, and so on, is quite unreasonable. This is not altogether a frivolous remark because, as your Lordships can see in paragraph 26 of the Report, an inability to appreciate volume of sound

1337
appears to be one of the effects of cannabis. My Lords, I believe that this has been a most interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for initiating it. I look forward with great interest to what will be said by the speakers who will wind up the debate.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as one who from this Box had some responsibility for the passage of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 through your Lordships' House my first and particular interest was to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, how the addiction centres, which formed the central part of the provisions in that Act, had been developing. I believe, with him, that it would be true to say that the system of addiction centres established under the Act is succeeding, at any rate for the time being, in containing heroin addiction, and that the centres have brought some order into what was, a year ago, a thoroughly disturbing and chaotic situation in which there was a rapidly developing problem.
I think this is the moment to thank and to pay tribute to those who contribute to the smooth working of the centres. None of the psychiatrists, doctors and nurses, or the social workers who support them, had any previous experience of operating such centres and it is very much to their credit that they have so quickly reached the stage which has been achieved. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and many others, that the next step is further to develop these centres from what they are at present, which is not much more than prescribing centres, into what will be truly treatment centres, providing a firm cure and leading on to full rehabilitation.
The difficulties here—and I do not think that enough has been made of them—are that the needs of these addicts cannot, in my judgment, be given priority over the needs of other patients who have as much right (many would say more right) to the services of skilled doctors, psychiatrists and social workers, and hospital and clinic facilities, all of which are to-day in short supply. This, I think, supports the argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge: that if by applying compulsion to addicts to complete their treatment we could make better use of the facilities
1338
available, then for heaven's sake! let us make use of it. I know that there are some who feel that there are enough powers under the Mental Health Acts to compel addicts who are being treated and rehabilitated to go through with their treatment. If this is so, it would be nice to have confirmation of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, when she replies to the debate.
The other problem facing the development and treatment centres is that if the cure and rehabilitation of old addicts does not keep pace with, or overtake, the hooking of new, unregistered addicts on heroin, the demand for illicit heroin may come to exceed the supply by a large enough amount to encourage a thriving black market. This has been the danger from the beginning, and now we have to watch it rather carefully. The article already alluded to by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe makes that point, too. There is quite a danger that we shall be suffering in the future from heroin smuggled in by crooks in the same way that we suffered from heroin being over-prescribed by doctors. Apropos the treatment centres, I think that the House would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, what machinery is in use, or has been established, or is to be established at central Government level, for coping with the difficult problems of judgment in the use of these centres.
I should like now to turn to the question of drugs and the law. This has been mentioned by several noble Lords, and there is not a great deal more to be said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there is scope for tidying up the whole of our legislation on drugs and making it more comprehensive and flexible. I do not think a case has been made for relaxing any part of it in isolation, and I believe that the courts should be able to discriminate in respect of penalties between the drug-pushers and their victims. Fresh regulations under Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 for the safe keeping of dangerous drugs in factories, warehouses and shops will be welcome, and perhaps one could say that it is time they were produced, though it is true to say that the present arrangement, resting on voluntary action by the pharmaceutical industry and retailers, seems to be working quite well.

1339
My Lords, I do not believe that there is any case for making changes in the police powers of search and arrest until this problem has been examined in much greater depth, as I understand is being done. I think that the proposal from my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for a White Paper on this subject is something that would be well worth looking into; but I suggest that it should be a White Paper not concerned solely with legislation but dealing with the whole question of drug abuse and how it may be tackled.
So I conclude, my Lords, that most, but not all, of what can be done to combat drug abuse by statutory and legislative action has, for the time being, been done. I believe, with many other noble Lords—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was the first to mention it—that our strategy now calls for preventive action by the community in the community, and within the laws we have. This falls into two categories: first, action by the pharmaceutical industry which, on the whole, has I think been pretty effective, although it may be possible to buttress this by regulations; and secondly, action by the medical profession. I think it most unfortunate, if I may say so, that not a single doctor (and there are a fair number in your Lordships' House) has taken part in this debate.
