Sitting of 16 July 1970

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

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday next.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Motion made,
  That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How may I object, Sir, to this matter being taken at this point?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has objected. Objection taken.
  Third Reading deferred till this day at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Doctors' Pay
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will obtain from the National Board for Prices and Incomes and publish its draft report on the reference to it of doctors' pay.
    The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): No, Sir. The reference on doctors' and dentists' pay was withdrawn on 29th June, before the National Board for Prices and Incomes made its report. It would not be appropriate to publish drafts or working papers.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is acting with a grave degree of irresponsibility in failing to publish an independent scrutiny into a 30 per cent. pay claim while at the same time saying that people with lesser pay claims and much lesser earnings are guilty of participating in a wages explosion? Will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Carr: No, Sir, I will not reconsider it, and I am not acting in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. We regard it as inappropriate that the findings of one review body should be referred to another. The National Board for Prices and Incomes had not completed its report. No draft or provisional reports have ever been published before, nor would it be proper to do so.
    Mrs. Castle: But is it not a fact that this reference was withdrawn because the outline of the report was already clear and it was known that it would be critical of the Kindersley Report? How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to persuade unions to show restraint in wage claims when the very first act of the present Government is to cover up for this highly inflationary award?
    Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady must know that what she said is not our view. It may be her view. Our view is that we shall not get responsibility in any level

    1697
    of industrial relations or pay negotiations until bodies which are given responsibility for coming to settlements are allowed to have their settlements stand. That is the basis for order in collective bargaining.

    Price Increases
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many notifications under the Prices and Incomes Act in respect of price increases have been made to his Department since 18th June, 1970; and what action he has taken on them.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Paul Bryan): Such notifications are not made to my Department. Since 18th June, 60 notifications have been received by Departments responsible for particular commodities and services under the voluntary arrangements for the early warning of price increases.
    Mr. Fraser: Will that voluntary notification machinery be continued in order to keep a watch on prices, and will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, wherever there is a price rise which gives cause for concern, he will, jointly with other Ministers, refer it for public scrutiny to the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Mr. Bryan: The Government have stated their determination to strengthen the economy and to curb inflation. As I have said, the arrangements under which firms at present notify proposals for price increases are under review in the context of our detailed consideration of means of achieving the Government's objective. As for the Prices and Incomes Board, my right hon. Friend will be answering Questions on this subject a little later.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As so many of the price increases are motivated by the behaviour of nationalised industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, they are—and as price increases by nationalised industries are now to be the responsibility of Government Departments, will Ministers answer in the House for the reaction of Government Departments to the demands of nationalised industry for price increases?
    Mr. Bryan: In his speech on the Address, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1698
    said that all these rises, or possible rises, in the nationalised industries would be carefully scrutinised.
    Mr. Barnett: Following the Prime Minister's recent reply, may we take it that the Government intend to allow private industry to increase prices as it will without any Government intervention whatever?
    Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman may take it that competition will be introduced during the lifetime of this Government in a way which was not known under the last Government.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he proposes to prevent unjustifiable price rises.
    Mr. Bryan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 9th July, 1970.—[Vol. 803, c. 79–80.]
    Mr. Sheldon: What action does the Minister propose to take if, as a result of the dock strike or for any other reason, a company abuses its market power and increases prices unjustifiably?
    Mr. Bryan: History shows that competition—[Interruption.] I say again, history shows that competition has been much more effective in curbing prices than have any of the administrative measures of the last Government.
    Mr. Dell: If the hon. Member believes so intensely in competition, will he inform the House when he expects to complete his current investigation into competition law and when he proposes to introduce legislation creating a Registrar of Monopolies and Mergers?
    Mr. Bryan: Neither of those things may be said yet.

    Bideford
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will take steps to encourage children in the Bideford area of North Devon to enter local industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Dudley Smith): School leavers in the Bideford

    1699
    area of North Devon receive full advice and information from the Youth Employment Service about the range of employment opportunities which exist in local industry and this policy will be maintained.
    Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise how difficult it is to encourage young people to go into industry in an area in which there have been no new factories in the past? Will he encourage day-release classes from schools so that they can at least go into industry to see what it is all about?
    Mr. Smith: I agree that that is one of the points that should be considered. But last month there were 205 unfilled vacancies in the Bideford area, and we expect that the majority will be filled, so the situation is not quite as grave as it might appear.

    Okehampton
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the present level of unemployment in the Okehampton area of Devon.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th June, 159 people were registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Okehampton Employment Exchange and the percentage rate of unemployment was 4·2.
    Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise the impossible position many small towns are in when they are just outside a development area? The have suffered considerably under a Socialist Government. Let us hope that under my hon. Friend's direction they will not suffer under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Smith: I know my hon. Friend's genuine concern for his constituents of that area. There has been a great deal of dispute over the past month whether the area should be included in the development area or should become an intermediate area. That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address a question to him about it.

    Training Facilities (Tyneside)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity
    1700
    what additional training facilities he intends to provide on Tyneside; and what discussions he has arranged with the training boards and the trades unions on this subject.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend will announce the Government's proposals in respect of all areas and arrange necessary discussions when he has completed his full review of training needs.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not that reply rather disappointing in view of the very clear promise by hon Members opposite before the election of increased facilities for training, and particularly in view of the very high and increasing proportion of unskilled men out of work?
    Mr. Smith: We are well aware of the difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's area. That is why we are having a thorough review of all training activities. But the primary need in the hon. Gentleman's area is jobs, and training is ancillary.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will arrange to use the facilities available at certain technical colleges on Tyneside for general engineering training for the younger unemployed in the area.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion in our review of industrial training needs.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of certain correspondence with his Department that has already taken place? If any further proposals are put up, will they be considered?
    Mr. Smith: Certainly they will be considered. The view has been taken until now that industrial-type courses are best tackled through Government training centres, but there is a possibility of a certain type of industrial course through the training colleges. We are prepared to look at that further.

    Weymouth and Portland
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals he has to ease winter unemployment in the Weymouth and Portland areas.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am aware of the seasonal element in unemployment in the Weymouth and Portland area. The Department's local officers do everything they can at all times to help workers registered with us to find employment, including the offer of training opportunities where appropriate.
    Mr. King: Would my hon. Friend encourage the use of Portland stone, which is the best stone in the world, in Government building? Would he also guarantee, in an area where there is 5 per cent. unemployment, a fuller issue of industrial development certificates, whether or not it is a development area?
    Mr. Smith: The matter of i.d.c.s is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I am sure that he will look sympathetically at that point. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about Portland stone is "Yes, Sir". There has been a fall in the demand for stone products, but the Government would be prepared to look at the question of using this stone for Government buildings.

    Dorset
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many unfilled vacancies for jobs there are in Dorset excluding Poole.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Department's vacancy figures relate only to vacancies which were notified to Employment Exchanges and Youth Employment Service Careers Offices and which remained unfilled on a selected day. They do not measure the total demand for labour. On 3rd June, 913 notified vacancies remained unfilled in Dorset excluding Poole.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a need in Dorset not only for more vacancies but for vacancies for better-paid jobs? Will he consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about this?
    Mr. Smith: I am certainly prepared to do that. According to the latest estimates by industrialists, there are nearly
    1702
    2,200 jobs in prospect for the area over the next four years.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures for unemployment in Dorset, including Poole; what were the comparable figures for October 1964; and which trades showed the biggest increase in unemployed.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Total numbers registered as unemployed in Dorset at June 1970 and October 1964 were 2,710 and 1,701, respectively. From June 1964 to June 1970 the greatest increases were just over 400 in manufacturing industries, just over 300 in construction and more than 200 in insurance, banking, finance and miscellanous services.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need again to improve job opportunities in Dorset, opportunities which deteriorated greatly under the last Government, particularly for school leavers if they are not to be lost to the county for good?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of that and the Department is doing everything it can to help those out of work. The percentage varies considerably even within my hon. Friend's constituency, from as much as 3·7 per cent. in Bridport to 1·5 per cent. in Dorchester. We are not complacent about the situation.
    Mr. David James: Is my hon. Friend aware that these considerations apply particularly to the areas around Gillingham and Shaftesbury in North Dorset?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Motor Industry (Strikes)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps he is taking to reduce strikes in the motor industry.
    Mr. R. Carr: I am of course very conscious of the serious effects of strikes in this industry. My Department will as hitherto do what it can to help resolve disputes in the industry. The Motor Vehicle Joint Council, which was established in December last year, is working to improve procedures and pay structures,

    1703
    and is available to investigate, with the consent of the managements and unions concerned serious unconstitutional stoppages. It did in fact play a useful part in settling disputes in the past.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend propose to continue the arrangements whereby special troubleshooters like Sir Jack Scamp are appointed to rove far and wide over the industry and all its component ancillaries, having regard to the very serious and proliferating effect of all the strikes and stoppages?
    Mr. Carr: My general philosophy is to encourage as far as we can self-responsibility within each industry. But I believe that people like Sir Jack Scamp and others can at times play a very useful part, and we do not wish to underestimate that.
    Mr. Edelman: Has not experienced proved that the difficulties of this complex industry can be resolved only by a general consensus and not by piecemeal settlements? Will the Minister reconsider the proposal which I have put to him before that a national conference should be convened of all the interests involved?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly I will consider that, as I have told the hon. Gentleman. I have not had a great deal of time to consider it in the past week. But I feel that the Motor Vehicle Joint Council begins to get after what is wanted by the hon. Member. We must be careful about more conferences sometimes causing delay in action rather than expendition.

    Redundancy Payments
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what changes he proposes to introduce in redundancy payments.
    Mr. R. Carr: I am reviewing the redundancy payments scheme, but I cannot yet say what changes may be necessary or desirable.

    Building Workers
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many building workers are registered as unemployed in the London area.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th June there were 8,451 persons registered as unemployed in the Greater London area who last worked in construction, which covers building, civil engineering and other allied activities. Separate figures for building workers are not available.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not ridiculous, with such a desperate housing need in London, that all these thousands of men should be unemployed? In addition to the expected announcement that the matter is under solemn review, what will the Minister do about it?
    Mr. Smith: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should have been addressed to his own Front Bench. His Question was about the London area, and I can tell him that the unemployment rate in the construction industry in the London area is only about half what it is in the rest of the country. This matter is receiving our attention.
    Mr. Heffer: As the hon. Gentleman and I were making rather similar proposals to my Front Bench, now that his hon. Friends have the control of the country what will they do about some of those proposals?
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member will just give us a little time, he will see.

    Monopolies Commission Report (Supply of Beer)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he is taking with the brewery companies to lessen the anti-competitive effects of the tied-house system.
    Mr. Dellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he proposes to take on the Monopolies Commission Report on the supply of beer.
    Mr. Bryan: My officials will be meeting the brewery companies to discuss the proposals the Department have put to them and the companies' comments on the proposals.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that this discussion has been going on for a long time? May we have his assurance that the Government will not

    1705
    ditch the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, that the Government will not capitulate to the brewers, and that he will set licensees and the general public free to sell or drink whatever beer they want?
    Mr. Bryan: We accept the findings of the Commission that the restrictions on competition involved in the tied-house system, as operated under the present licensing laws, in fact operate and might be expected to operate, against the public interest, which I think covers a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has just asked me. Meetings with the brewery companies are continuing, and after they have been completed we shall decide what steps we shall take.
    Mr. Dell: Is the Minister aware that this will be regarded as a test case whether his Government are or are not interested in increasing competition?
    Mr. Bryan: I am sure that we shall come out of this test very well.
    Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that to make worth-while changes in the tied-house system will require beforehand a very comprehensive review of the licensing system? Is he prepared to undertake that extremely difficult task?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that what my hon. Friend is saying is that apart from the economic aspects of the matter there is a very big social aspect as well. In this connection, clearly, the Home Office will have to have quite a large inquiry before we come to a final decision.

    Co-operative Insurance Society (Dispute)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he is aware of the dispute between the Co-operative Insurance Society and its agents; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will make a further statement on action taken by his Department in connection with the dispute between the Co-operative Insurance Society and its agents.
    Mr. Bryan: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply of 9th July to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Officers of my Department have maintained close touch with the parties following the joint meeting under departmental chairmanship on 29th June. The T.U.C. has seen both sides and is now exploring the possibility of a meeting between the two parties.—[Vol. 803, c. 831–2.]
    Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that despite Mr. Feather's intervention, there has still been no development? Is he aware that in many districts the girl clerks are now on strike against being asked to do "blacked" work and that, as a result, the C.I.S. will be unable to fulfil its obligations unless it makes some move on what is a very moderate claim?
    Mr. Bryan: I am aware that the position is getting increasingly serious. The conciliation officers of my Department only last week met the parties again offering once more the possibility of Departmental chairmanship of a meeting, but that has not been considered profitable at the moment. I can only repeat the assurance that we are closely in touch with the situation and will do everything we can to help.
    Mrs. Butler: As this is a serious situation, with damaging effects on all concerned, is not this an appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to take the initiative to convene a fresh conference with both parties to the dispute in an attempt to reach a settlement?
    Mr. Bryan: I am prepared to consider that should it look a promising move to make, but at this moment I do not think that it would be.

    Courtaulds Factory, Wolverhampton
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he intends to assist those employees affected by the closure of Courtauld's factory in Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I understand that the factory will close on 31st July. A team of my Department's officers is working full time in the factory interviewing the employees and giving advice about other jobs and training opportunities. Special approaches are also being

    1707
    made to employers likely to be interested in the people concerned.
    Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this closure will affect 1,300 workers, which is a large percentage? Does he not think that he might make approaches to Courtaulds which, after all, is a private enterprise firm which has just declared £52 million profit? Does he not think that it might be persuaded to treat its workers rather more humanely than is proposed?
    Mr. Smith: I understand that this factory has been running at a loss for some time. Most of those who will be affected have fairly good prospects of getting other employment, because, fortunately, Wolverhampton has below the national average rate of unemployment.

    Equal Pay
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will bring forward the date for the full implementation of equal pay.
    Mr. R. Carr: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Short: In view of the Prime Minister's recently discovered interest in women and housewives, and as many women voted him into office, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to change his views about this matter and to give women a fair reward for the job they do in industry and to bring forward the date for the implementation of equal pay? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Carr: This was one of the matters on which I agreed with the right hon. Lady my predecessor. It is difficult to decide the correct speed of implementation. I think that the five-year period, which was set in the Equal Pay Act, is about right as a statutory requirement.

    National Board for Prices and Incomes
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will abolish the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what plans he has for the future of
    1708
    the National Board for Prices and Incomes and, in particular, in view of the Government's policy about inflation, whether he will obtain an early report from the Board on its retail prices reference, or an interim report;
    (2) if he will make a statement regarding the successor to Mr. Aubrey Jones as Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will make a statement on the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in view of the fact that the contracts of the Chairman and eight other members, the statutory minimum, all expire at the end of October.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans he has for the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. R. Carr: The future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and its work is being actively considered and I shall be making an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Iremonger: While considering this, will my right hon. Friend bear clearly in mind that if the people had wanted Socialism, they would have voted for it?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly.
    Mr. Grant: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in answering these Questions candidly at this stage, in view of the schizophrenia on his own Front Bench. However, he did not answer the second part of my Question relating to retail prices and the inquiry into retail prices being conducted by the Prices and Incomes Board.
    Mr. Carr: At the moment, I am not proposing to ask for an interim report.
    Mr. Tugendhat: When my right hon. Friend undertakes this examination of the work of the Prices and Incomes Board, will he also be able to make a statement as soon as possible on the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower?
    Mr. Carr: The proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower is a threat which has now been removed from the

    1709
    country, but we are reviewing all these matters and I will make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Golding: Who is to be responsible for scrutinising wage settlements in the nationalised industries? Who is to be responsible for deciding the criteria on which the settlements are to be judged? May we be told what type of action is to be taken and by whom if the Government decide that these settlements are too high?
    Mr. Carr: In due course.
    Mrs. Castle: While we are awaiting the outcome of these further deliberations, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with the statement of the Council of the C.B.I. yesterday that it is essential that prices be allowed to rise?
    Mr. Carr: As my hon. Friend has made clear and as history has proved, the encouragement of the maximum amount of competition, coupled with sufficient cash flow in industry to induce the maximum amount of new investment, are the best safeguard of the lowest possible prices.

    Industrial Retraining
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps he is taking to increase industrial retraining.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Government are committed to an expansion of retraining facilities and my right hon. Friend will announce our proposals when we have completed our full review of industrial training needs. Meanwhile, existing plans to set up nine more Government training centres are proceeding without interruption.
    Mr. Eadie: Can the Minister inform the House that there will be no cut-back in training in relation to any cut-back in public expenditure? May I take it from his Answer that he is telling the House that the promise in the Tory manifesto that there would be an increase in industrial training will be implemented by the Government?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that there will be
    1710
    an increase in industrial training. In fact, there was a pledge to this effect in the Gracious Speech. That pledge will be implemented. But we need to survey the whole scene thoroughly before we announce our plans on the subject. By saying that, I think that I have answered the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Mr. Holland: In considering the future of training in this country, will my hon. Friend also look into ways and means of stimulating retraining within industry itself, and not merely in terms of expanding Government training centres?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, and one of our proposals is that we should look at the operation of the industrial training boards. We said so in opposition; we said so in our election manifesto, and this will be carried out.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not do what the Tory Government did in 1963, when we had 136,000 unemployed and they then closed two training centres in Scotland?
    Mr. Smith: I was not personally responsible for that, but I cannot envisage any closures with the high rate of unemployment that now exists in Scotland.