Frightful damage has been done by the notorious doctors Petro and Swann. I live in a county the middle of which has been ravaged by the former. There has been damage to the lives of all those reached by the excessive drugs which they prescribed and also, I submit, to the reputation of the medical profession. No profession is without its black sheep, but a profession the members of which have the lives of men in their hands must be capable of dealing with its black sheep better than these two were dealt with. Unprofessional and infamous conduct went on undetected for so long before the criminal law could get them.
My Lords, in his second Report of 1965, the late Lord Brain recommended that the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council should take some responsibility for the black sheep of the medical profession. To be precise, he recommended that if the Disciplinary Committee were satisfied that a doctor
1340
had been over-prescribing restricted, dangerous drugs, the Committee should have the power to withdraw from that doctor authority to prescribe, supply and administer those restricted, dangerous drugs. All that is set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the second Brain Report. In the Report, it was said that legislation would be necessary for it to be possible for the Disciplinary Committee to do this. However, in the event, the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 provided different legislation. Authority to prescribe heroin to a registered heroin addict was withdrawn from all but specially licensed doctors, and it became a criminal offence, not profesional misconduct, for any other doctor to prescribe drugs to these people without authority.
That deals with the over-prescribing of heroin, but there is still a good deal of over-prescribing of many dangerous drugs that are open to abuse by many people. To check it by further legislation on the previous pattern—and this they do not seem to be able to appreciate—would seriously erode the freedom of doctors to prescribe. Powers of control could be given, of course, to the Minister of Health, but I should have thought that that was the last thing we wanted. Surely it would be much better for the independence, the reputation and the freedom of the medical profession for its own General Medical Council to be given the powers it needs. The late Lord Brain and his experienced Committee thought that the Council should have these powers. I believe that it is time to look at this again and if necessary bring forward the small amount of legislation which would be necessary to give effect to this recommendation. Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she replies, will give us the view of Her Majesty's Government.
I turn now to the final point I want to make, about preventive strategy. If it is true that the growth of heroin addiction has been contained, it is by no means true that the abuse of other drugs has been contained, though there has been progress in two fields. Here I think we owe our thanks to all those concerned working in each local situation, but where I think thanks are chiefly due is to the police, particularly to the local drug squads where they have been formed, for the accurate information

1341
which they are making available to all the other people who need to get to grips with this problem. I hope that other areas are as lucky as we are in Hertfordshire with our drug squad, which does not hesitate to pass on to all concerned the information which is at their disposal. I dread to think where we would be if information the police had gleaned had not been made available to schoolmasters, probation officers, psychiatrists and so on.
As a result of this spread of information, I think it is true to say that public attitudes are now developing from a fear of an unknown problem—and it was this fear which produced the public reaction to the Report of the noble Baroness about which we have heard this afternoon—and from a powerful desire to believe that the problem does not exist, to an awareness, an alertness and a willingness to expose and to face the facts, though I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that in the public attitude there is a great deal of cultivated indifference still to be overcome.
In this connection, your Lordships may be interested in a few extracts from a routine bulletin which covers one health and welfare division in the Home Counties, which, as I say, is still suffering from the attentions of Dr. Petro. It says:
"Heroin. The original hard core of heroin takers (40 to 60) … has largely been contained. Most confirmed addicts now on regular physeptone following treatment in hospital and addict centre attendance. An unstable and unreliable group showing recurring breakdowns needing admission to hospital and intensive follow-up. Heroin now very scarce due to legislation limiting prescribing and high price."
Note the high prices; sooner or later this attracts the crook.
"Amphetamines … still available but not so freely passed or used in colleges as a year ago. Not so freely available although still widely prescribed by G.P.s. Tendency for former heroin users to use methadrine … does not seem to be extending."
This seems to be due to the voluntary action of the pharmaceutical industry restricting supplies to hospitals.