    Yorkshire Woollen Industry (Commonwealth Citizens)
    Mr. Merlyn Reesasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many work vouchers have been issued to Commonwealth citizens annually since 1962 for employment in the Yorkshire woollen industry.
    Mr. Bryan: I regret that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Rees: Is the hon. Member aware that these vouchers were issued by name to Commonwealth citizens, and only where his Department were sure that there was a shortage of labour in the area? Will he now take steps, in consultation with trade unions and employers in the Yorkshire woollen industry, to replace those Commonwealth citizens who will be repatriated?
    Mr. Bryan: I shall certainly go into the question that the hon. Member has just asked, but it is not covered by the original Question.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend's difficulty in answering the question perhaps due to the somewhat vague phrasing of the original Question? It was not quite clear from the original Question whether the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was referring to the specific woollen industry or to the generic wool trade.
    Mr. Bryan: I understood the hon. Member to mean what he said, in which case it would have required looking up the records for the last eight years at 73 employment exchanges.

    Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he intends to reintroduce the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: We are giving urgent consideration to the proposals in Part I of the previous Bill to establish an Employment Medical Advisory Service. So far as Part II is concerned my right hon. Friend is to start further consultations with the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries as to the best way of getting improved arrangements for joint consultation on safety matters.
    Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Member recollect that in 1927, when this was first suggested, it was announced that the voluntary system would be given another chance, but that since that time factory accidents have risen from 148,000 a year to over 300,000 a year? How many more consultations are necessary and how much more blood must pass under the bridge before something is done?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Member knows, there has been an enormous improvement since 1927, and even over the past few years. As the hon. Member heard me say in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, there are practical difficulties to the implementation of Part II, but we shall look at them and see what is the best way to get more effective consultation.

    Jute Textile Industry (Employment)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the number of persons employed in the jute textile industry in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding figures for midsummer 1967 and 1964, respectively.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The estimated numbers of those in employment in Scotland in the jute industry at mid-1969, mid-1967 and mid-1964 were 14,800, 14,700 and 16,500, respectively.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards areas of above average unemployment in regions of below average unemployment.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Government attach the greatest importance to promoting full employment and an effective regional development policy. Our local officers do everything they can to help workers who register with us to find employment, including the offer of training opportunities, where appropriate.
    Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Member aware that while there is still widespread concern about the Government's policy towards the main development regions, evidence is also anxiously awaited on precisely what the Government will do about the serious problem of relatively high unemployment in otherwise prosperous regions?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. As I said in previous Answers, this is one of the matters that we have under active consideration. Questions of regional policy should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but we are not unaware of the problem to which the hon. Member referred.

    Faversham
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the comparative figures for the number of persons employed in the brick industry in the employment areas

    1713
    covered by the Faversham constituency in October, 1964 and June, 1970.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Employment estimates for local areas are made only for each mid-year and the latest are for mid-1969. The estimated numbers of those in employment in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Sheerness employment exchange areas in bricks, fireclay and refractory goods at mid-1964 and mid-1969 were about 500 and about 200, respectively.
    Mr. Moate: Does the Minister recognise that this loss of jobs in the brick trade is a serious cause of the high rate of unemployment in North-East Kent? Will he take urgent steps to remedy the damage done to the brick trade and the building trade as a result of six years of disastrous Socialist Government?
    Mr. Smith: It is fair to say that the figures have been inflated by the closure of four brickfields in this area, but I understand that there are no serious resettlement problems.

    Government Training Centres (Scotland)
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when he proposes to publish his proposals for increasing the number of industrial training centres in Scotland.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I have nothing to add at present to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 9th July and to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) earlier today.—[Vol. 803, c. 80.]
    Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that the Answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 9th July did not tell us anything that we did not already know, namely, that the plans were those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? We should now like to know whether we can be assured that there will be an increase in the number of training places and, secondly, the extent of the guarantee he intends to give private firms to allow them to build up their training facilities.
    Mr. Smith: The latter question is not for me, but I can assure the hon. Member
    1714
    that in the survey that we are making the intention is to increase retraining facilities. We are very conscious of the need for this, but it takes time to make exactly the right sort of plans to become effective.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it serves little purpose to increase training facilities in Scotland when the trade unions in the engineering industry are able to prevent the employment in that industry of those who have been trained in Government training centres, and even to prevent the employment of those in skilled jobs who are fully trained for those jobs in the engineering industry?
    Mr. Smith: Successful retraining depends on an adequate labour market and also on the willing co-operation of trade unions and employers. I very much hope that we shall get it when we announce our proposals.

    Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will seek so to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956 as to enable newsagents to combine together in order to negotiate with new newspaper suppliers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bryan: I do not think that a change would be justified. There are in any case serious difficulties in amending the Act in the interests of a particular trade or industry.
    Mr. King: Have not the courts overturned the argument used by the Board of Trade in 1968, and is it not now the position that retailers are powerless in any attempt to bargain with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association? Is not this an undesirable monopoly situation?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not think that I can comment on the effect of the Act on a particular course of action or situation. The relevant factors are not merely the terms of the Act; they are also the orders of the Restrictive Practices Court, which, in the newspaper trade, have prohibited the making of certain types of agreement.

    Bedwellty
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the present incidence of juvenile unemployment in the Bedwellty constituency; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the situation.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th June there were 175 boys and girls under 18 years of age registered as unemployed at the Aberbargoed, Blackwood and Cross Keys careers offices. Careers officers are doing everything possible to help them find suitable vacancies.
    Mr. Kinnock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Answer. However, I hope he realises that the figures disguise the real tragedy of youth unemployment, which is seen in emigration and in severe insecurity among youngsters. For instance, he will be aware that 62½ per cent. of the number of children entitled to leave school in this area in Easter this year returned to school. Will he encourage his colleagues to bear this in mind in their long-awaited reconsideration of regional employment policy?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Smith: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is genuine. Young people who cannot obtain training or progressive employment in their home areas may receive financial assistance under the Training Allowances Scheme to enable them to live away from home. We shall do all we can for the young people of the area.

    Bargoed and Caerphilly
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the current rate of male unemployment in the Bargoed and Caerphilly employment exchange areas.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th June the rates of unemployment for men in the Bargoed and Caerphilly travel-to-work areas were 7·6 and 8·0 per cent. Respectively.
    Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these mining areas are threatened with further pit closures and that without the previous Government's
    1716
    incentive policy of attracting industry to these areas the percentage would be much higher? Will he exert all his influence with the Prime Minister to give a clear assurance to the people of these areas in Wales that the previous policy will be continued until the situation has been completely remedied?
    Mr. Smith: The question of pit closures is not for me, but I draw some encouragement from the fact that the June total of registered unemployed in this area was the lowest for any June since 1966.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations he had with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress since 19th June; to what extent he discussed his proposed Industrial Relations Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 9th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 79.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when he meets the General Secretary of the T.U.C. he will congratulate him on the sterling work he is doing to resolve official and unofficial strikes and that he will not introduce legislation which has proved to be a nonsense in other countries in which it is operating?
    Mr. Carr: On the last part of the supplementary question, we shall be putting forward proposals for a framework for the more orderly conduct of industrial relations and they must be judged on their merits. On the first part, I have frequently, both from the benches opposite and from this side of the House, paid tribute to the work of Mr. Victor Feather.

    Registered Disabled Persons
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will give the percentage increase or decrease in the unemployment of registered disabled persons, nationally and for the London Borough of Harrow, as between June, 1964, and June, 1970.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The percentage increase in the unemployment of registered disabled persons between June, 1964, and June, 1970, was 38·6 per cent. for Great Britain and 132·3 per cent. for the London Borough of Harrow.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend take urgent action to put into reverse the policies of the previous Government which have resulted in such distressing unemployment figures, nationally and in Harrow, among people who cannot look after themselves?
    Mr. Smith: I know my hon. Friend's great interest in the subject, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the disablement resettlement officer service is being reorganised and substantially strengthened and that new arrangements are being introduced for the more intensive inspection of records of employers who have a statutory disabled quota obligation.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what has been the rise in the Retail Price Index during the last three months; what this represents in money value; and if he will estimate the effect of an equivalent rise on the purchasing power of the £ sterling over five years.
    Mr. Bryan: The rise in the General Index of Retail Prices between 17th February, 1970, and 19th May, 1970, was 2·4 per cent. which is equivalent to about sixpence in the £.
    If this rate of increase continued over a period of five years, the purchasing power of the £ sterling, as measured by the General Index of Retail Prices, would fall by about 7s. 6d.
    Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures which he has given prove that the policy of statutory control of prices and incomes propagated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite is absolutely useless for controlling prices?
    Mr. Bryan: This subject was debated at length and in depth during the recent General. Election which resulted in a resounding victory for the Government. It is also an advertisement for the fact that competition is far more effective than
    1718
    any step taken by the Labour Government to curb prices.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has made a projection of price increases. What steps has his Ministry in mind to ensure that that projection does not become a reality?
    Mr. Bryan: Our policies, which will unfold over the next few months, will convince the hon. Gentleman that he is in good hands.

    PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will now meet the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. Tomorrow, Sir.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister use the occasion of that meeting to pay tribute to the significant part which the statesmanlike and moderate words of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic played in cooling the passions of those who feel strongly that the Orange walks, however well ordered they may be, are provocative? Will he also pay tribute to the temperate manner of the minority in Northern Ireland during the walks?
    The Prime Minister: I paid tribute to the attitude taken by all people in Northern Ireland in the message which I sent to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland earlier this week. I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute which he has paid to Mr. Lynch.
    Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland the feeling of gratitude of the whole House to the security forces who have managed to bring about an atmosphere in which the wishes for peace of the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland have triumphed over the purveyors of disorder and disruption?
    The Prime Minister: I sent a message of appreciation to the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, and he has sent me a message of appreciation in return.
    Mr. Latham: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make

    1719
    some inquiries into the circumstances of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who is in prison in Northern Ireland? Also, in his discussions, would he point out what a gesture of conciliation it would be if the Northern Ireland authorities were to release the hon. Member?
    The Prime Minister: I could not agree with the last part of the supplementary question, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be talking to the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning and he will be able to discuss certain aspects of this matter with him. There are other aspects which my right hon. Friend the Lord President has in hand.
    Mr. Callaghan: When the Prime Minister talks to the Northern Ireland Prime Minister about affairs in Northern Ireland, will he discuss with him the question of the next march which we have to fear or look forward to—that of the Derry boys in August? Many people think that it could be much more provocative than the last march, and I hope that it will be discussed.
    The Prime Minister: We appreciate the possible seriousness of the situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already had discussions about this matter and he will continue them tomorrow.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those responsible for the riots and appalling loss of life and injury in Northern Ireland recently are the extreme republican elements?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the fact that last weekend passed off peacefully has given considerable gratification to the House. We must now look to the future.
    Mr. McManus: As a gesture of good will to the minority, and to reassure them, will the Prime Minister, when talking to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, ask that gentleman to sever his links with the Orange Order?
    The Prime Minister: These are internal matters for Northern Ireland which I would not discuss with the Prime Minister.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Far East.
    The Prime Minister: I shall be attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Singapore in January.
    Mr. Sheldon: As a result of the previous Administration's policy, the dispositions of our forces in the Far East will result in a net run-down of forces, which, in the absence of any instruction to the contrary, will continue. Has any contrary instruction been given?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained in the House on Tuesday, the number of our forces in the Far East is much greater than we visualise remaining there under the five-Power force. The Secretary of State for Defence is going to the Far East in the last week of this month to have discussions with the other four Commonwealth Powers involved about the make-up of the force and, naturally, he and his advisers will then be able to settle the future dispositions.

    UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Prime Minister if he will carry out the engagement, accepted by his predecessor, to attend the General Assembly of the United Nations this autumn so as to participate with other heads of Governments in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the United Nations and the launching of the Second Development Decade.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister expect to be able to assure the General Assembly that Britain will make a substantial contribution to the objectives of the Second Development Decade? If so, will he ensure that the Cabinet bears all this in mind when considering the aid figures as part of the public expenditure review?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not yet considered the contents of my

    1721
    speech, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows of my deep personal concern about aid and U.N.C.T.A D., and it may well be a suitable opportunity for me again to make the position of this country plain.

    UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: President Nixon has invited me to visit the United States. I look forward to doing so at a mutually convenient time.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much pleasure it will give hon. Members on this side if his first official visit abroad should include a call on the Head of State who had the prescience to realise some time ago that my right hon. Friend would be sitting where he is today—where he is likely to remain for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Faulds: Ha! He is helpful.
    The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy to visit the President again, and I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) in doing so.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: In view of the high proportion of Questions addressed to the Prime Minister, from both sides of the House, which seem to wish him to be elsewhere than in this House, will he consider making arrangements to stay away permanently?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate, however, that, unlike my predecessor, I have been able to resist those blandishments.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: When visiting the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister carefully consider the reasons why the United States has reached the conclusion that it would be unwise to sell arms to the Republic of South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: There will be ample opportunity to discuss that matter later.

    TELEPHONE TAPPING
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister if he will request the Chairman of the Security Commission to review the present immunity of hon. Members from telephone tapping.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there are to be any changes in general practice they will not be made secretly or unilaterally—in other words, that in this, as in other things, he will avoid the bad example of his predecessor?
    The Prime Minister: The situation remains as it was announced by my predecessor on 17th November, 1966: there is no tapping of the telephones of hon. Members. I fully accept, however, the point made by my hon. Friend and I give the same undertaking as my predecessor gave—that if there were any development of a kind requiring a change in policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the previous decision was neither secret nor unilateral? The House was told when the decision was taken. It was also told, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that should any developments require reconsideration of the policy, the House would again be told.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that that is so.
    Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the House was informed two years after the decision was taken in secret and that it was a decision directly contrary to the unanimous advice of the Birkett Commission, which reported in 1957?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot take responsibility for what happened under the previous Administration, but I have given the House my own undertaking that if a change of policy were required, I would come voluntarily to the House and make a statement at such moment as was compatible with the security of the State.
    Mr. Rose: If the Prime Minister decides on a change of policy, will he first authorise the tapping of the telephones of those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who appear to have a hot line direct to Salisbury and Cape Town?
    Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend explain why Members of Parliament should be immune?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the anxieties which exist in some parts of the House about the fact that Members of Parliament should appear to have privileges other than those of other citizens, and I have shared those anxieties. I have given very careful consideration to the matter since I became Prime Minister. I believe that it is right that we should retain the present position. There are various other anxieties, as well as security anxieties, in people's minds, both inside and outside the House, on the political aspects of this matter. I therefor believe that until such time as I feel that for the security of the State it is essential that the policy should be changed, we should retain the present position.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement which he made will meet with very wide acceptance in most quarters of the House because of the importance that must be attached to free communication between a Member of Parliament and anyone who wants to get in touch with him?
    The Prime Minister: I accept that, but I think that the widespread dislike of telephone tapping goes much further than that. It is a process which, generally, is thoroughly disliked, and I state this principle with only the proviso that the security of the State must be maintained.

    DEPARTMENTS OF STATE (REORGANISATION)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his further proposals for the reorganisation of Departments of State and the machinery of government.
    The Prime Minister: I expect to do so in the Autumn, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Warmly welcoming the reduction in the number of Ministers—Conservative quality instead of Socialist quantity—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is busy writing the obituary of the Land Commission and the Prices and Incomes Board? Could we also have a bit of retrenchment in the nationalised race relations industry?
    The Prime Minister: I have announced that we are reviewing a large number of aspects of the structure of government. I do not wish to deal with any particular aspects at this moment, but I will make a general statement in the autumn.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the changes in the machinery of Government, many of which are probably necessary but which are now quite frequent, are not having a rather deleterious effect upon the Civil Service?
    The Prime Minister: I am very well aware of the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and I am anxious to avoid them. That is why I am taking a certain amount of time in making dispositions, because I want them to last.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Recalling the exchange between the Prime Minister and myself in the debate on the Gracious Speech, when, I think, he rather misunderstood a reference which I made—a reference to the co-ordination of housing between the Departments of Housing and Local Government and Transport, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not proposing to appoint an Overlord, as I did—may I ask whether he was aware that what I was referring to was a decision, taken originally last October and about to be carried into effect, for the total integration of those Departments with the Ministry of Works, too, with a Minister and not an Overlord?
    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, no decision had been announced, nor am I aware of what the previous Administration decided, because the papers are not available to me. I am considering various proposals which are being put forward so that I can make a full announcement in the autumn.

    VIETNAM
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the United Kingdom's co-chairmanship of the Geneva Agreement, he will hold consultations with the Heads of Government of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand about seeking a solution to the Vietnam conflict.
    The Prime Minister: We are in regular contact with these and other Governments concerned with finding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister give a short, simple and categorical assurance that no matter what invitations his Government receive, British troops will never at any time be involved in the Vietnam conflict?
    The Prime Minister: It has always been our position that we did not believe that British troops should be sent to Vietnam.

    PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his speech at Cromer, North Norfolk, on 4th July on Great Britain's future, in the Library of the House.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister accept that, albeit that it was a fairly simple speech to fairly simple people attending a Tory Party garden fete, there was one glaring omission in the speech in that it made no reference whatever to industrial safety? Does the Prime Minister recall that in his speech he talked about making a nation worth living in, and does he recognise that no nation can be worth living in when the industrial worker does not get the protection that he urgently needs at this time?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know quite what effect the hon. Member's remarks have in South Ayrshire. They will not gain him great popularity in North Norfolk. Industrial safety is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who has heard the hon. Member's remarks.