"Fewer young people using syringes. Tendency for young persons … to experiment with barbiturates…
"Cannabis. Week-end reefer parties still reported throughout area …
1342
Two groups in two towns which were specially prone to cannabis parties in the Autumn of 1968—
"now largely stopped as a result of police and youth leader action"
Note the "youth leader".
"Frequent prosecution of young persons in possession of cannabis—usually known drug takers.
"L.S.D. not used …"
Thank goodness ! Then follow statistics of the details of the developing supporting services, and a section which I mention particularly as it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan:
"Programme of Parent-Teacher discussions arranged for all secondary schools. Attended by divisional medical officer and"
a consultant psychiatrist.
"Discussions with staffs of secondary schools on the main aspects of addiction. To be included in discussions on topics of personal relationships and social disciplines commencing when children 13 years of age."
That is the sort of thing we want to see.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the date of that Report?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this refers to January of this year.
I should like to run through the group of people who are responsible for compiling and sharing this kind of information. They comprise two psychiatrists from local hospitals, three general practitioners from local towns, a headmistress, headmaster, youth employment officer, divisional education officer, divisional medical officer, divisional social work organiser, divisional child care officer, senior probation officer, representatives of the Association of Youth Clubs, the local scouts, and the police drug squad, a local magistrate and two community development officers. I believe that progress in the next phase of the war against drug abuse will be made through local groups like these. There is, of course, scope for more central research and study, for more flexible and more comprehensive legislation, and for the further development of addiction centres and their supporting services. But I wholeheartedly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and many others, that in the end the curbing of drug abuse will come about through more enlightened, more

1343
understanding and more responsible public opinion at all age levels. And it is local groups like the one I have just described which will help, and I hope will increasingly help, to form it.
6.38 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the subject of to-day's debate has served to highlight the tragic and disastrous effects which drug misuse and drug dependence can have particularly on the younger generation. It is right therefore that we should have given this subject the close and careful attention it has had in the House to-day and I join all noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for giving us the opportunity, on the Motion he has put down, of discussing this grave social problem.
I would not attempt a comprehensive survey of what has been an extremely complex and informed debate, but I should like to take up the number of points that your Lordships have touched on during the course of our discussion and indicate some of the areas which I regard as vital, in relation to both our present thought and future action, and at the same time indicate the thinking of Her Majesty's Government on particular aspects of this difficult field. The one area of the debate which I feel I would not presume to comment upon is that relating to the Wootton Report on Cannabis. All of us who know, admire and, if I may say so, love the noble Baroness have the greatest admiration for her intellectual integrity and ability. I would only add that, if she has a fault, it is perhaps that she is too clear-headed and too clear-sighted, and is generally some twenty years in advance of her time. I fear that for this quality she sometimes has to suffer.
I was grateful that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, reminded us that we should try to keep these matters in perspective. Fortunately, the drug problem in this country is, relatively speaking, small compared with the problem in other countries. I would venture to disagree with both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when they say that this is not a new problem. It is not perhaps new in itself, but I think it is fair to say that it is new in its present form. If your Lordships had
1344
been discussing drug dependency in this country some ten years ago, we should have been concerned with the middle-aged and the middle class. The difference in the last eight to ten years, as I think the noble Earl pointed out, is that this is now concentrated in our larger towns and cities, and mostly among the younger age groups, between 18 and 25.
I think we should also bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, reminded us, that the vast majority of young people to-day do not in fact take drugs, other than for medical reasons. We must remember that drug misuse, also, is not an isolated condition—and I listened carefully to the words of the noble Earl on this matter when he introduced the Motion. It is but one manifestation, among others, of wider social difficulties that could well lead to other forms of anti-social behaviour and to delinquency. It is also, I believe, as well to remind ourselves that not everyone who decides to swallow a few pills to obtain a stimulus will necessarily become dependent on drugs. The vast majority, even of illicit drug takers, reject the idea of persistent use. Nevertheless, drug misuse can, and sometimes does, progress into drug dependency. There is, therefore, a very real problem to be tackled. It is, after all, as the debate has shown, our children and young people who are at the greatest risk in the current drug scene, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, described to us, I thought, so vividly and effectively in compassionate and balanced speeches.