    CONSUMER PROTECTION
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for co-ordinating Ministerial responsibilities for consumer protection in one consumer protection Department.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his reply and consider the Co-operative Movement's suggestion on a Ministry of Consumer Welfare in view of the ever-growing importance and complexity of consumer problems and the difficulties of the fragmentation of consumer questions among at least half-a-dozen Ministries, in none of which is consumer protection the prime responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be appropriate to create a separate Department to attend only to these matters for they are, of course, dealt with by a considerable number of Government Departments.

NATIONAL DOCKS STRIKE
The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the national docks dispute.
In the resumed discussions between the parties under my chairmanship last Monday, the port employers tabled a revised offer. This included the previous offer to increase guaranteed payments to £4 a day, or £20 a week minimum, for every registered dock worker. In addition, they proposed that the £2 modernisation supplement should be increased to £3 per week in those ports where it had not already been merged into the time rate or where interim additional payments had not already been made. They reiterated that they could not agree to any increase in the national basic time rate.
The unions decided to report this offer to a national docks delegate conference on Wednesday, 15th July. They meanwhile asked their members to continue normal working. Most ports were, however, stopped on Tuesday and Wednesday.

1727
The outcome of the delegate conference was reported to me yesterday afternoon by the union representatives. I was informed by Mr. Jones that a recommendation that the employers' offer should be accepted as a basis for further negotiations had been rejected by 43 votes to 39 and that it had been decided to conduct an official strike "until the claim for a higher basic rate is achieved".
The port employers then informed the union representatives in my presence that they were prepared to hold further talks only if the strike was withdrawn; and that, for the reasons which had been discussed at length in the talks under my chairmanship last weekend, they could not agree any increase in the existing basic time rate.
I subsequently had separate meetings with representatives of the T.U.C. and of the C.B.I.
From all these discussions it became clear that the unions were not prepared to resume talks on the basis of an increase in the modernisation payment which had been under discussion last weekend. For their part, the employers were not prepared to take part in talks on the existing basic rates, nor while the strike was still on.
In view of the very grave consequences for the nation of the deadlock resulting from the positions taken by the two sides, I have decided to appoint immediately a Court of Inqiury. I will announce the terms of reference and membership as soon as possible.
This will involve a full and independent investigation and assessment to be made of the merits of the unions' claim and of the employers' offer. In view of this, and the very serious effects of the strike for the nation, as well as for the future prosperity of the industry and of the dockers themselves, I would urge the unions to consider suspending their industrial action.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all regret that his efforts have failed and that we now face a protracted national dock strike with all the embittering of relations which can flow from that? But is he also aware that the attitude of the employers in
1728
refusing to continue talks although Mr. Jones had expressed his willingness to continue to try to find a way of breaking the deadlock is rather disturbing? While we would, of course, all hope that a Court of Inquiry would help, could we not ask him, before he sets up a Court of Inquiry, to make another effort himself, and a very determined effort, to bring the two sides together and to get talks resumed?
Mr. Carr: My judgment is that the best way of making progress is now through a Court of Inquiry, but, of course, I would be prepared to listen to any representations which either side wish to make to me and, of course, to see them. I hope the right hon. Lady is wrong in her use of the word "protracted". I also hope that we shall not criticise in this House the attitude of either side. I have attempted as much as I can, I hope sucessfully, not to do so. I think we should realise that both sides have very firm positions and that both sides are, in their own ways, showing inflexibility because of the depth of their feelings on the merits of the issue. For a hopeful moment late last Sunday night and on Monday that inflexibility dissolved and we seemed to have found a common ground for negotiation. It is a great pity—that is an understatement—that by a narrow majority yesterday that common ground for negotiation was cut away from under us.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Secretary of State how long he expects it will be before the Court of Inquiry can be expected to report? Secondly, do we understand from his replies that it is unlikely that negotiations between the two sides will be resumed till the Court of Inquiry has reported? I hope he will be able to say that is not the case. With reference to my own constituency, while grateful for the consideration already given to it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say that places such as Orkney and Shetland and other islands will at least be no worse off than those places whose main communications are across land?
Mr. Carr: I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants in respect of the last part of his question. As to the first part of his question, this

1729
is a very complicated matter, as I found in the lengthy discussions I shared over last weekend. It is clear that a Court of Inquiry could not reach its conclusions in a day or two, but, of course, I shall appoint it with maximum speed and, of course, I shall make clear, though I doubt whether that will be necessary, to the Court of Inquiry the urgency with which investigations must be carried out. As to the negotiations, I would not have taken the decision to appoint a Court of Inquiry unless I had most regretfully come to the conclusion that we were not likely to make further progress by direct negotiations between the parties, but, as I said, I am still prepared to listen to both of them.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, as I am sure he does, that there are not two sides in this dispute but three, and that the third is the side which is being sat on? I refer to the millions of people in the country endeavouring to live on small fixed incomes who have to try to bear the brunt of inflation which is caused by what many regard as only a uniquely selfish approach.
Mr. Carr: I have made clear, I hope, both in this House and to the parties, the immense national damage which is going to be caused by this dispute and by every day it continues.
Mr. Heffer: Is it not perfectly clear that had the employers been prepared to have made one gesture in relation to an increase in the basic time rate there could have been a settlement of this dispute? Is it, therefore, not clear that the full responsibility for the present situation in fact squarely rests on the shoulders of the employers and their inflexible attitude? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the other day said he was not prepared to lean on either side—I am not opposed to the idea of a Court of Inquiry—could he not, even at this late hour, before establishing the Court of Inquiry, now lean on the employers in order to get a fair proposal to the dockers so that we can get a quick resumption of work?
Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Member is not helping the cause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—we should have in
1730
mind. The employers did make an offer—
Mr. Heffer: Not on the time rate.
Mr. Carr: —which the union leaders were prepared to discuss and prepared to put to their delegate conference. It was evidently sufficiently real an offer for further negotiations on that basis, only to be rejected by the narrowest of margins. I do really think, therefore, that it is simply not fair to try to apportion blame in that way, and I will have no part in it on either side.
Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the fact that this is now an official strike, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the employers not to maintain the rigid attitude that they will not negotiate till the men are back? It has always been accepted doctrine that the Government take one view of an unofficial strike and another of an official strike. In this case it would be quite wrong for the employers to persist in this attitude and it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to encourage them to negotiate even while the strike is still on.
Mr. Carr: I have probed both sides very fully and deeply on this matter. The House must realise that the first thing is to find a subject about which the two sides can and will negotiate. We believed that that had been found when we got the talks on to the subject of an increase in the modernisation pay. Now we have not a subject about which the two sides feel able to negotiate.
Mr. Holland: Although we shall hear more about the Court of Inquiry on a subsequent occasion, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the terms of reference will be unrestricted, and that the powers to hear evidence will be equally unrestricted?
Mr. Carr: The terms of reference will be guided by the 1919 Act under which the Court of Inquiry will be set up, and certainly they will be sufficient to allow the matter to be gone into in the depth required.
Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current trouble stems from the fact that until four weeks ago the employers were negotiating rather

1731
expansively because they were all expecting, and most of them were hoping, that the industry would be nationalised and that they would not have to pay the wage inceases—[Laughter.] In the last four weeks they have suddenly tightened up because, for the first time, it is their own money they are talking about. Is he aware that, notwithstanding the hilarity of his hon. Friends, everybody in the industry, employers and workers alike, know that to be the case, and will he ensure that the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry are such that that key factor can be taken into account?
Mr. Carr: The purpose of the Court of Inquiry is to find a means whereby the national dock strike can be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, and that is what should guide my drafting of the terms of reference. The hon. Member will know, and the House should realise, that the average earnings of dockers over the last four years have risen by 57 per cent., compared with an increase of 22½ per cent. in the average earnings of male workers in the same period. As far as I am aware, it has been the employers' money which has been paying those wages. I do not think the hon. Member aids the cause of peace in this dispute by remarks of that sort.
Mr. Evelyn King: Apart from the wider issue, will the Minister say something about the much narrower but quite serious issue which affects Weymouth in my constituency, another port on the South Coast and the Channel Islands? There has been a rumour that the employees were willing to make special provision in this area. Will the Minister confirm this, or say something about it?
Mr. Carr: I am afraid that I cannot confirm it absolutely. I hope that it will be the case, and I will keep it in mind. I hope, in view of my appointment of the Court of Inquiry, that the unions will listen to the plea, which I hoped could have the support of the whole House, that industrial action should be suspended while the Court of Inquiry sits.
Mrs. Castle: Without wishing in any way to prejudge the merits of the arguments for the claim and counter offer—although it is only fair to point out that there has been a sharp reduction in manpower during this period and therefore a
1732
marked increase in productivity; fair is fair, let us just put that on the record—is not there one very marked difference between the two sides, in that Mr. Jack Jones is willing and anxious to continue talking and the employers are refusing to do so? In that situation, is not it the duty of the right hon. Gentleman now to lean on the employers to talk?
Mr. Carr: Unfortunately, because of the decision of the delegate conference yesterday by that very narrow majority, Mr. Jones is not able to talk about the one area in relation to the basic rate—that is not the only subject—which after much probing both sides felt able to negotiate about. This is the tragedy of the present position. It is not just unwillingness to talk; it is a lack of ability now to find an area of negotiation about which the parties are able to negotiate.
Mr. John Hall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the serious long-term damage that could be caused to the economy of the country and the extreme delicacy of the present position, that it would be far better if we did not make his task more difficult by continuing questions?
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the rumour widely spread that he intends to appoint Lord Kindersley as Chairman of the Court of Inquiry? While we all appreciate the efforts the right hon. Gentleman has made over the past few days and recognise the gravity of a national dock strike, may it not be that what the country will be suffering from in the next few weeks is an absence of instant government from the Prime Minister?
Mr. Carr: I would have thought that the Government might be greatly benefiting from the last quality which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the first part of the question, on all sides we should avoid imaginative suggestions, even though they may be amusing, unless they are very well considered.
Mr. Delargy: The Secretary of State said that the employers had made an offer which I think he described as a reasonable offer. Had that offer anything to do with the basic rate, which is what the dispute is about? It is about nothing else and, strictly speaking, any other offer apart from an offer on the basic rate is irrelevant.
Mr. Carr: I do not think that I applied any adjective to the offer. I stated that the employers had made an offer, and that it was an offer which was sufficiently interesting for Mr. Jack Jones and other union leaders to feel that it should be presented to the delegate conference, which was done yesterday. The delegate conference thought it sufficiently interesting as a basis for negotiation to reject it only by the narrowest of margins.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to try to get the two sides together—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help to solve a difficult problem.
Mr. Wilson: I am basing myself on the right hon. Gentleman's statement in which he said that he had decided to set up a Court of Inquiry. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude on this, which I have no doubt he will reconsider from day to day, and in view of certain words used in his statement, is he saying that there is a reversion to what used to be the practice of not having negotiations when a strike is in progress? Is he aware—I am sure he must be—that over a period of years that old principle has been departed from, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, not only in official but even in unofficial strikes, and that this has led to settlement? Is he saying that it is a principle, as the employers are apparently saying, that there can be no negotiations unless the strike has been called off?
The right hon. Gentleman has twice quoted the 57 per cent. wage figure, which I have no reason to think is anything but accurate, but will he say by how much productivity has gone up in that period and how much the labour force in the industry has gone down as a result of that productivity?
Mr. Carr: The labour force during this period has declined by about 25 per cent.—I am speaking off the cuff from memory. I will answer a detailed question on this on another occasion if I am asked. The cost of labour per ton moved through the docks, which is a crude measure of productivity because it takes no account of new capital investment for example, is, according to our
1734
calculations, about the same as it was four years ago, which means that the increase in wages has been offset by the reduction in the number of people, although that measure takes no account of increased investment. This is a good part of the story, and this is why it is so vitally important to get on with the problem of modernisation, the pay structures and the methods of working in the docks.
The great tragedy of the strike is that it has interrupted this process. As for the earlier part of the question, I would simply say that there was a strike in progress yesterday when I saw both sides separately and together. This quite clearly shows that there is no rigid principle about negotiations not taking place when a strike is in progress.
I regret the first remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. It simply is not true, nor do I feel the unions or employers would feel it was true. But for the situation which faces us, I would be tempted to comment more sharply upon the matter.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I want him to understand that I was not trying to suggest that he himself was trying to maintain a rigid position. I was basing myself on his own statement when he based his own course of action on the fact that the employers were not willing, and I quote
"to take part in talks … while the strike was still on."
That is what I was trying to draw to his attention. I was not trying to criticise the right hon. Gentleman. We understand the very grave situation and the difficult personal policy dilemma which the Minister faces. We shall give him all the help that we can.
Mr. Carr: I accept what the Leader of the Opposition says, but he must also realise that the blockage in the way of talks is not on only one side. There are subjects about which the unions will not talk. This is what is creating the difficulty, because what the unions will talk about the employers will not, and vice versa. If we could get common ground about negotiation, which I thought we had achieved last Monday evening, I feel quite sure that talks could and would have taken place.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  Proclamation of State of Emergency
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
  The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:
  Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 16th day of July, 1970 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  Message to be considered upon Monday next.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

  PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Faced with a nation wide stoppage in the docks, the Government must take steps to discharge their responsibility to maintain essential services and to minimise disruption which could have a serious effect on the life of the community. They have therefore thought it right to advise the proclamation of an emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended, followed by the making of Regulations under Section 2.
  Where a situation arises which carries with it a serious threat to the essentials of life of the community, it is the clear duty of the Government of the day to make use of the machinery provided by Parliament for such a contingency.
  The Regulations under Section 2 were made this afternoon. Copies will be available tomorrow. My right hon. Friend will be making, in his Business Statement, an announcement about the arrangements for debating these Regulations. They are on the same lines as those made in 1966, and confer enabling
  1736
  powers on Ministers which they will only use if and when the necessity arises.
  Mr. Callaghan: If the Government have reached the conclusion that these powers are necessary, the Opposition would not wish to challenge them if they are essential to keep the life of the community going. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that they are on the same lines as the previous occasion when they were heavily criticised by the then Opposition. May I ask the Home Secretary whether he intends to convey to the House that these Regulations give an all-embracing grip by the State on every citizen. There is at least one power in the Gracious Message that I certainly would want to look at a little carefully.
  May I put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman about increases in food prices. Will he take power to prescribe maximum prices for foodstuffs, in case anybody seeks to take advantage of the situation by putting them up unfairly?
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. These Regulations will be debated in the very near future and they will, as in 1966, cover the question of fixing prices.
  Mr. Atkinson: The Home Secretary will have heard his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity say that neither side has indicated whether it would accept the findings of the Court of Inquiry. The Home Secretary no doubt will realise that the employers have said that they are not prepared to negotiate while the strike continues. Is it not an intolerable situation for troops to be used in the docks while the employers refuse to negotiate? Will he also appreciate that there are many on this side of the House, and many trade unionists, who will call for extension of the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if there is any threat of the use of troops while the employers refuse to negotiate? Will he give an assurance that no instructions will be given for the use of troops in the docks while the employers refuse to negotiate with the trade unions?
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has appealed to the unions concerned to call off their industrial action while the Court of Inquiry is being held. If, as I

  1737
  hope, that happens, there will be no need for emergency action, but the Government must take the necessary action to maintain essential services to the community.
  Mr. Latham: If the right hon. Gentleman disregards the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)—[interruption.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite are growling about since I have not put my point yet—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will try to give an undertaking to avoid a situation in which private commercial interests have cargoes handled at the taxpayers' expense? For example, should the services of troops be employed, could he see to it that the firms concerned are charged the full economic cost involved?
  Mr. Maudling: That seems eminently a point to be made in the debate on the Regulations.
  Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that we are debating this issue on Monday.
  Mr. Driberg: Will the Home Secretary please say plainly whether it is proposed, and at what stage, to send troops into the docks? Is he aware that nothing is less likely to expedite a settlement?
  Mr. Maudling: Troops will be used in the docks if it is necessary to maintain essential services. The actual timing and use of them will depend on the requirements of the port emergency committees which will be set up under the Regulations. However, as I have said, if my right hon. Friend's appeal is heeded, it will not be necessary.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The Home Secretary has been very one-sided in his replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and Barking (Mr. Driberg). He keeps on referring to the appeal by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to the unions. Will not he say equally to the House and the country that the employers must abandon their rigid position in refusing to negotiate while the strike is on? Only then will he have made an evenhanded statement, and only then will we be able to judge any proposed Regulations
  1738
  issued on Monday in the light of his statement today.
  Mr. Maudling: No, I will not, any more than my right hon. Friend, be involved on one side or the other. The point is that a Court of Inquiry is to be set up and, in those circumstances, I hope that the industrial action will not continue.
  Mr. Molloy: Will the Home Secretary impress upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the need to understand that the key issue in the strike, which probably would end it within 48 hours or less, is whether the employers will agree to sit down and discuss the basic rate of dock workers? That is the whole point which is holding up procedures. The dockers and the union leaders cannot be expected to back-track. Their real dilemma and that which now faces the nation is simply that the port employers are not prepared to discuss with the dockers' representatives the essence of this dispute, which is the basic rate.
  Mr. Maudling: I had the impression that my right hon. Friend had already dealt with that point.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Home Secretary said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the Regulations are similar to the last ones. However, he will be aware that this is a different situation, in that it is an official strike. Will he try, wherever possible, to discuss with the union any action that he proposes before actually taking it? That may tend, at least, to prevent tempers being worse frayed than they are. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman will have the last word, but I think that it would be helpful if he discussed any proposed action with the union leaders.
  Mr. Maudling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Regulations are on the same lines because the degree of emergency is the same. On his second point, I think that, once again, this would be better raised in the debate on the Regulations.
  Mr. English: In view of their existing commitments if troops have to be used, are there sufficient troops available for the purpose? Secondly, will

  1739
  the right hon. Gentleman say what other Regulations which it is proposed to introduce are likely to become immediately effective?
  Mr. Maudling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the answer is "Yes". On his second point, I ask him to await the publication of the Regulations.
  Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the powers which he seeks are all-embracing, as he seems to indicate? Will they include the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman interceding on behalf of an hon. Member of this House who is in gaol in Ulster?
  Mr. Callaghan: Cannot we have a clearer answer than that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)? Surely it is not possible to find troops to replace 50,000 dockers for the unloading and loading of cargoes in our docks and, therefore, the situation is extremely serious? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the dock workers in the Royal Group of docks has already said that if the Army has to be used the troops will not be hindered by the dockers but that the Army's task will be an extremely difficult and dangerous one and will be impossible to carry out for sheer lack of numbers?
  Mr. Maudling: It will be a difficult task, and this is part of the measure of the difficulty that we face. However, we are satisfied that adequate personnel are available to carry out the Government's duty, which is to maintain essential services.
  Mr. Mikardo: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), can the right hon. Gentleman say which troops he will use for unloading cargoes in the ports of Belfast and Londonderry?
  Mr. Maudling: Those who are most appropriate.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Whitelaw. Statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the business of the House for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH JULY—Consideration of Her Majesty's most Gracious Message and of the Motion to approve the Emergency Regulations.
TUESDAY, 21ST JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Supply (2nd Allotted day): There will be a debate on the supply of arms to South Africa, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motions relating to Cinematograph Films and Judges.
THURSDAY, 23RD JULY—Motions relating to Local Loans, White Fish and Herring Subsidies, Gas (Borrowing Powers) and Housing Subsidies.
Second Reading of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill.
FRIDAY, 24TH JULY—If the course of events allows, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment.
May I add that I am fully aware of the interest in an early announcement about the proposed duration of the Adjournment, but in the present circumstances I think the House will feel it right that I should defer making a statement for a few more days.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the serious situation which has arisen, naturally the House will wish to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in the change of business which has become necessary since last week. Can he say at this stage on what day he expects we shall debate the Motion that the House do adjourn next Friday? Secondly, is he now in a position to say what are the Government's intentions in relation to the Bill concerning the coal-mining industry? Is it now intended to bring

1741
it forward, even if not next week, and will it contain the same Clauses in respect of elderly miners particularly, as were in our Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's generous remarks about the change in business. As for the debate on the Motion proposing the Adjournment, I would prefer to await events. I will make a statement early next week, when the situation is clearer.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government will introduce a Bill this Session to lessen the effects of contraction in the coal industry on miners and the mining community after the existing powers expire at the end of March next year.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On that point, there is great concern about it in mining areas. There is to be a big meeting in Durham on Saturday which a number of hon. and right hon. Members expect to attend. Will the Bill contain the same conditions in respect of elderly miners as our Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman very properly presses me, and I promised that I would give him a positive answer as soon as I could. I have now given him a positive answer that we will introduce a Bill for the purposes that I have set out. However, it would not be right before the publication of this Bill to say anything more at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have made it clear that the purpose of the Bill will be to lessen the effects of contraction in the coal industry on miners and the mining community after the existing powers expire in March. That is the purpose. There is nothing difficult in this. But it would not be right to try and give details of the legislation before it is published.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can we have an announcement of my right hon. Friend's intentions about the debates on the Orders relating to the redistribution of Parliamentary constituencies?
Mr. Whitelaw: I was hoping to have taken these next week, had it not been for the unfortunate emergency. In the new circumstances, they will be taken as soon as possible after the Summer Recess.
Mr. Latham: May I thank the Leader of the House for the courtesy and kindness that he has shown in listening to representations that I have made to him—[Interruption.] I wish that that courtesy were emulated by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. May I ask what is the result of his consideration of my request for time to debate Early Day Motion No. 8 and the remaining matters in the submission which I made to you, Mr. Speaker, last Friday week? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that apart from the broad issues involved, there is urgency about the specific case which has given rise to this matter. Therefore, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? May we have a statement from one of his colleagues? Secondly, is it possible to have time to debate a Motion to change the rules of the House with regard to Ministerial responsibility for British subjects in prison in Northern Ireland?
[That the matter of the rights of honourable Members of this House who have been committed to Her Majesty's Prisons, and of their constituents, be referred to a Select Committee to be appointed for this purpose, and that they do consider and report, in particular, what action should be taken if any person deliberately delays the receipt of mail by an honourable Member, interferes with a Member's right to correspond with any constituent, member of Her Majesty's Government, Department of State or another Member of this House, forcibly prevents a Member from attending this House, or prevents a Member who wishes to do so from interviewing a constituent or a fellow Member who is assisting him in the conduct of his constituency business.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As he fully appreciates, his Motion is concerned with the general position of hon. Members who may find themselves in prison. On the general point, I intend to put down a Motion proposing that the matters raised in the hon. Gentleman's Motion should be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges as soon as it is set up.
The particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for the

1743
Northern Ireland Government. However, the Minister of Home Affairs, Northern Ireland, is to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tomorrow. They will then have an opportunity to discuss this matter.
Mr. Dance: Is the Leader of the House prepared to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the issues raised about the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton) in Motion No. 5?
[That the matter of the style and title of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed be referred to the Committee of Privileges.]
Mr. Whitelaw: It is for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider whether it is prepared to look into the matter. However, I hope that, as soon as it is set up, the Committee will feel able to consider this question.
Mr. Dell: Has the Leader of the House read the Adjournment debate that took place last Tuesday on Cammell Laird and reports of statements subsequently stated to have been made in the Press? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation is taking on increasingly serious aspects? Will he ensure that the statement which was promised at the end of the Adjournment debate on Tuesday is made before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly look into the matter. I will represent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology that the right hon. Gentleman would like him to make a statement next week.
Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen my Motion No. 19—
[That, in the opinion of this House, the Standing Order which prevents under legitimate circumstances the names of hon. Members from being mentioned, that is to say the right hon. Member for Hexham as well as the hon. Member for Tynemouth in a Question to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 21st July referring to Major Johnson, in the interest of a constituent's grievance should be eliminated as it is in the interest of Parliament that a proper representation should be made when a departmental criticism is involved.]
1744
which prevents me deploying the full case in support of a constituent of mine who has complained against decisions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government of the last Government? My constituent's appeal was dismissed on three occasions, and it was subsequently found that it was dismissed on the wrong law. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I should like to have included my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, who also had an interest in this case? Because the Standing Order prevents me doing so, I cannot properly deploy my constituent's case. Will my right hon. Friend take action?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will have noticed the Motion relating to the Select Committee on Procedure in the Order Paper today. If the House approves that Motion, the Committee may consider this matter, if it thinks fit.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House said a few minutes ago that he intended to refer to the Select Committee on Privilege matters concerning Members of Parliament in gaol, and particularly the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Are we, in this Parliament, to have consideration of the Select Committee's Report on the law of privilege? It seems that the reference we now have could be coloured by consideration of the wider issues.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I know of the interest which he, and particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have in the matter. Yes, I should certainly hope that we will do this.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cormack: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 20 which has now been signed by 99 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to repeal that part of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1969, which abolished the property qualification for election to membership of a local authority in England and Wales so that local authorities can return to a

1745
position whereby candidates who are genuinely involved in the affairs of the community are not excluded for unnecessary reasons from serving it in local government.]
In view of the consequent disruption which could occur in many local authorities next May if this is not implemented, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give the matter his early and earnest consideration?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will probably have noted that, in answer to a Question on 9th July, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was considering this matter urgently and would inform the House of his conclusion before the recess.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for giving him a wrong name. I am trying to learn the faces of 159 Maidens.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Foreign Secretary intends to make his statement on the supplying of arms to South Africa? Will it be before the debate on Wednesday?
Secondly, have the Government got in mind to have an inquiry into the alleged leak last Tuesday of the Board of Trade's balance of payments figures?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, the answer is "Monday".
Concerning the second point, I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman and he will consider them.
Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Leader of the House intend to make an announcement next week about Standing Order No. 80? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what Standing Order No. 80 is, may I inform him that it is the Standing Order which enables the setting-up of the Estimates Committee at the beginning of every Session. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for advising me about Standing Order No. 80. Otherwise, my answer
1746
might not have been as full as it will now be.
If the hon. Lady would do me the courtesy of looking at the remarks which I made in the debate on the Address, she would find that I then said that I wished to consider the whole question of Select Committees, which I definitely wish to see set up in some form, and that when I had come to a conclusion I would put proposals before the House in the form of a Green Paper and give the House an opportunity to debate them.
Sir G. Nabarro: As we are not to have a debate until the autumn on the promised Coal Industry Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Government Departments will now scrutinise price increases? May we, therefore, have a statement, before the House rises for the recess, on Lord Robens' proposals to increase the price of coal right across the board by 10 per cent. with all the inflationary consequences?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will note what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to a statement. I cannot even yet say when the House will definitely rise, so I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to a statement next week.
Mr. Ogden: The Leader of the House has been asked whether the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about coal prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there are applications before the Board of Trade for increases in the prices of fuel oil and derivatives? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make them the subject of the statement, too, if one is to be made about coal?
Mr. Whitelaw: For the record, what I said to my hon. Friend was that coal price increases concerned my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I will, of course, call his attention also to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Leader of the House indicate when we will have an opportunity to discuss the history-making report of the Select Committee which

1747
recently inquired into the Bank of England?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say at this stage. I recognise that it is an important Report which the House will certainly wish to consider.
Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government is likely to be able to make a statement, before the House rises for the recess, about partly completed transactions involving the Land Commission?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly mention to my right hon. Friend what has been put to me. I cannot make a definite commitment about a statement next week, but I will certainly see what my right hon. Friend can do.
Mr. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House indicate the form that the debate on the emergency powers will take on Monday? Will it be exempted business, will it be brought to a conclusion at 10 o'clock, or will there be further debates on the various Regulations?
Mr. Whitelaw: It will be a whole day's debate. Without notice, I cannot answer questions about it being exempted, but I think it is.
Mr. Driberg: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Home Secretary will be making a statement on his discussions tomorrow with the Minister of Home Affairs, Northern Ireland, on the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—which, from tomorrow, will presumably be within the Home Secretary's responsibility, which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it has not been hitherto?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that that necessarily follows from my answer, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will discuss the matter with the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs. I think that rather the opposite conclusion could be drawn. I understand—I said so in my original answer—that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland authorities. My right hon. Friend will discuss this matter with the Minister of Home Affairs. If, after that, he thinks it
1748
necessary to make a statement he will do so, but I cannot give a commitment that he will.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: When my right hon. Friend considers the future of Select Committees, will he bear in mind what I think was good and useful work done in the last Session by the Select Committee on Race Relations?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir, most certainly I shall.
Mr. Eadie: Further to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman about the Government bringing in a Bill similar to the 1967 Coal Industry Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman could not spell out the precise nature of the legislation, may I ask whether there have been consultations with the appropriate miners unions, and whether the consultations took place in an amicable atmosphere?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I cannot anticipate the legislation. I must therefore ask the House to await it and ask hon. Members to put questions on the policy concerned to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
Mr. John Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, on the basis of normality, he ought to announce the date of the end of the Summer Recess? Is he aware that Parliament can always be recalled earlier? In the light of present answers that one is getting from Ministers, the impression is getting around that the Government are going into a permanent state of hibernation.
Mr. Whitelaw: If that is the impression given to the hon. Gentleman and others, I can only give him and them an absolute assurance that that is wholly false. As regards the announcement of the date of the end of the recess, I feel, and I felt that I carried the House with me at that moment, that when we are in an emergency situation it would be better to wait for a few days to see how things develop before giving that information, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate if, most unfortunately, emergency powers have to be renewed, that has to be done within a month, and the House would have to be recalled for that purpose.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am glad that the first Bill that I have moved in my new responsibility is this Measure, for two reasons: first, because it deals with a problem of great social importance and considerable urgency. Second, because moving it demonstrates that in dealing with this problem there is no major division of principle between the two sides of the House on party lines. We all have views on the problem, but the Bill I am introducing is virtually identical to that which was introduced by my predecessor in March of this year. There are one or two tiny detailed Amendments to the Schedule dealing with particular drugs. Apart from that, the Bill is identical to the previous one.
  The Second Reading of the Bill in March was unopposed. It was given a general welcome by both sides of the House, though substantial points were raised for discussion in Committee. We therefore decided that it was right to reintroduce the Bill, first, because of the general welcome it received previously and, second, because of the importance and urgency of the problems involved.
  We reserve the right to introduce Amendments at a later stage when we have had further time to consider the detailed matters involved in this legislation. A number of important points were discussed when the Bill was before the previous Parliament, and to some of these I shall refer during my remarks this afternoon. I do not foresee any great controversy of a party character on any Amendments which we may seek to introduce in due course.
  I do not think it would be right for me to rehearse again in detail the arguments which were put before the House as recently as 25th March, but perhaps for the benefit of those hon. Members
  1750
  who have recently joined us, I think the phrase is, I should say a few things about the need for the Bill, and its effects.
  Broadly speaking, the main reason why the Bill is necessary is that the present law is unsatisfactory. It is fragmentary. There are many Acts of various kinds dealing with certain aspects of the problem which ought to be brought together in one Measure. The law is also inadequate. For example, the 1933 Act covers only sale or supply. The 1967 Act does not provide for control over the prescribing of all drugs liable to abuse, or reporting all forms of drug dependence. In addition, it is inflexible because, under present law, the Home Secretary cannot move as quickly as he would want to do, and should do, to deal with the rapidly changing picture both of drug availability and habits of addiction.
  As the House is aware there are, regrettably, many changes and new developments in this field. All the time new drugs, powerful stimulants and powerful sedatives are being developed, and we must, therefore, be able to act rapidly and respond to the changing circumstances. This is the major justification upon which the Bill was passed when it was introduced in its previous form by my predecessor.
  The purposes of the Bill are these: first, for the first time to distinguish sharply between unlawful possession on the one hand, and trafficking on the other, and several additional trafficking offences to take account of the widening range of these activities are created and penalties are made very severe, indeed. I am sure that it is in line with the general feeling of the House that trading in drugs merits the severest punishment, but, nevertheless, possession itself will remain a serious criminal offence.
  Second, the Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to counter, without international consultation, any misuse that arises. In particular, he may at any time by Order in Council bring new substances under control and make any regulations he considers necesasry for the control of production, of supply and of possession. Third, it enables the Home Secretary to have powers to stamp out over-prescribing by banning practitioners from prescribing specific controlled drugs if it is established that they have been

  1751
  prescribing irresponsibly. Fourth, it gives the Home Secretary power to demand information about the supply of controlled drugs by any pharmacist or practitioner if it appears to him that in that area there are special social problems caused by the extensive misuse of controlled drugs. Fifth, the Bill provides for the establishment of an Advisory Council and an Expert Committee on the misuse of drugs to assist in the preparation of controls and other counter measures.
  As the House will observe, the Bill divides the various drugs into three classes in, on the whole, descending degrees of danger. Those in class A are the most dangerous, the second less dangerous and the third even less so, but all of them, in whichever class they fall, remain dangerous drugs whose possession, use and distribution should be regulated by law. Those are the main provisions of the Bill.
  The House having heard the previous Measure put forward with great clarity by my predecessor, I do not think that I should weary hon. Members by rehearsing it all again, but there are one or two things I should like to say before commending the Bill to the House. My first comment is on the criticisms made in the earlier discussions on the Bill before the previous Parliament, either on Second Reading or in Committee. We are considering these very carefully in deciding whether to bring forward Amendments, and if so what Amendments, for the later stages. There are three points in particular to which I should like to refer. The first is the problem of cannabis and barbiturates. I shall say a word about cannabis later on. As the House is aware, barbiturates present a special problem of considerable difficulty, and I look forward very much to the report of the sub-committee of the Advisory Committee under Sir Edward Wayne who will be advising us on how to handle this problem.
  The next point—because it is a broader one, it is possibly a little more difficult in terms of legislation—concerns the argument put forward by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that the approach under the
  1752
  Bill is too negative. I see what is meant by that, and I understand very well the feeling behind it, but it is sometimes difficult to be as positive as one would wish in an Act of Parliament. We entirely accept that legislation, in itself, is not enough to deal with this problem. We must go further. We must seek answers to the question why the problem arises on this scale and in this form. We must see that action is taken in the related fields—the social and educational fields, and in further research. I shall consider whether, in the light of the previous discussions, any Amendments should be made in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council to take account of the need for a wider approach to the whole problem.
  Then there is the problem of over-prescribing, which seems to be a very difficult and important one. It is clearly important, because I understand that the amounts involved in over-prescribing are serious. The problem is a substantial one and we must deal with it. On the other hand, the issues involved in restricting prescribing by doctors are themselves very serious ones. I understand that in the previous Parliament there was a wide interest in the possibility that the General Medical Council might take responsibility in this matter. I am happy to tell the House that I have had a letter from the President of the Council offering further talks with the Government on this subject, and I shall be happy to talk with the Council and the other professional bodies involved in these matters. I shall certainly lay the results before the House at the appropriate time.
  These are the main issues. The House is pretty familiar with the Bill and with its purposes, and I have referred to the main points that I think we ought to deal with in considering Amendments at a later stage. Before I conclude I want to say a few things about my attitude to the problem of the misuse of drugs, which I come to quite fresh. I shall certainly look very carefully at all the reports of the Advisory Committee on cannabis, rehabilitation, the powers of search—a very important point—amphetamines, and L.S.D. I shall study those reports very closely.
  But the basic problem is how far the community is entitled to interfere with the individual in the conduct of his own