My Lords, as I listened to the debate, which has already gone on now for almost four hours, it seemed to me that there were four main streams of thought emerging from it. I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has discussed the need for prevention, be it in the context of short-term prevention by restriction and control, or long-term prevention in the field of education. Treatment also has been a major theme in the debate, followed by rehabilitation and community support; and, finally, the need for more research and more knowledge. I propose to reply to points made by noble Lords under those main headings.
In the first place, in relation to long-term education—long-term prevention, if

1345
I can put it in this way, remembering that the young are those at the greatest risk—the Government entirely share the views expressed by several noble Lords of the importance of education, including health education, as a means of preventing the spread of drug taking. In the last three years, none of us could fail to be aware of the considerable publicity, not always, I am afraid, of the most helpful kind, that has been given in the Press, on radio and television, to the problems of drugs and drug misuse. There are indeed few people who are unaware of the existence of the problems associated with drugs in this country. We do, however, need to advance with particular caution (again, this point has been made in the debate) in considering extensive and indiscriminate publicity in this field, because of our present uncertainty as to the most appropriate and effective campaign to counter the problem.
Since this new social problem has developed and concentrated in these age groups, local authorities and voluntary organisations in different parts of the country, as many noble Lords will be aware, have employed a variety of specific methods and preventive techniques, including in-service training of staff, film strips, symposiums, film shows and pamphlets. The Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence set up a Committee on Health Education and Publicity, and reported to the Ministers their view that there was not at present a realistic basis for a mass preventive campaign against the misuse of drugs. But they did recommend that there should be a pamphlet containing factual information for the benefit of young people and such groups of adults as teachers and youth leaders, probation officers and, of course, parents. As it happens, this particular recommendation of the Advisory Committee came at a time when other bodies, such as the British Medical Association, had already decided to issue pamphlets of this kind. And noble Lords will be aware that, following the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, the Government last Year set up a new central body, the Health Education Council, to develop the existing health education promotional activities of the Department of Health and Social Security, and that of the Central Council for Health Education.
1346
I am sure your Lordships will wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on her appointment as the new Chairman of this body, and you will want to join with me in wishing her every success in this vital new work. Here I must make a confession of guilt. It was unfortunate that the Council should have been without a permanent Chairman during recent months, since my own departure. That is something I deeply regret. But they have been particularly fortunate in working under the able acting chairmanship of Dr. Fletcher, who was originally my Vice-Chairman on the Council; and I am glad to know that they will now be working at full vigour, with a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and their new Director.
Another point that has emerged throughout the debate (several noble Lords have mentioned it, and I repeat it now) is that we do not at the moment know enough about the factors which influence the attitudes and behaviour of the drug dependent, and more research is needed in this area, particularly in the field of education. I understand that the Council's future programme will include research to assess the effects of various techniques currently used in health education, and to develop new forms of communication. The Report of the Advisory Committee to which I have referred was sent to the Council when it was received by the Government. I am informed that the Council consider that as a first step, in view of the exposure of children to various media giving information about drug misuse and dependence, a start should be made on carrying out research into the effectiveness of such visual aids to see what reaction they are provoking, and to see what methods of health education are most suitable in this sensitive field. I believe that the research design has already been discussed, and I hope that the project on a pilot basis will go forward in the near future.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me for interrupting? Could she tell us whether it is proposed to make possible research into cannabis, which is at the moment impossible, because although cannabis may be supplied to accredited medical research workers, it cannot be used owing to the present restrictions on the use of premises?