  1753
  life. It is the old problem of freedom under the law. This is being made all the more urgent by the way in which the whole quality and background of our lives together are being affected by the astounding speed of scientific development. This is a favourite theme of mine and I shall not weary the House for long with it. The pace of scientific discovery is bringing new dangers to mankind of a character which is not generally recognised. It is not merely the more obvious ones—the dangers of the atomic bomb or the pollution of the atmosphere—but the enormous discoveries of science in influencing men's minds and human behaviour, either through medicine or, in some cases, through surgery.
  These growing possibilities will certainly call for more control, just as control over the environmental pollution problem will be required. But if more controls are needed they must be even more stringently justified if they are to be accepted. We must also recognise and accept that any controls that we impose must be fully appreciated by those concerned. In this connection the previous Home Secretary often stressed the importance of the generation gap and the need to ensure that we, in our generation, are fully understood, in terms of our motives and actions, by the younger generation that is succeeding us.
  There are two things on which everyone can readily agree—first, that illicit trafficking in drugs should be dealt with with extreme severity, as the Bill provides, and, secondly, that the use of hard drugs is an appalling phenomenon of our society and we must set our faces completely against it.
  But there remains a certain area of doubt for those who both believe in individual freedom and that the spreading use of drugs is dangerous to a high degree to individuals and to society as a whole. Freedom is in issue. It is deplorable to see people drinking themselves into cirrhosis or smoking themselves into lung cancer, but nobody proposes that either activity should be prohibited by law. There is an ethical consideration here, and it is relevant to the problem of cannabis.
  I should like to give an example of what I mean by referring to a meeting
  1754
  that I addressed some while ago at the London School of Economics. It was a meeting of the Conservative Association, which meant that many of those present were far from conservative. One young man said to me, "You like whisky. I like pot. Why can you have whisky while I cannot smoke pot? They are both mildly addictive, but they both do little harm when taken in small quantities. They both do great harm when taken in large quantities. Why is one prohibited and the other allowed? "The answer to that question we must get across to both sides with the greatest clarity.
  I am convinced that we are right to maintain the attitude, in the Bill, that cannabis should be treated as a dangerous drug. To my mind the risks of doing otherwise are far too great, whatever the truth is about progress from one drug to another. I understand that more than 90 per cent. of those addicted to hard drugs started on cannabis. That is a fact that we cannot ignore. In any case, cannabis is not necessary. It seems a wholly unnecessary risk to take to treat this substance as anything other than a dangerous drug. But we must also recognise—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said in the previous Parliament—that we have not made our story about cannabis credible. We have only ourselves to blame for the fact that the public, and especially the younger members of the public, do not find this story a convincing one. I hope that together we may find the means of making the story a really convincing one.
  That is surely one reason why the Bill is only part of the whole problem of drugs, and how to deal with them. We are dealing with a symptom of a deeply troubled society. The law, and the full rigour of the law, where necessary, is essential, but repression alone clearly is not enough. We must identify the reasons and causes for the phenomenon. In a time like this, when life should be so full of opportunities and challenges and possibility, what is the emptiness that draws so many young people towards the use of these drugs, substances and strange practices? It is not only the challenge of doing something illegal. Making something illegal sometimes causes it to be more attractive to some people. It is

  1755
  not only a question of smoking in the shrubbery. There are deeper causes in our modern society which draws young people to this sort of consolation. I hope that this House, in the course of these discussions, can make some contribution to identifying these causes, so that we may be able to cure the problem.
  That is the background against which I commend the Bill to the House. It is virtually identical with the Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. It is necessary because of the fragmented and unsatisfactory state of the law at present. Its purposes are clear—they are to deal with known abuses, particularly trafficking and over-prescribing. We shall consider deeply the question of any Amendments on the points that I have mentioned before the next stage of the Bill is reached. Above all, we recognise that this is a grievous social problem to which, by the Bill, we are making a contribution, but only a minor part of the total contribution required.
  4.39 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: The House will not be surprised if I say that I agree with what the Home Secretary said. Indeed, as he said, with minor alteration he has taken over the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill—the Long Title, the Explanatory Memorandum, the Preamble, the Clauses, the Schedule, the offences and the penalties. The only difference that I can see is the names on the back, and if he had asked me, I should have been willing to have them remain the same.
  This is a little symptomatic of the Government. They have taken over a piece of legislation from the previous Administration and introduced it as one of their earliest Measures. We are having a full day's debate on it; I do not quarrel with that, although we had a full day on it a short while ago. This confirms the impression which the country is getting that the Government are coasting along—waiting for problems to come and hit them while they are coasting.
  The problems will certainly arrive, unless there is more evidence of mobility on the part of the Government. I understand this policy of masterly inactivity, but I hope that they will give some
  1756
  impression of being in control of events from time to time, instead of just reacting to them. However, it is not for me to complain on this occasion that they should have chosen, as one of their first actions, when they had no legislation of their own, to produce, with modest praise to their predecessors, a Bill of the Labour Government. We shall certainly facilitate its passage on to the Statute Book.
  I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about barbiturates and he is wise to await the report which he will get. This will be one of the most difficult tasks to handle in this matter. The legislation is not enough; of course he is right there. I have said so, but one has to go on saying so, as I am sure he has discovered, both in order to get other things than legislation done and also to impress the liberal Press, who other wise will say that he made a very bad speech. He is right about over-prescribing, of course: this is certainly one of the difficulties.
  I was worried by what the Home Secretary said about cannabis and I wonder whether he is right about people's attitudes when he gives approval to what the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said in the last Parliament—that we have not made our story credible about cannabis to the younger members of the public. I did not believe it when the right hon. Gentleman said it, and I do not believe it now. I advise the Home Secretary to think carefully about this.
  It is not my experience that the younger members of the public are in favour of smoking "pot". It is my experience that a small and very articulate group, who have managed to corner the Press and a great deal of the public media, express themselves in terms of a generation gap, and say that we do not understand, but the plain truth is, as far as I know it and as far as the most recent market research that I have seen has gone, that over 90 per cent. of young people are in favour of stringent penalties against those who smoke "pot". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use his office to give credence to a view which I believe is misplaced, so far as the overwhelming majority of young people are concerned.
  I know the groups who say, "Smoking cannabis has a lot to be said for it.

  1757
  Why should you interfere with our rights as individuals?". That is not the whole question, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to accept, without further tests, the view that young people as a whole take this view. I have no evidence for this indeed, my evidence is in the opposite sense.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford) rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I have very little to say, so I am grateful for an interruption.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: So I am assisting the right hon. Gentleman. Is he not rather misrepresenting the views of my right hon. Friends? Neither of them said that he thought that the younger generation was in favour of legalising cannabis. What they said was that the younger generation were extremely sceptical and cynical about the issue and the part that the law can play. That is a very different point.
  Mr. Callaghan: Maybe it is a different point, but my observations remain the same. That is to say, I do not believe that this is true of the majority of young people. I believe that the overwhelming majority take the view which I have already expressed and that the evidence, such as it is, which exists bears that out. I have used the phrase that the Home Secretary used—that we have not made our story about cannabis credible to the younger members of the public. I think that that was the phrase. I do not accept that: I think that it is entirely untrue.
  I believe that the younger members of the public accept the view which has been expressed in this House, namely, that the smoking of "pot" is a dangerous habit, that it can lead to addictive drugs and that it should be firmly discouraged and put down. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I hope that the Home Secretary will not, even unintentionally, begin to undermine that by any other kind of expression—
  Mr. Maudling: I said absolutely clearly that I am convinced that we are right to treat cannabis under the Bill as a dangerous drug.
  Mr. Callaghan: I fully understand. I was perhaps being carried a little further by the hon. Member for Chelmsford
  1758
  (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who I know takes a different view.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: "Takes a different view"? Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Callaghan: No. The hon. Gentleman is a television pundit, but in this House he can sit down and listen to other people for more than a minute. I had to put up with the hon. Member when I was Minister: I do not have to suffer him any longer.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Wait and see.
  Mr. Callaghan: Maybe if we get back to power I shall have to suffer him, but not until then. In the meantime, he can interrupt his own Front Bench.
  I am grateful to the Home Secretary for supplying us with the notes on the Clauses, which we had seen before, but which, for the most part, I had either not read or forgotten. They will be of assistance in our deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) will be winding up the debate. I ask the Home Secretary and the Minister of State to forgive me for not being here at the end of the debate, because I have to leave for Cardiff rather later. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford will not object to that.
  I have said all I want to say about the principle of the Bill. What concerned me when I was at the Home Office was the changing nature and the speed of the spread of addiction, the devastating effects of the use of some of these drugs, into which people could so easily be attracted, and the fear of the unknown among those of us of an older generation. One of the most important powers in the Bill is the power to amend the Schedule. The penalties for pushers, in my view, are right, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to alter them.
  The basic need is to try to disentangle the two types of drugs—these which are needed for medical purposes, where we must rely on the medical profession to exercise a sense of responsibility, and those which are not so needed. In the second case, we must reduce the availability of those drugs so far as we can and make it more difficult to get them. This is the root of the problem

  1759
  Dr. Winstanley, the former Member for Cheadle, made an excellent speech on this matter during debates on the previous Bill. If the Home Secretary, among all the manifold responsibilities which have fallen on him, can spare the time, I suggest that he reads it. The speech, made from Dr. Winstanley's medical knowledge, was a valuable and helpful speech to me and I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman. What he told us was what was known, but he put it simply and clearly. He drew a distinction between the various types of medical and non-medical drugs. He thought that the amphetamines, which had no therapeutic necessity, were the most dangerous drugs in existence in that way and that they could be most easily dealt with. His contribution on that occasion makes me regret that he is not here to take part in this debate—and there is no party point in that remark.
  I approve of the Bill, and so do the Opposition. If there are any alterations to be made in Committee, we shall look at them in a non-party sense. We might well introduce some Amendments ourselves. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan had some doubts about some points when he was in the Government. Now that he has the freedom of Opposition, perhaps he will raise them. I do not know whether I will support him or not; we shall have to wait and see what he says.
  Lastly, the Home Secretary was asking some rather dangerous questions about the symptoms of sickness in our society. We know that he is a thoughtful man who understands these questions and thinks intelligently about them, but I beg him not to carry this research into sickness in our society too far. He might find that it began to challenge the whole of his political philosophy. What would happen then, when he decided to join the Labour Party?
  4.50 p.m.
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I think myself fortunate in having the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a Bill which has all-party backing and which is, therefore, removed from the field of political controversy. I hope that the House will extend to me its usual
  1760
  tolerance and indulgence on these occasions, particularly as I happened to be born in North Norfolk, where, so we heard today from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), we are a very simple lot.
  I ask the indulgence of the House because I shall speak from my own experience as a general practitioner in my constituency. I represent Norwich, South, part of a very proud and fine city which has managed to preserve much of its mediaeval and Georgian splendours from the onslaughts of the Victorian builder and the twentieth-century bulldozer. It has returned two Members continuously since 1272. I take the place of Mr. Christopher Norwood, whose independence of thought was admired in Norwich by people of very different political views and backgrounds.
  Any city such as Norwich, which, with its fringe areas, has a population approaching 200,000, is no longer the tight little Georgian group it was 150 years ago. Norwich is an expanding city; it has become an industrial city and a commercial city. As it expands, the centre of the city becomes destroyed, and the people are thrown out to the outskirts. In a population of this size, there will be some who cannot cope with change, who cannot cope with the changes in society and the changes in their urban environment. Their family life will be split, and they will lose their extended family of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins.
  It is from these people who cannot cope and who have an inadequate personality that the great pool of drug addicts is found. Such people are easy prey to any professional pusher or to any friend who will casually offer his spare heroin or physeptone. It is not yet a big problem proportionately—we must all bear that in mind—but, though comparatively small, it always has the menace of possible explosion, as it has exploded in America, into a problem of grave proportions.
  Our regulations and laws in the past have been unable to cope with this problem. They have eased the situation in respect of one drug only to create a new situation. As the previous Home Secretary said, the situation changes constantly, day by day, and week by week. I was

  1761
  surprised when I read his speech in the last Parliament to learn that he had known about the dangers of barbiturates only in recent months. In general practice we have known about them for the last couple of years, ever since Methedrine became difficult to come by.
  Similarly, Mandrax seems to have taken people by surprise. Mandrax has not been mentioned yet today. It is a very intoxicating sleeping pill; one becomes very "high", very intoxicated, on it. This pill has been marketed for four, five or six years, and it immediately started to fall into the wrong hands. Recently, there has been a great increase in its vogue. I have seen people trying to inject Mandrax; they suffer a terrible infected arm. I have many patients who have taken it with alcohol or instead of alcohol as an intoxicating agent.
  The dangers of Mandrax, both social and pharmacological, have been known for several years, and last year the Poisons Board took the unusual step of recommending its consideration by the Home Office because of its social implications. But it has taken a year up to now for the danger to be officially recognised by the Home Office.
  That is an illustration of the need for this Bill, with its flexibility to meet a constantly changing situation. The scene is not the same from one week to the next. Only with a flexible Bill of this kind can we hope to start putting our laws in line with the situation.
  I was surprised, too, when I read the last debate, to learn that the increase in LSD taking, "acid" taking, was not known among the general public or among the generality of right hon. and hon. Members. I find this extraordinary. Acid taking in a provincial city like Norwich has increased 100-fold, probably, in the last 18 months. I was reading last night an as-yet-unpublished paper by the man who is probably regarded as the most eminent in the field of addiction, a consultant psychiatrist. His paper extends to 8,000 words and devotes only 110 to the taking of acid. He gave his figure of the likely incidence in the population as one to five per 100,000. This shows not only how out of touch hon. Members may be but how out of touch one of the hierarchy in medicine is, for, just after reading that paper, I went to the Library
  1762
  and saw in our local newspaper that there were five people yesterday on acid charges in various courts in Norwich. That is five people out of 200,000, yet the greatest expert on addiction in this country feels that in any year there are only one to five per 100,000. He could come to my surgery and, within a month, we could find him his five. I could take him round various clubs, coffee bars and ordinary bars in Norwich and find ten or 20 times that in an evening.
  Acid taking is a big menace. In my view, it is the most dangerous drug we have, for two reasons: first, because it produces either temporary or permanent insanity, with schizophrenic breakdown, and second, because we might here have a causal relationship with the taking of "pot". The relationship between "pot" taking and heroin is a relationship within the social environment. It is none the less dangerous for that. I feel that the argument put forward by some experts about the similarity between the molecule of TCH, the derivative of cannabis, and the molecule of morphia is neither here nor there. Clinically, I do not think that it has any significance. But there may well be a relationship between hash taking and LSD taking.
  Hash is a mild hallucinatory drug—which alcohol really is not—and LSD is a major hallucinatory drug. It seems reasonable to suppose not only that the same people move in the same circle but that there may well be a direct relationship.
  Having given my unstinting approval to the Bill, I wish slightly to criticise its emphasis, and the emphasis in the debate last time, as well as, perhaps, today, on the hazard of the over-prescribing doctor. This problem could easily be solved if it were illegal for any doctor to charge for his prescription of various drugs. It is always said by social workers that the doctors who treat addicts are either saints or sinners. The sinners make large sums of money out of it. The saints, for a penny a day, undergo the worst ordeal by patient which any doctor can have. They do it for a penny a day, the capitation fee.
  A doctor with a dozen or a couple of dozen addicts on his list suffers in every possible way. His sleep will be disturbed night after night. His surgeries

  1763
  will be disturbed. He will lose the confidence of his colleagues because his patients will invariably be a nuisance wherever they go. There is no advantage to him at all. He is doing social work, and he is not being paid for it. These people are not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said, grey sheep. They are taking on a job because in a provincial city there is at the moment no treatment for the drug addict.
  The old system was that they should be treated in out-patients' departments, or that in a big enough city there should be a special centre. That does not work, because the out-patients' department closes, but drug addiction is a 24-hoursa-day, seven-days-a-week matter. Therefore, at night and at weekends addicts are thrown back on to the general practitioner service. There are very few general practitioners who will take on that responsibility, and there is a danger that, after the Bill is passed, those very few will also stop. It is bad enough to have ordeal by patient; it would be worse to lose one's livelihood.
  We must also be a little careful about sharp differentiation between the pusher and the taker. In my experience, the two often overlap. When the clever racketeer, the man at the top, is eventually caught by the police, he will probably have a couple of purple hearts on him and will be sentenced to three months' imprisonment at the magistrates' court. The next man down, the smalltime crook, the small-time housebreaker who can no longer climb over the back walls, will be found, when caught, with the "pot" all neatly labelled and wrapped up in silver paper ready for distribution, and he will get five years. The last group consists of the men who move in the sub-culture of the junkie and just share his prescription. This is where we come to the question of over-prescription, and it is where we may be able to do some good.
  To quote the social workers, the saints amongst the junkie doctors do their best to avoid over-prescription at all times. It is very difficult, because one can never tell the dose someone will need. Where over-prescription is dangerous today is in the over-prescription of a drug which is practically becoming replaceable—the barbiturates. This is the new menace
  1764
  coming up behind LSD. It is a menace which is reappearing, because it was a menace about 10 years ago.
  Barbiturate over-prescription occurs constantly. It is done not just by a few grey or black doctors but by a great many doctors in all walks of life and all types of practice. They prescribe barbiturates as tranquillisers, though there are much better tranquillisers, and as sleeping pills, though there are much better forms of getting a night's rest. The problem of insomnia can be gone into much more carefully, and the doctor can use a much more narrow-spectrum drug to achieve the night's rest. But that is not always done, and the easy way out is to give someone sodium amytal gr.3. The general practitioner gives 100 so that the patient does not come back for a month. This is the sort of over-prescription we must get rid of. Barbiturate over-prescription is the big problem coming up in the future. We must have closer and tighter control right across the spectrum of doctors—not just a few junkie doctors.
  I have not mentioned the constructive points which we need and which must be put forward. One is education. There must be more and more education on the hazards of drug addiction, particularly as regards acid. Second, we must remember that we need improved social conditions. Where there are poor social conditions there is addiction. Fifty-two per cent. of hard-drug addicts have been deprived of one or other true parent for more than two years, and 34 per cent. have been deprived of both parents for two or more years. When talking to them, we always hear the same story of the shattered home, the absent father.
  I have just one other small point. We have included a large number of cough medicines in the Bill. I do not know whether The House realises that any prep-school matron or old people's home warden who hands out cough medicine in future will be liable to seven years in gaol, and so will the headmaster.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), I, too, ask the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not immediately discuss what he just said.