BARONESS SEROTA: I was trying at the moment to cover the need for research into the field of communications. Perhaps a little later I will try to deal with the noble Baroness's rather wider point on medical research into cannabis use.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and other noble Lords, raised the question of health education in schools and colleges of further education. The Department of Education and Science, of course, offer to education authorities and others information and advice in this field; and the noble Lord may have seen that their latest handbook on health education covers this question of giving to schoolchildren and to students factual information about drug abuse and drug dependency. It is of course a matter for local education authorities to undertake their own responsibilities in this field. But it is the general view of the Department—and I think it is one on which noble Lords will probably agree—that one should not, in the context of general education, treat drug abuse as a subject in isolation. Nor should it be approached from an emotional or a moral standpoint. Any approach to young people poses special problems and dangers, and the Government feel that school children should be informed of the risks of experimenting with drugs in the same factual way as they should, for example, be warned of the risks of cigarette smoking and alcohol.
I now turn to this question of what I called at the outset short-term prevention. A number of noble Lords have raised specific points about the control of drugs and also the prescribing by doctors. May I deal first with the specific point raised by the right reverend Prelate in his remarks, asking whether the Government propose to control the manufacture, distribution and prescription of amphetamines. The answer to this question must be given in three parts. First, there are no statutory powers at present available under which control of the kind the right reverend Prelate was envisaging could be imposed. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Stonham explained, the Government intend to bring forward proposals for recasting and strengthening the present law; and one aim of the measures my
1348
noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs have in mind would be to abolish the rigid barriers between the so-called "soft" and "hard" drugs and permit each drug to be controlled on its merits. Thirdly, the question of whether amphetamines generally or selectively would then be placed under more stringent control would depend on what view the Government formed after consultation with the various interests, taking into account the advice the noble Baroness and her colleagues may have to offer when their present study is completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked about secure control of drugs, particularly in mental hospitals. I think that when he reads the speech of my noble friend Lord Stonham at the outset of the debate, which Lord Auckland unfortunately could not attend owing to a prior engagement, he will find that this point was dealt with. In passing, I may say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in process of considering appointments for the new Medicines Commission under the new Medicines Act. I myself have seen the papers recently, so I can assure the noble Lord that an announcement will be made as soon as the necessary consultations have taken place. Another specific point on drug control. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked about heroin. I can inform him that with the exception of thefts and the Chinese heroin that my noble friend Lord Stonham dealt with a little earlier in the debate arising from the mention in The Times to-day, we believe that all the heroin used in the United Kingdom comes from legitimate prescriptions.
This brings me on to the general point about misuse and prescribing. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made it clear to us in the debate that some of the drugs, although not all of them, which are used by young people are still derived from doctors. What, several noble Lords have asked, can we do to counter this? I would suggest that there are three things that are both possible and appropriate: first, greater self-discipline by doctors—and here I join the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his thinking; second, action under the National Health Service, and third, action by the General Medical Council—and I will deal with those three

1349
points in turn, because of the great importance I know the House attaches to them.
No doctor who is practising medicine to-day can be unaware of the risks inherent in the use of certain drugs. Any doctor contemplating prescribing one of these for a therapeutic purpose ought certainly to weigh his decision very carefully, and if he regards a drug as essential for his patient's treatment should limit the quantity strictly to the amount his patient will require to the immediate purpose of his treatment. Doctors, rightly, and with the support I know of your Lordships' House, set very great store by their freedom to prescribe, but it is a freedom which surely can be maintained only if it is responsibly exercised.
Under the National Health Service regulations my right honourable friend has a power to refer to the judgment of his own local medical committee a doctor the cost of whose prescriptions, whether by reason of their character or quality, appears to be in excess of what is reasonably necessary for the proper treatment of his patients. In the event of the committee finding the case proved there are provisions for withholding remuneration from the practitioner concerned. In our view, of course, such action should never be resorted to lightly but should be used in cases of flagrant over-prescribing. In any case, it relates primarily to over-prescribing generally rather than to excessive prescription of individual undesirable drugs by a doctor whose general prescribing costs are not excessive.
Turning now to action by the General Medical Council—a point that was powerfully stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, towards the end of the debate—I would say that this would be appropriate only in those cases where the motives of the doctor are open to such serious question that the subject of infamous conduct arises. Noble Lords may be aware that the General Medical Council have stated in a pamphlet issued to all doctors that disciplinary proceedings have been instituted by the Council in cases in which a doctor is alleged to have purveyed drugs to persons other than in the course of bona fide treatment. Here I think we are all deeply sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, President of the General Medical
1350
Council, so well known to and respected by your Lordships, has been unable himself to come here to-day to speak on this matter, which he regards as of such great importance. But I understand from the discussions that have taken place that the Council are very willing to consider the evidence in cases of this sort. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services has accordingly asked our Department to report the facts to the Council in any cases involving grossly excessive or irresponsible prescribing that come to their notice; and I have every confidence that these cases will be carefully considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, however, pointed out to us that even after disciplinary proceedings before the General Medical Council a doctor's right to prescribe drugs of misuse continues undiminished during the period allowed for appeal to the Privy Council and such further period as is required for determination of his appeal. I am aware of the great public concern that has been evident over certain recent cases. This time lag, if I may put it in this way, is a consequence of one of the safeguards provided by the Medical Act in disciplinary procedures, but I share the concern expressed by noble Lords in this matter, as does my right honourable friend, and we are already consulting the General Medical Council to see what steps can be taken to deal with this very difficult situation.
I now turn to this question of treatment, and to the issue of compulsory treatment, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Donaldson, in particular. Noble Lords will be familiar with the various arguments for and against compulsion and will also know that psychiatrists working in this particular field prefer to work in a voluntary situation. Under the Mental Health Act there is no provision for detention or compulsory treatment of an addict simply for his addiction. In some cases however, and especially where the addict's life is severely disorganised by his addiction, there will often be other evidence of a psychopathic character or of depression or other form of mental illness, and such symptoms could justify consideration of compulsory admission of the addict to hospital under Section 25 of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord

1351
Donaldson, referred to the interaction between the treatment in the mental hospital situation and in prison. In this context I should like to inform the House that one of the most valuable recommendations that will be coming shortly to us in the Advisory Council's Report on Rehabilitation is that, in an attempt to add to our knowledge in this particular field of difficulty, there should be mounted a comparative study of the effects of compulsory treatment in prison and voluntary treatment in a mental hospital.
Similarly, this Report will commend to the appropriate statutory authorities the next steps, if I may put it in this way, of the campaign. There is no doubt that in these developments voluntary organisations and individual volunteers have a very important part to play; and here I join with all noble Lords in stressing the need for their services, particularly when the addict requires support while he is trying to re-establish himself or to maintain himself in the community. I would again point out here that in the view of the Government these organisations need not necessarily be ones that concern themselves exclusively with drug problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, mentioned the need for hostels. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham and I will be able to put our heads together here. It was suggested that there was a need for central assistance and direction. In this particular field, however, one must be continually conscious of the fact that drug dependence is a difficult, sensitive and sometimes disheartening problem, and therefore it is vital that the hospitals, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations in the community should work closely together in a planned and co-ordinated way. Therefore I would urge the voluntary organisations that are working, or hoping to work, in this field to get together with the statutory authorities to plan their ideas and to pool their experience from the early stages of these developments.
We then came to the point of the support of the community, which several
1352
noble Lords have mentioned. Here I think the Government would welcome the kind of developments of bringing together people in the field, both organisations and individuals, in the way mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The right reverend Prelate told us of the experience on his home ground, and I also understand that in Bradford, for example, there is a liaison committee some 20 strong, with the Chief Constable in the chair, comprising representatives of hospital staffs, police, general practitioners, local authorities, probation officers, courts, universities, local education authorities, children's departments, youth departments, in fact all the agencies, both statutory and voluntary, working together, meeting together, discussing together and, above all, exchanging knowledge and experience in a field where in fact we know so little.