  1765
  The occasion of one's maiden speech in this House is obviously symbolic. I am not sure what is symbolises—perhaps the transition from boyhood to manhood, a sort of political key of the door. Perhaps it marks the transition from amateur to professional status as a politician. Perhaps, even, it marks a loss of political innocence. Whatever it symbolises, it is certainly a nerve-wracking tribal initiation ceremony which still awaits record by one of our latter-day sociologists. I, like other new Members, find it something of an ordeal.
  I represent Walthamstow, West, and do so with pride and humility. I do so with pride, because the people of my constituency are the most friendly and heartwarming that I could wish to meet and represent. They have made me, a foreigner from a few miles away, extremely welcome. They also have a long record of devoted public service, a record of electing progressive local authorities and representatives to speak up for them in the assemblies of the nation. This, too, makes me feel extremely proud.
  At the same time, I feel very humble about the rôle I have undertaken, because in Walthamstow, West there is a long tradition of very fine constituency Members of Parliament, some of whom in recent years have given their lives to the service of their constituents, dying in office. If I merely mention Mr. Ted Redhead, hon. Members who knew him will know exactly what I mean. He set a standard of conduct as constituency Member which I shall find it very difficult to live up to. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Fred Silvester, did his best, as I shall do my best, to establish the same sort of reputation, but the sort of reputation which Mr. Ted Redhead had in the House and his constituency will perhaps take a decade or more to establish, if I am lucky enough to enjoy the confidence of the electorate that long.
  The Bill is very important. As a politician, I think that it is up to us to establish that politics is a meaningful activity which bears some relevance to the concerns of ordinary people, including young people. We need a clear-thinking logical approach to social problems. I am not certain that the Bill embodies clarity of thought and logic. I support it, but I have three criticisms.
  1766
  First, the Bill is, as I think the Home Secretary implied, rather hypocritical. It attacks socially unacceptable drugs but does nothing about socially acceptable drugs. It attacks the drugs of young people, but does nothing about the drugs of middle-aged and elderly people. When looking through Schedule 2, I thought that something called "nicodicodine" might have been a misprint for "nicotine", but I understand that there is no intention of doing anything about that. If there is a distinction to be made between drugs, it should be between drugs which are a danger to health and those which are not, but the Bill does not make that distinction.
  My second criticism is that it does nothing about the prevention of drug addiction. We must first realise that it is necessary to educate parents and, even more important, local authorities about the perils of drug addiction. A number of local authorities, particularly in urban districts, have their heads in the sand about the existence of a drugs problem locally. There are many instances, certainly in my area of Waltham Forest. After hearing learned aldermen of the district saying, "We have no drugs problems," some young reporters on the local newspaper proved the following week that it was possible to go to a teenagers' café and buy a small piece of LSD on a piece of paper for 2s. 6d. with no trouble at all. There is clearly a drugs problem, but we shall not start to tackle it until everyone in the country is aware that the problem exists, and this is very much a matter for parents and local authorities as well as the House of Commons.
  Secondly, we need to do some research into why people take drugs. But it is true that there are some deficient personalities, I see them myself, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), I have the dubious distinction of living at Piccadilly Circus, which is the centre of the illegal drug trade. The type of people one sees there, the drug addicts, are undoubtedly the lowest of the low and probably have deficient personalities, as may be seen from what they say, the way in which they congregate and behave and so on. But that is only a small part of the problem of drug addiction.

  1767
  Many people, an increasing number, take drugs to express a protest, to express rejection of the values of the society in which they find themselves—for example, our addiction to materialism, to success, to money and so on. They find that their parents have not gained satisfaction from their worship of these gods and they prefer to live for kicks, to get their pleasures as they can, from drugs if necessary, and not to slave all their lives for a pension at the age of 65, if they are lucky enough to live to get it. That is the second reason why people take drugs.
  There is a third reason. Some take drugs because they have failed to live up to the standards of our society; they have failed in our rat race. They therefore want to take drugs because they are inadequate or insecure, or are under a certain degree of social strain. Here, again, the remedy is in our own hands.
  Finally, there is a reason for drug addiction about which the House will be able to do nothing. There is a number—and I suspect that it is an increasing number—of fairly intellectual young people who take drugs for experimentation, for the kicks that it gives them, for so-called heightened perceptions. This is all a load of absolute rubbish, but at the same time it is happening in America and I suspect that, as with so many other aspects of our society, what is happening in America is likely to happen here, unless we do something about it.
  We should recognise the limits of legislation. The need—and that is why I am on this side of the House—is to effect a radical change in our society, in social structures and institutions, so that people are not condemned as failures at any point of their existence as human beings, so that they may at all times fulfil their potentialities and lead truly creative lives. Until we have established that sort of society, drug addiction will become an increasingly serious problem.
  My third criticism is that, unfortunately, I suspect that the Bill is likely to increase crime. We shall make drugs for the addict scarcer and therefore push up the black market price for drugs. The addict will have three choices. He may give up drugs, but we all agree that that is most unlikely. He may turn to alternatives, but the Bill makes provision in time for cracking down on those alternatives.
  1768
  Finally, he may continue addiction and buy drugs at higher black market prices.
  What has happened in the United States may happen here as the drug supply dries up and drugs become more expensive. Drug addicts are not normally criminal types in the generally accepted sense of the word, but they are likely to turn to petty and violent crime in order to obtain the money which they will need to buy drugs on the black market. At the moment, we do not have that problem. What we have in the area of Piccadilly Circus is persistent begging for money to buy drugs, although different excuses are given. It is begging on a fairly substantial scale and I am sure that nothing can be done about it. But begging for 2s. is one thing and finding £s and £s to get a daily drug supply is entirely a different matter. I strongly suspect that if we are not careful, we shall see a rise in petty crime as a result of making drugs scarcer.
  I reiterate that I support the Bill with reservations, but it is only a tentative first step which the House is taking in tackling what will become an increasingly widespread and serious social problem.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Havers: I observe with pleasure the conventions of a maiden speech. I should like to speak briefly of my constituency, famous as the home of one of the greatest sports enjoyed by so many and host to so many of the finest tennis players in the world. It is also one of the most beautiful boroughs in London, where even the smallest garden is attractively kept. It is a friendly and hospitable constituency which has made available some of its loveliest land to neighbouring councils for old people's homes. I am proud to be its representative here.
  The second convention which I observe with pleasure is to refer to my predecessor, Sir Cyril Black. Sir Cyril will always be remembered in the House for his qualities of courage and total integrity. He was always prepared fearlessly to support minority views, and the yardstick of his reputation and character may be demonstrated by the fact that he numbered among his many friends those who opposed many of his campaigns. I feel a sense of inadequacy as

  1769
  his successor, but I shall always be grateful for the kindness and support which he has given to me since I was chosen to replace him. He was, I am told, a good House of Commons man, and his retirement will be a great loss to the House, and we wish him well for the future.
  In a maiden speech, I should not spend a great deal of time on the Bill, but there are two Clauses which as a matter of principle I do not like in their present form. Clause 28 shifts the burden of proof in certain cases. There seems to be no reason why the rule which has existed for so many centuries should be changed. It is a good rule. It is a rule of which every jury is reminded—"He who brings the charge must prove it". I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reconsider whether this change should be maintained.
  My principal objection to the Bill concerns Clause 25 where one finds yet again the provision that no prosecution shall be taken before quarter sessions or assizes except at the election of the defendant, or if the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been obtained. I do not know why that provision is included. With practically every ordinary criminal offence carrying sufficient sentence if necessary to justify the matter going to a higher court, the prosecution has the right to elect to ask for the case to be tried by a higher court. As the Bill stands, a case may go to a higher court only at the election of the defendant.
  That means that a man may be charged with a number of serious criminal offences under the Bill carrying as much as 14 years apiece and yet only by his choice can he be put at risk for them. Otherwise, he remains in the magistrates' court where the total maximum sentence which may be imposed is 12 months. Even if in the course of the hearing, as may happen in a number of cases, the magistrates take the view that it is more serious than they had originally understood it to be and ought to go to assizes or quarter sessions, they will have no power to order it to do so.
  The ordinary rule should apply. Over the past few years too much of the discretion of magistrates has been taken from them as to the way in which they conduct their courts and the sentences
  1770
  they give. This begins to be yet another example of that and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter when the Bill goes into Committee.
  I thank the House for its indulgence.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I enter this debate with no particular knowledge of medical or legal science, unlike other hon. Members who also have made their maiden speeches, but I can speak as the representative of a very large constituency which contains a good deal of economic value and not a little social wisdom.
  The Rother Valley constituency was created in 1918. From then until the recent General Election it was represented by three men, each of whom worked in the pits before his election. My predecessor, David Griffiths, served in this House throughout a quarter of a century, making a contribution in many ways, not least by his work on the War Graves Commission.
  I do not regard my election as a great departure from the traditional interest of my constituency. My connection with the area is close and real, close by virtue of origin and residence and real by virtue of my previous public service and my occupation. The few people whom I taught were largely from miners' homes, like myself.
  Coal mining is our most important industry and must remain so, because the coal that we extract in Rother Valley is, perhaps, the best in Europe. Steel is also a very important part of our economy, employing many of my electors. Ours is, therefore, an area with the normal traditional heritage of steel and mining towns, areas with a history of risk and deprivation but areas which possess a sense of domestic responsibility and good neighbourliness. In that sort of atmosphere it is very difficult for the extremes of addiction and vice to proliferate.
  Rother Valley is a county constituency composed of many small towns and villages. Some of those villages have grown quickly in recent years because many people are moving into the country, into our agricultural areas, from the congestion of neighbouring and more

  1771
  densely-populated larger centres of population in the towns and cities around.
  It may be that that movement into the country from the urban areas is not an irrelevant point to make in a debate on the subject which is before us this afternoon. That movement to the country is certainly one of the reasons why I have such a large electorate, which the Boundary Commissioners appear to have ignored, and an electorate about which I do not complain. I certainly do not make any complaint about the majority.
  Some hon. Members may regard my sort of mining and steel area as a dirty and derelict area full of people who are rough and inarticulate. I would never claim that we completely lack roughness and inarticulation, but I believe that in our sort of area we have the sense of responsibility and the identification of people with their neighbours to an extent which means that people are not aimless and have not lost their identity, which seems to be a problem in many of our large cities. The problem of this loss of relationship among people may be one of the relevant aspects in the severe problem of the misuse of drugs.
  Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I support the Bill in broad terms. It is certainly necessary that heavier penalties should be applied for drug trafficking. I think, however, that far too many people take an extremely superficial view of a problem of this nature. They read in a newspaper a sensational report of an individual tragedy and their automatic response seems to lead them to utter a general condemnation of young people. As a teacher, I have a long and recent connection with young people and I find that it is far too easy and facile to issue those general condemnations of the young. People in society should realise that young people will live up to the labels that are given to them, that they will live up to the ideas of society about them and that they are very much as society creates them. They may well have more opportunity today than they have ever had before, but they face much more complex pressures than any previous generation has ever faced.
  In the Whitsuntide Adjournment debate introduced by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), to which reference
  1772
  has been made, the then Sir Edward Boyle referred to the rôle of schools in society. In particular relationship to this problem, the rôle of the school is extremely important. It should, however, be realised that the influence of the school is, perhaps, less than the influence of the opposing forces in our society and somewhat less, perhaps, than the influence of home. As one hon. Member pointed out, the influence of home is much more unsatisfactory than most of us would desire. Figures have been given which show that the drug addict is much more likely to come from a broken home than to be a youngster who is active in his youth club, at school or in voluntary service at home or overseas.
  As well as the influence of home, there is the dreadful influence of society within education, with its insistence on competition, much of which is completely unnecessary. We place great pleasure on our young people to compete. We insist upon their striving to win. We expect them to pass an 11-plus examination which is unnecessary, we expect them to get more O-levels than the rest and then place upon them the pressures of struggling to get a university place and all the competition which exists in our society and which to a very large extent is unnecessary.
  It may well be that as a result of that competition a socially selective élite may emerge, and to a very real extent it is an arrogant élite. In addition to that élite, however, there are created social casualties, individuals who feel inferior when no individual should and individuals who choose to opt out from the society in which they feel that they have failed. It is from these individuals who wish to opt out, who have not realised that this is impossible, that the ranks of the drug addicts are filled.
  Unlike many hon. Members, I have not spent much time in London during the last 10 or 15 years. I have read repeatedly that it is supposed to be a gay and swinging city. I suppose that there is in this city a rather tawdry gaiety and I cannot claim to understand what the word "swinging" means. As a schoolmaster in South Yorkshire for a considerable time, however, the only comment that I would make on that is that I am

  1773
  rather amazed that the incidence of insanity, crime, addiction and the rest is not greater when people are packed in the sort of areas in which many millions of people are compelled to live in Britain today. Therefore, if we are to resolve the problems of drug addiction, it becomes vital for us to be concerned with housing, education and general social provision and to realise that the problem cannot be divorced from the wider social aspects generally.
  Many of my constituents who have, perhaps, little connection with young people or with drug addiction are saying today that the permissive society has become quite permissive enough. I do not agree with them in entirety but I believe that while freedom is vital, we nevertheless cannot allow our young people to have that amount of freedom in which they may easily be led into perdition. For this reason, it is vital that the squalid creatures who peddle destruction to the young, and sometimes the very young indeed, should be treated with all the severity that is proposed in the Bill.
  At the same time, we have to remember that the sentences proposed in the Bill for addicts are not the answer, that the addicts who are imprisoned need much more help than the Bill may propose and far more help than the nightly clang of a cell door, which will be their fate if the Bill is passed. A prison sentence may be deserved but help should be given.
  If we are properly to cater for the problem of drug addiction, it seems to me to be essential that in addition to the deterrent there should be provision for the complaint; and that if we are to find the cure we have to look for the cause, which may lie much more deeply in society than many people in our community expect.
  We may by the Bill reduce the sale of drugs, we may reduce the measure of addiction, but as one with long experience of young people I feel that we may be too hopeful and expecting too much from the Bill, because the causes of the complaint with which it attempts to deal lie very deep in the roots of our society.
  I am conscious that my first contribution to debate may have been rather
  1774
  pedestrian. I cannot even pronounce, as other Members have been able to pronounce, the names of all the listed drugs mentioned in the Bill. I am conscious, too, that my maiden speech may not have been as loud or dramatic as some which the House has already heard in this Parliament. Perhaps the dull nature of my speech can be attributed to the fact that I am a South Yorkshireman, and we are not generally excitable or mercurial in South Yorkshire; our regional temperament is sound. I hope that our temperament is as sound as the stone of this Palace, which was quarried in my constituency. I support the Bill as one stone in the social fabric. It is a necessary stone, but many more need to be laid.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on his speech. It would be impertinent of me to refer generally to the clutch of maiden speeches to which we have listened today, but I think that they have collectively injected a good deal of common sense into this subject which some of us have been discussing for some time. The hon. Gentleman will probably be gladder that his speech is over than those of us who had the pleasure of listening to it.
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I take the view that the Bill has been reintroduced at the right time and in the right way. The right hon. Gentleman was very critical of the Bill returning in its previous form and made some observations on that account. I think that the Home Secretary has done right to bring it back quickly and unchanged. In view of comments made by new as well as experienced Members and some earlier criticisms, my right hon. Friend can use the breathing space before the House returns in the autumn to make needy changes. That seems to me an eminently sensible way of going about this Measure. Most of the changes which we shall want to make should be made in Committee; they are not to be argued here. Without going into detail, I wish to indicate some areas—and they have been touched on by maiden speakers—about which I think the Home Secretary would be wise to think again.

  1775
  We should define more clearly what we are trying to do. The Home Secretary said that to him the problem was how far the community should interfere with the freedom of the individual. That is right. But it is also a question of how far the community is prepared to look after its own health. This is basically a community problem. I regard the Bill as a transitional stage. I hope that we shall reach the point at which we do not have to rely on the law as heavily as we do now. The main object must be to check drug abuse, as with other epidemics, by public health education. That will call for a major effort for which we are ill prepared. The sooner we prepare for it the better.
  We should look at the Bill and visualise ways in which it can perhaps strengthen the effort which will have to be made, not simply by law-makers or the Home Office but by the community. In this chemically-infested world, our society must learn to live without doing itself too much harm. That must be the long-term objective. America has taken a very long time to learn the importance of the community contribution. I hope that, by shorter cuts, we shall reach the right answer sooner and realise how much the law must be supplemented by work at community level.
  An important decision will have to be made before the Bill comes back to the House in the small but dangerous field of addiction—and by "addiction" I mean everyone who is on the "needle", whether heroin or anything else. In 1967 we rejected the idea of compulsory treatment, and I think that many doctors reject it now. Short of that, I am sure that we shall have to tighten up our arrangements; they are not working out. This is an infectious and dangerous area which is not being reduced.
  The Home Office figures, such as they are, for notified addicts are not strictly reliable because many cases of people who are on the "needle" have not been notified and therefore we do not know how many are suffering from this form of addiction. We must look again at a system which from the start gave me misgivings, namely, the State maintenance of addicts. I do not want to disparage
  1776
  the treatment centres, which have done a hard job as well as they could. But they have not reduced the number of addicts. All that they have done in some places is to substitute methadon addicts for heroin addicts. I hope that the Home Secretary will take searching medical advice on this so-called cure because it is time that we considered it very closely. We should consider whether the Mental Health Act contains the means to put some of these people within a firmer framework.
  I was greatly encouraged to hear what the Home Secretary said about forthcoming talks with the General Medical Council. It is crucial that these talks succeed. They stand a better chance of succeeding if the Government and the medical profession accept the nature of the problem. It was brilliantly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who, if I may say so without impertinence, made a singularly well-informed speech from the medical standpoint. Most of us would agree with what he said.
  At the time of the Brain Report and of the 1967 Act, we appeared to be taking action to stop a few black sheep among doctors running amok. That is the basis of part of the Bill. I wish that I thought it was the main problem. I have spoken—and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South referred to my remark—about grey sheep in rather larger numbers. I accept his amendment. To the grey sheep in the profession who are causing difficulty we should add what must be described as the willing victims of local circumstances—that is, doctors who have been drawn into this problem and who are doing their best but are not making much contribution to its ultimate solution.
  To be specific, many addicts have been injecting barbiturates. They were not prescribed, as methamphetamine was prescribed in the earlier craze, by a handful of doctors; they were prescribed by many doctors. Did the doctors prescribing barbiturates to those who inject them know for whom they were prescribing? If so, some awkard questions could be asked. If they did not, even more awkward questions, in one sense, could be asked.

  1777
  The Advisory Sub-Committee is to look into the question of barbiturates and I hope that we shall have some answers in time for the final stages of the Bill. It is, however, very disturbing that a breakdown of the 15 to 17 million barbiturate prescriptions given every year shows that there is an average of 80 tablets per prescription. Why? I suspect that the answer partly is the prescription charge—and hon. Members opposite are entitled to make what they like of that, but I want to deal with the facts. A quantity of 100 a time saves money. This is not necessarily a reflection on the prescription charges but it is a reflection on medical practice. All I would assert is that an average of 80 barbiturate tablets a time is too many and is one cause of the large overspill of tablets now in circulation and being abused.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate, however, that it is possible to prescribe barbiturates in very small strengths, and that, if a doctor wishes to have someone on a barbiturate without giving him large quantities to take per day, he can prescribe them in a very minor strength, which would necessitate him giving prescriptions for 100 tablets?
  Mr. Deedes: I accept this, but the hon. Gentleman will accept in his turn, I think, that some prescriptions are given out which are not covered by that proviso; it is those which cause me anxiety. In a sentence, a great deal of careless prescribing has gone on here, and we all know it. The conduct of many doctors in respect of dangerous drugs leaves a great deal to be desired.
  Following on what my right hon. Friend said, many of us believe that the medical profession must take a share of responsibility. They have power, through the General Medical Council and its disciplinary committee, and I do not believe that this should all be left to Government, with sponsored tribunals and the kind of official investigation proposed in the Bill. The reluctance of the General Medical Council—perhaps at the risk of tedious repetition I might repeat what I have said before—to share responsibility here drew the last Government, as it will draw the present
  1778
  Government if these talks do not succeed, into designing an apparatus which would steadily encroach on doctors' right to prescribe. Yesterday it was heroin, today it is amphetamines, and tomorrow it will be barbiturates. It is a bad principle and unworkable in practice. I accept that the medical profession cannot do it all, but what I insist is that we here should not try to do it all. We should move towards and not away from professional self-regulation. That is why I was so glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will take another look at the penalty Clauses. In the first place—here I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—he will find this distinction between pushing and possession very difficult in practice. There is a distinction between smuggling large quantities of drugs into this country, usually cannabis, and possessing small quantities. Beyond this, it will be hard to establish when those in possession are proselytising and when they are not.
  On the penalty clause I would add only this reflection. Could not the Home Secretary consider this? Why, in logic or in justice, should someone selling small quantities of drugs be liable for a heavy penalty, perhaps as much as 14 years, while someone who advocates irresponsibility to millions—it may well be via the media of television and so on—the use of this drug or that, often in an unanswered way, is regarded as entirely innocent? I am all for free speech, but some of the remarks which go unchallenged directed at young people on the subject of drugs make a major contribution to our problems.
  In reality, of course, the crux is not what the law says, whatever the Bill does, but how the courts apply the law. The courts are as confused about the hierarchy of drugs as are most of us. Judges and magistrates will need a better brief. This is where the sphere of public education should begin. On balance, I think that the police know most. I have become increasingly impressed by the knowledge of policemen, particularly in provincial forces, who are making a special study of this and doing their best, not only in the light of their own responsibilities but as a social agency, to

  1779
  deal with young people caught up in this problem in towns. It is easier in the provinces than in London, but it is being done and tribute should be paid.
  I do not dismiss the worries of the libertarians lightly. They have their anxieties. But we must distinguish carefully between the worries and anxieties of the libertarians and the determination of an influential minority to damage the police, to accuse the police of planting or, in another context, of bashing, beating up. This has become a habit in some quarters, both for those who are defending themselves against unanswerable charges and also for those who understand very well that undermining the public confidence in the police is a short cut to discrediting established order. I know that some think that, in the recent inquiry in which I had some part, we let the police off too lightly. We shall argue that at the proper time. Meanwhile, I think that the difficult job they are doing in this respect should be acknowledged by the House.
  Much of this brings me to my last point. Their duties and our duties would be greatly eased if we could inculcate a more informed attitude about cannabis. I will not follow up the argument which arose out of a remark of mine between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Unlike much opinion here and in other parts of the world, I am not led by recent experience to take a more genial view of "pot"—quite otherwise. My reasons—again I must pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—are identical to those which he offered.
  The drugs scene changes very quickly: fashions shift. In my view, circumstantial evidence today is strong that the area of principal danger now is and will remain for a long time the hallucinogens—by which I mean cannabis, LSD, and, in the background, S.T.P. The amount of cannabis being smoked today is unquestionably very large indeed. We cannot quantify it, but we cannot doubt that the habit is pervasive, perhaps more pervasive than we should like to think.
  The police know very well that there is a big and profitable market here and that people are prepared increasingly to
  1780
  take risks—as some evidence from Europe is showing us—to make what they can of that market. The use of LSD has also increased, partly with the advent of the LSD pill, which makes its consumption much easier than having to take it in liquid form on a lump of sugar.
  These hallucinogens have strong attractions in certain circles. One danger is this. Some smoke "pot" because they say that it is a relaxation, but some use it for what they term self-discovery. When they are disappointed by the results, they can be easily induced to turn to the drug which has the closest affinity in that sense, namely LSD. I agree with what my hon. Friend said. It is not the "pot"-heroin syndrome, on which we have dwelt over-long and in which many of the young knew us to have been wrong, that we should worry about, but the "pot"-LSD connection, which is, I think, the principal danger now.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the young know us to be wrong about the "pot"-heroin syndrome, since this is still very much an open question?
  Mr. Deedes: Perhaps I over-stated it, and I do not want to over-state the matter. I do not want to go back on my words about the case we make not being credible. Let me put it this way. There was a time, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, when we tried to impress on the young that those who smoked cannabis were in pretty close peril of turing over to heroin, that one would follow the other. It is true that, among a number of heroin takers, one will find a high proportion who have been on "pot". What the young know, of course, very well is that a large number of people have smoked "pot" but have never gone on to heroin. This is where our argument got itself into difficulties among young people, who argue about these things perhaps more logically and more closely than we may suspect. All I am saying is that, medically, the really dangerous condition is between "pot" and LSD much more than "pot" and heroin.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: That is a very interesting point. As I understand it, with "pot" one gets a hallucinating effect only when one takes a large overdose. A minor use of it does

  1781
  not have such effects. When one has a large overdose, it has a hallucinatory effect, with other very unpleasant symptoms which come from the overdose. I should not have thought that hallucination was likely to be attractive if it came only in a most uncomfortable and unhappy form.
  Mr. Deedes: I think I shall be taking up the hon. and learned Gentleman's point in my next remarks. There are two misconceptions about "pot" and cannabis which ought to be cleared up. The first thing which is overlooked is the infinite variety of the potency of "pot". There is an enormously wide range in what one can smoke, and at one end of the range one gets one result and at the other end of the range one gets a quite different result. It depends, technically, on whether one is smoking resin or flowering leaf, and even then much depends upon the concentration in what one is smoking. People who talk about "pot" in a general way are talking nonsense. "Pot" is as variable as alcohol, and we all know the difference between a glass of sherry and neat alcohol.
  The second point is crucial. It is the amount smoked. I know a doctor who thinks that people who are smoking twice a week are in danger. I am not qualified to say whether this is true or not, but certainly those who smoke the strongest mixture, nearly always the resin—and, as I understand it, it is the resin which is brought into this country in the largest quantities—those who smoke that hard, are in danger of becoming tomorrow's dropouts. Those are the people who will find themselves overcome by apathy and by other moods which will render them, to put it mildly, less useful citizens.
  Mr. Paget: Both with alcohol and "pot". if we get seriously drunk upon it, then, for nearly all of us, it is a very unpleasant state. Those who do not find it an unpleasant state, whether from alcohol or "pot", are in real trouble.
  Mr. Deedes: That is a rational argument, but we are not dealing with rational people, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the same thing can be said with far greater emphasis about the effect of heroin. The first dose is often quite horrible yet those who experience
  1782
  heroin derive great euphoria from the result.
  However, the point which I want to stress is that if we increase the number of smokers we shall increase the number of hard users. Thus we should be careful about accepting a more liberal attitude than we have, for hard users are not only of harm to themselves but eventually are a harm to our society.
  Although I like the Bill I doubt whether we shall achieve our purpose by it alone. Its prime object is to restrict supplies. That is the prime object of the Bill. I think it was the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) who pointed out that if we restrict supplies we create a market, and a smaller market. A smaller market means higher prices and so more profit to those engaged in this traffic. So we may increase our problem.
  The Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Education and Science must get down to the framework of public health education. I have here some recent publications from America on these lines, "How to run a community system", "How to speak in public on drugs" and others. This is the approach we ought to take up, and at once. The Home Secretary may say that this could be done outside the framework of the Bill. Perhaps some of it can, but in addition to the agencies envisaged in the Bill we may need an agency for the stimulation of information and education. This is a public—and I stress "public"—health problem, and we should encourage by every means the public to share it and to take responsibility for it, and we should give them the means of doing so.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a very much tougher speech tonight than he did in March when we had the Second Reading of the previous Bill, a very much more abrasive speech, and I wonder what accounts for the change in tone. In March, the right hon. Gentleman had his criticisms about the Bill—yes, indeed; but he felt that the Bill dwelt heavily on powers and penalties on that occasion and dealt too little with the people involved. While he said some very tough things

  1783
  about "pot" and the people who smoke "pot", he reminded us, in these terms, that
  "America has had Draconian penalties for the misuse of dangerous drugs—heroin, marijuana, the lot—and she has tried hard to enforce them, yet abuse in America has spread like an oil fire in a timber shed, and more particularly in the last year or two."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1462.]
  I think, therefore, that we ought to take what the right hon. Gentleman said today with a few pinches of salt, because apparently now that he sits on that side of the House he is rather less conciliatory to the delinquent young, the misguided young, than when he sat on this side of the House.
  One needs to approach this matter with a fair amount of caution and a fair amount of humility. Certainly we do not know enough about the smoking of marijuana. The Wootton Report indicates that we need to know a great deal more, and I endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the need for more research into why people are motivated and urged into taking drugs, why they do what they do, why they turn to a particular kind of drug, and what it is which compels them to seek this prop to help them to deal with the problems of everyday life.
  Certainly I endorse what has been said in some of the excellent maiden speeches made here this afternoon, that we have not arrived at the American situation—God forbid that we should—in which deaths of teenagers from heroin addiction are occurring every day, and in which, in New York alone, about 224 teenagers died in 1969, the youngest being a negro boy of 12. This is a horrifying situation and one which we must do everything we can to prevent from occurring here.
  I should like, if I may, to congratulate the maiden speakers we have heard this afternoon. They have been the most able speeches and the best bunch of maiden speeches I have heard in the House for some time. This is the first occasion on which I have listened to so many maiden speakers all in one day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who spoke with great experience as a doctor, and I am sure that we shall look forward very much to hearing his expert views on many subjects in
  1784
  future. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. West (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). They were excellent speeches. We shall look forward to hearing all these speakers again in due course.
  There is just one point I should like to take up with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West. He was talking about the steps which drug addicts take to get the supplies which they need or to get the money to buy the drugs which they need, and he rather implied that the crimes which we have experienced because of these drives and urges were rather small, rather petty. Those of us who were concerned with the previous Bill and who served on the Committee on that Bill have been concerned with the increase in crime from the desire to get the help of drugs or to get the money to buy drugs, and we were concerned that that was a main motivation. We have been concerned with the crimes of violence, with the crimes of breaking into chemists' premises and manufacturing druggists' premises, too. They arose from this overwhelming desire to acquire drugs or the means of acquiring them. This is one reason why the previous Bill was introduced by my right hon. Friend and why the Home Secretary is now introducing this Bill.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford that we should educate young people, parents and teachers to recognise the signs of drug addiction. Unfortunately the Bill does not deal with this problem. We urged the previous Home Secretary and the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science to provide the guidance needed by teachers. I know that a good deal has been done, but the booklet which has been produced is most inadequate and I urge the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see that more energetic and authoritative guidance is given to teachers so that they in turn can pass it on to parents. Many parents do not realise that their children are taking drugs until it is too late and they are within a short period of death from drug addiction.

  1785
  Prescription charges have led to a certain amount of over-prescribing by members of the medical profession. It is easier for the doctor if the patient does not have to visit him so frequently, and the patient also saves money. Many of my hon. Friends foresaw this danger when it was proposed to reintroduce prescription charges.
  The Bill is deficient in the amount of encouragement it gives for research into the motivations of drug addiction. The sum mentioned in the Bill is inadequate for this purpose. I hope that the results of the research instituted by my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary will soon be available and that it will shed more light on the reasons why young people turn to drugs. Drug addiction is a problem of young people under 25, and the starting age seems to be getting lower. There are known cases of very young school children experimenting with drugs. That is a terrifying development.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is to have discussions with representatives of the medical profession to see whether they can put their own house in order. If, as is said, there are abuses under the Abortion Act, it is for the medical profession to put its house in order, and the same is true of drug prescribing and addiction.
  The medical profession could do without amphetamines. They are unnecessary in therapeutic practice. Sweden has banned amphetamines from medical prescription except for narcolepsy, which is very rare. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put this suggestion to the medical profession. I do not agree with what the right hon. Member for Ashford said about the connection between cannabis and other drugs such as heroin. I think that the link is much closer between amphetamines and heroin, and this has been shown by research to be so. The removal of amphetamines would, therefore, have a valuable effect.
  Treatment is an urgent problem which lies fairly and squarely on the medical profession. Our difficulty is that there is no universal treatment for drug addiction but many different ideas being pursued in many different areas. The time is long past when the Royal Colleges could have given thought to the treatment
  1786
  of drug addiction and could have set up a standing conference to pool experience, resources and ideas. That would have enabled the medical profession to have had a unified approach to the treatment of drug addicts.
  We must consider what is to happen to addicts after treatment. I am absolutely opposed to sending drug addicts to prison, where neither facilities nor medical manpower are available. Drug addicts are damaged people who need medical treatment by psychologists and psychiatric social workers, and sending them to prison will not help them. Once drug addicts have received treatment they are sent out in the same way as prisoners are sent out of prisons. They go back to the environment from whence they came, to the same contacts, the same inadequate family, and perhaps to a divided home. They go back to precisely the environment which led them to take drugs in the first place and back to the contacts from whom they were able to acquire drugs. There is an inescapable need to provide the "half-way house" accommodation which is needed for prisoners and just as urgently needed for drug addicts. We need far more hostel accommodation, with trained and sympathetic people in charge, to provide a sheltered environment for a period until addicts are able to fend for themselves and to face their every-day problems.
  The Home Secretary will need to try very hard to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him more money for his Department, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when Home Secretary, sought to persuade the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is often a losing battle, but those of us who are concerned with this whole area of activity will support the right hon. Gentleman to the hilt in any endeavours which are made to this end.
  There is still a great deal to do in matters which go rather beyond the bounds of the Bill. We shall try in Committee to improve the Bill so as to make it stronger and to give the Home Secretary rather more authority and power. I support those who take the view that the penalties for drug pushers should be even tougher than is indicated in the Bill.