My Lords, the hour is late and I have spoken for longer than I care to speak at this Dispatch Box. But I am sure that this debate, which has ranged so widely, has provided a most valuable opportunity to the House to record the progress which has taken place so far in this field and also to pinpoint some of the intractable and difficult problems that still exist. Although I was glad that from every corner of the House to-day there was a general consensus that the hospital treatment clinics have produced order out of chaos and done much to reverse the disturbing upward trend in the field of heroin addiction, the debate has been valuable in identifying those areas of prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and community support which we shall need to tackle further.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would not wish to resume my seat without placing on record the appreciation of the Government for the work of the doctors, the nurses, the social workers and research workers in voluntary organisations, be they individuals or groups, who are working steadily in what is really an uncharted area and which some of their colleagues, I am sure, find an unattractive and unrewarding one. The debate has also revealed how much there is still to do, and I would suggest to the House that the pressing need in this field is to spread existing knowledge and to acquire more

1353
to assist the future development of means and facilities to meet this.
My noble friend Lady Wootton made a point about research in the cannabis field. I take note of that and I will refer it to my noble friend Lord Stonham and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to take further. We also need to investigate further the sociological and psychological aspects of the causes of addiction. We need to understand much more the needs of those who misuse but who are not yet dependent on drugs, and we surely need still to continue to examine the efficiency of what we, as a community, provide in the way of facilities for treatment and the rehabilitation of those who become dependent on drugs. All this knowledge is essential, as well as taking action on the lines which have been indicated by several noble Lords, if we are to help the most vulnerable group of young people in our society who are at present either in danger or at risk. This, my Lords, is surely a task which can be successful only if carried out by cooperative efforts on the part of the Government, universities, local authorities and voluntary organisations. That is the theme which has gone right through this debate, and in the last resort we can only provide what society demands for these young people.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hesitate to interrupt, but I am unhappy about her reply and I think the point is important. Perhaps my question was not properly couched. She said that all the heroin used in this country was manufactured here. I take it that she means all the heroin that is legitimately used. My question arose out of the article in The Times this morning, and my impression is that the heroin used by "junkies", other than what is stolen or over-prescribed, is all imported now, and therefore smuggled.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sorry if I have not been able to satisfy the noble Lord. My feeling is that the House would like to go home and perhaps we can discuss this subject afterwards.
LORD FERRIER: Yes, my Lords.
7.6 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, at the conclusion of what has been a constructive and worthwhile debate it is something more than a courtesy to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. In the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, I am sad that it was not possible for another member of the medical profession to take part, seeing how much these matters have borne on professional medical interests.
I am particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Sandford for saying at the conclusion of this debate, from this Box, all the things that I should have said at the start. He always speaks with clarity and authority, but I think that this evening he spoke with special clarity and authority, as well as from a very deep knowledge and experience of this matter. When I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for their comprehensive and (I hate to use the word, but I must), very competent replies, that is more than a formality. If I may express one disappointment, it is that they were not able to translate their experience of this problem, and their determination to get on top of it, into a more positive response on the question of rehabilitation and the hostels. I hope that when they 1,o to their offices at 8.15 tomorrow morning they will tell their colleagues and their officials of what I think was a universal feeling expressed in this debate, that this is an area which needs more effort and more drive—and more money, possibly.
Of course it was very valuable that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was able to take part it this debate, which has borne very much upon her Report, and I am sure your Lordships will all agree that the noble lioness has defended her lion cub of a Report with that lucid, maternal ferocity which one would expect of her. Finally, may I say how much I personally enjoyed the thoughtful and penetrating comments of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I think it was valuable that we heard a rather younger voice speaking with such penetration on this subject to-day. My Lords, with those words, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1ª.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPER-ANNUATION ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

LORDS' ATTENDANCES
Return of the number of days on which each Lord was recorded as being present
1356
in the House during Sessions 1963–64 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68: Laid before the House, pursuant to the Order of Thursday last, and ordered to be printed.

KIDDERMINSTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] TWEED FISHERIES BILL [H.L.] WHITGIFT CHARITIES BILL [H.L.] BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.