  1787
  I appreciate that it is difficult to distinguish the pushers from the users of drugs. There is considerable overlap and proof is difficult to obtain. There should be much stiffer penalties for those who sell drugs to young children. People who sell drugs to children who are still at school should be dealt with in the severest possible way, and I hope that in due course the Government will accept a proposal of this kind.
  We should examine the system under which members of the medical profession who have been found guilty of over-prescribing or indeed of committing an offence of any kind under the drugs legislation are allowed to continue to practise. This is a serious point and is a matter which should be dealt with by the General Medical Council. That Council has the means of dealing with the black sheep and the grey sheep in the medical profession, but it has not employed them sufficiently often.
  We all remember the exploits of doctors Petro and Swann who were both members of the medical profession. They were found guilty, they then appealed, and for a period of months during which their appeals were awaiting hearing they were allowed to continue to do precisely what they had originally been charged with doing. They were allowed to continue to over-prescribe drugs. This is a scandal which should be dealt with by the medical profession. If the medical profession will not deal with it, I hope that we shall be able to deal with it in Committee. There are ways in which this matter can be covered, and it may be remembered that I put down Amendments in this respect to the original Bill.
  I welcome the Bill, although I feel that it does not go far enough and needs strengthening. Therefore, I hope that at a later stage we shall seek to give the Measure more strength.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I wish to ask for the customary indulgence of the House in making my maiden speech. I only wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) had mentioned a little earlier the fact that he was in possession of such a useful American booklet as
  1788
  "How to speak in public on drugs". I wish first to mention my predecessor, Mr. George Perry, who sat for Nottingham, South from 1966. I would pay tribute to the contribution he made to the constituency, and I gather that he also showed a suitable independence in this House.
  As the House may know, South Nottingham has many claims to distinction. For the sportsman, there is the undoubted advantage that it houses the headquarters of the Nottingham Forest Football Club, as well as the headquarters of Notts County Football Club, and Nottinghamshire Cricket Club. No hon. Member for Nottingham, South is ever in any doubt about what he is expected to do on a Saturday afternoon.
  South Nottingham is not a constituency that falls into easy classification. One way of dividing the country is on a basis of what falls north or south of the River Trent. I am glad to say that the River Trent runs straight through the middle of my constituency and thus we can claim to represent the best of both worlds. This also gives me the advantage of both a city and county part. We are privileged to house the headquarters of Nottinghamshire County Council, which is now under the very able chairmanship of Alderman Mrs. Yates. It also includes the separate urban district council of West Bridgford, which has always proved that small councils can also be very efficient.
  On the city side, we have such landmarks as the castle and the park, an area of great charm since it is set so near to the city centre. I should add that in parts of the constituency there are great social problems like poor housing, which must be tackled.
  Nottinghamshire is particularly fortunate in having a first-class police force supported by an excellent police authority, but there can be no doubt that they face an imposing task in dealing with drug addiction. I would emphasise that in this respect I refer to the whole of Nottinghamshire and not just to my constituency. This may be of interest to the House as showing the kind of problem that exists outside London. An assumption too often made is that the drugs problem in London is the same as that which exits in the rest of the country. But this is not true.

  1789
  The most important feature of the picture in Nottinghamshire is that undoubtedly the drugs problem is increasing. Last year there were 66 arrests for drug offences and, if the present trend continues, that figure will have doubled by the end of this year. It must be remembered that the number of arrests can only be a guide to the size of the problem because of the difficulties involved in recording drug offences as compared with other crimes. In a case of burglary at least one has the evidence of the burgled house, even if there is no detected burglar. But a drug offender must be caught before the offence can be recorded. Thus the total is almost certainly an under-estimate.
  It is also necessary to be clear about the exact nature of the drugs problem in areas like Nottinghamshire outside London. There is an unwelcome tendency to lump all drugs together into one drug problem, but there are important differences. In London there was first the problem of heroin, which was followed by Methedrine and then the problem of methadone. But heroin had never been a major problem in Nottingham. Our problem is very much concerned with the inaccurately labelled problem of "soft drugs", in particular the abuse of the amphetamine "pep" pills. This Bill undoubtedly makes a great contribution to tackling this part of the problem.
  Another problem which has been touched upon in this debate, and which has become evident in Nottingham as well as in other areas, has been the abuse of barbiturates, sleeping pills. Abuse has taken the form of the injection of barbiturates which is extremely dangerous to the user. I appreciate that there may be difficulties in imposing restrictions in this matter if for no other reason than the large numbers which are at present prescribed. I am also aware that the Advisory Committee is now examining this question, but I would stress the urgency of this matter.
  In the main, there can be no doubt that the Bill will make an oustanding contribution to trying to solve the drugs problem. Above all, it provides a flexibility in the control machinery which is undoubtedly necessary in considering the variation that there has been in the drugs picture over the last few years and the
  1790
  changes in the drugs which have been abused.
  There are two points raised by the Bill which I believe should be explored further. First, the new restrictions could have the effect of increasing the task of the police forces. The new controls should mean that the "grey" market created by over-prescription on the part of a few doctors is brought to an end. But there is the possibility that a more directly black market could be created, and that point was also mentioned by the lion. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins).
  In dealing with this, I believe that the police cannot afford to ignore the possibility that such a development may take place. Therefore, a great deal will depend on the efficient work of drugs squads throughout the country. It would be good to know that the police could be assigned more men to take part in this very important work. But we all know the difficulties involved in providing men to do the host of jobs that they are already expected to perform. An alternative is to look at ways in which the police could operate more effectively. In the East Midlands, there is already voluntary co-operation between the drug squads of the various forces. The advantage is quite simply that a picture of the whole region can be built up and, in drugs, this is very important as new forms of abuse can quickly spread from one part of the country to another.
  Will my right hon. and hon. Friends consider setting up properly constituted regional drugs squads on the same lines as the regional crime squads were set up some years ago? Such squads would be able to cross local police boundaries and operate within a region. Not only would they provide much greater efficiency in detection but much better information on what is happening with drugs throughout the country, and this information is crucial for the success of the Bill.
  My second reservation is not about what is in the Bill but what is left out of it. Although the Bill deals very fully with control, there is precious little in it about treatment and rehabilitation. Having visited several drug dependence clinics and studied some of the after-care facilities available, I know that there is

  1791
  little ground for complacency about the situation.
  My impression is that in many cases facilities are often run on shoestring budgets. This applies especially to after-care facilities. In spite of the excellent report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence dealing with rehabilitation, my view is that the case for better after-care facilities is still not sufficiently appreciated. There seems to be a fairly general impression that all that one needs to do when dealing with a user or a drug addict is to put him in hospital for a spell, after which all will be solved. That is emphatically not the case. It is no good simply discharging a former addict and allowing him to go back to his old friends and haunts. It may be precisely those friends who provide the context for his drug-taking. Nor in some cases is it much good sending him home, because in his view his home has failed before and proved inadequate.
  It seems to me that there is a case for a wide range of after-care facilities, including hostels where they are needed and far more social workers. At long last, the need for after-care has been fully appreciated in prison rehabilitation. We should now make a special effort in drugs as well. Many addicts are young and capable of being rehabilitated. Time is running out if they are not to meet the early death which all too often is the fate of addiction.
  It is that need that I would stress most. By this Bill, we now have an excellent control system. The next step must be for the Government to review and improve our system of treatment and after-care.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), who has made a very interesting and thoughtful speech. I have many reasons for saying that, not the least being that he did not need the booklet of advice on how to speak on this subject. He made a series of very valuable comments on the position. As Chairman of the Rehabilitation Committee of the Advisory Committee, I welcome
  1792
  the attention which the hon. Gentleman paid to its report. I will do him the credit of following some of his comments, because they are of real importance.
  I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not cover some of the more important areas which concern us in the matter of drug dependence. But, to be fair and honest both to my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill originally and to the right hon. Gentleman who is now responsible, it could not. Treatment and rehabilitation are essential matters which must be dealt with separately. Treatment, especially, falls to be dealt with under the National Health Service, and many of us are most concerned that adequate resources should be made available through those channels both for treatment and for rehabilitation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in this fight. It is a fight which is not purely against right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite since it is also against some members of the profession who are unwilling to give adequate priority to this kind of issue, which is by no means an easy one.
  I also want to follow what the hon. Gentleman said about the problem as it arises in the provinces. I was myself anxious to say a few words on this aspect. There are some respects in which the problem in the Provinces is more difficult to deal with than that in London, although the size of the London problem is infinitely greater. Nevertheless, there are some facilities available in London to meet the problem, and one is more likely to find those in social welfare who know something about it and can offer advice and help as well as the treatment facilities which are established, limited as we know they are. In the provinces, even these do not exist, and one of the great difficulties is that, because of the relatively small numbers involved, it is often thought that they do not want the kind of provision which I believe is now required. We can no longer assume that this is a problem which only exists here in London. London is undoubtedly the mecca, of course. Very often supplies are collected in London, and then people move out to other parts of the country. Developments can take place rapidly in other parts of the country and we could

  1793
  find ourselves in the midst of a very serious situation.
  At meetings which I have attended with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to discuss some of these problems in the provinces, I have discovered that some of those who had been affected and were trying to move out of addiction found it extremely difficult in the provinces to meet people who could give them advice and support. Among those most able to give support—in this case in the North-East—was a member of a drug squad who was able to speak the same language. He had taken the time and made the effort to get in contact with and to act as a social worker. This was very much to his credit and to the credit of those who had helped him to get to this position.
  We also need more rapid provision of those who have expert knowledge of the scene in the general advice centres in the country. In some areas there may need to be special centres, day centres, and the like. However, that may not be appropriate in parts of the country where the numbers involved are not so great. But there is an urgent need for well-trained advice for young people who may be involved, and, indeed, for parents, as part of the general welfare setting, not as exclusive drug advice centres. This was recommended in the recent report on LSD and amphetamines. I hope that action will be taken along those lines. This is not only a problem in London, but also in the provinces.
  I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. We have also had some extremely valuable contributions from other maiden speakers in the debate. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who speaks with special knowledge from his professional experience. But even he, it seems, was in some danger by quoting statistics about the proportion of drug cases which come from broken homes and other inadequate backgrounds. We tend to generalise, but there are dangers in doing so. Statistics in this sphere, as in so many others, are extremely inadequate, for some of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Therefore, we must not draw too much from statistics. Many of these cases are involved, but the drug
  1794
  problem is often a much wider social problem. We should be careful about the statistics which we quote, because many involved in the drug scene do not fit nicely into this kind of category.
  I should like to take up one or two other points which have been raised. I am never happy when I hear people talking of hard and soft drugs. These kind of easy definitions which we used to think had a lot of meaning clearly have a good deal less meaning today. It depends very much on the way the drugs are used. Amphetamines were always regarded as soft drugs, but injected they are another matter. We are now in the midst, if we are not getting beyond it, of the problem of barbiturates and their injection. There has been another switch, according to what is available at a particular time—it may not last long—to a greater use of LSD with all the special problems and dangers involved.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) wrongly took up the right hon. Member for Ashford when she suggested that he was arguing that "pot" led necessarily to heroin. I do not think that was the right hon. Gentleman's point. His point was that there might be a closer connection between "pot" and LSD as potential hallucinogens rather than with heroin.
  The whole argument was gone into in great detail in the report on cannabis. I would stick by that. There is a lack of proof, a lack of adequate scientific evidence, which enables us to speak with any certainty on this matter, but we must look at the problem connected with LSD with special care and anxiety.
  Another matter which we need to examine is the need to ensure that there is adequate provision for a wide range of experiments in the form of hostel facilities for rehabilitation of addicts. I am happy that some experiments are being conducted in London. But one difficulty which is already emerging—certainly in one experiment—is encouraging ex-addicts to come along. It may be—this view is held by some people, anyway—that the provision of moderate supplies through existing treatment units and centres is encouraging an easy drifting atmosphere in which people carry on as moderate heroin addicts without any great incentive to move off it and to face

  1795
  the rigours of self-discipline needed to encourage them to come back into the community. That is what we want to achieve.
  I know that one therapeutic community with which we are experimenting at the moment, a drug free hostel in London where this kind of self-discipline is being attempted, is very much concerned. It fears that our form of care and treatment in treatment centres is preventing us achieving the wider, more permanent, objective for which we are aiming. This reinforces the need for a careful reexamination of how our treatment units are going forward and the results coming from them. We cannot be too proud of them. We are grateful for what has been done, but we know their limitations.
  We have been justly proud that we appear to have avoided the worst of the evils of black market in some of the more serious drugs. But are we paying too high a price for that? Are we establishing people on drugs, and happy to remain on drugs, without an incentive to drive them to take control of themselves more effectively, for fear that, if we do not maintain their position and an adequate dose, we might create this new black market? Are our fears fully justified? None of us can be sure. We have the dreadful warning of the position in America. We certainly do not want to copy their example. But have we gone too far in this respect? Should we not do something more to try to tip the balance in favour of the kind of incentive for self-discipline that I feel we need?
  I am one of those who are very happy that the Bill has been introduced now and there is time to examine the problems with which we are very much concerned, and to which no one pretends he has a complete answer. We hope that the coming Parliamentary Recess will give us time to re-examine rather more fully some of the problems which are emerging, and from that point of view I wish the Bill well.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I apologise for thrusting myself on the House so soon after making my maiden speech last week. I would not normally have done so but, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and
  1796
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I am a member of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. As such I have had a fairly close look at the background to the Bill and there are one or two points that I should like to make about it.
  First, I join the hon. Member for South Shields in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) on his excellent maiden speech, which seemed to me to contain a high degree of lucidity and knowledge. I do not think that somebody as new as I am is the best person to pay tribute to a maiden speaker, but my hon. Friend's speech was very impressive in its way.
  I shall not follow the hon. Member for South Shields in discussing rehabilitation, a subject about which he knows a good deal. I should like, instead, to pick up one or two of the points which have come before the Advisory Committee during the last year or two.
  Like everybody else, I broadly support the Bill. It seems to me that it offers real hope in tackling the grave problem which is embodied in the whole question of drugs. There are, however, one or two specific points on which I have, perhaps not reservations, but at least questions which I think it is desirable to consider during the Summer Recess and when the Bill goes to Committee.
  The first is really a humdrum point. I wonder whether it is wise to have both an Advisory Committee and a separate Expert Committee. It seems to me that an Advisory Committee on this topic must, inevitably, contain a fairly large number of highly expert people, and it is a fact that this whole topic is becoming more and more technical all the time. I ask therefore whether it makes sense to have both bodies, and whether we could not do it with one of them, an Advisory Committee, assisted if necessary by an expert sub-committee? The whole business of the Expert Committee reporting to the Advisory Committee, and then the Advisory Committee reporting to the Secretaries of State, seems a little elaborate. I know that the process can be short-circuited, when there is an urgent need to deal with a problem, and I hope that the Minister will consider whether we are not risking having one committee too many.

  1797
  I turn, now, to a more important point. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I hope that the House will consider carefully the proposal to distinguish between possession and supply. I fully understand the desire to make it possible to punish the supplier of drugs more severely, but I am not yet persuaded that the Cannabis Sub-Committee was wrong when we argued that it is often impossible to distinguish between the two. A great deal of so-called supply is done very much on an amicable and sharing basis, rather than as an organised act of selling, and I think that the courts are liable to get into a terrible tangle in many cases if they are called upon to draw a distinction between the two. I suspect that it would make much more sense to let the judiciary decide. When a case comes before the judges they are able to judge when there is a really serious seller who should be given a heavy sentence, as opposed to the person who passes cannabis to a friend without any real desire for gain.
  My second point is that I am little concerned about whether there is not a risk at times of introducing too much control into this field as a whole. I know that it is desperately serious problem, and that in many respects it is a problem which will be tackled only by controls—we cannot leave it to any other mechanism—but when we introduce new controls of any kind we should always ask ourselves whether they are absolutely necessary, and whether they may not have harmful consequences.
  When I read through the Bill it gave me something of a shock to gain the impression that if my wife gave me a codeine she would be liable on indictment to 14 years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both. I investigated this more closely and found that codeine does not mean a codeine tablet, which is merely a codeine compound.
  There is, however, a point here, and it was made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South when he said that people who supply cough mixture are apparently liable to heavy penalties. I am sure that this difficult barbiturates issue which is now being looked at by the Advisory Committee will bring this point before us in a serious way. To my mind, in trying to stamp out an evil we may sometimes run the risk of making life tougher
  1798
  for people who benefit and find relief from some of these drugs. This is soluble problem, but I hope it will be looked at carefully and that we shall not try to stamp too heavily on the doctors' right to prescribe. I know that they have abused this in many instances but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, this is a very important freedom which must be upheld.
  I propose now to say something about the law and practice of stop and search. The Clauses in the Bill on this topic correspond entirely with the report of the sub-committee on this subject, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I signed that report, and I feel that the Bill is right to allow the police the power to stop and search on reasonable grounds. My reason for supporting this proposal is that if there is a law it is essential that it is able to be enforced, and I do not think there is any chance of enforcing the law on cannabis unless the police are able to stop and search people. I do not think that the minority proposal in the Report that search should only follow an arrest would serve any useful purpose, but I hope that if the Bill and this Clause go through, as I believe they should, the Home Secretary will do what he can to encourage the police to observe the subcommittee's recommendations on police practice.
  I should like to refer to one or two of those recommendations. The first is the recommendation that dress and hair style should not by themselves be regarded as reasonable grounds to stop and search. It is unlikely that the police have often picked on people simply because they have long hair, or wear peculiar clothes, but there is a belief that the police do that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will do what he can to make sure that the police never use that by itself as a simple ground for arrest.
  I hope, too, that the proposal that powers of arrest and search should be subject to the objective test of reasonableness and challengeability in the civil courts will be implemented. This again seems an important part of preserving the balance between liberty and control which lies at the heart of this issue. When the police make a stop or search, they should always be required to state that they are looking for drugs. In other

  1799
  words, they should state the ground on which they are making the stop. This is very largely police practice at the moment, but one hopes that the Home Secretary and leading police officers will do all they can to uphold it.
  I believe, too, that the sub-committee was right to comment on the desirability of providing a leaflet setting out the legal rights of suspects when they are taken to police stations. Lastly, it is right that the police should defer making any charge of unlawful possession until the substances in question have been analysed. This is the practice in many parts of the country, but not everywhere.
  It is also right that there should be priority in analysing substances found on people. Every step should be taken to analyse substances quickly when bail is not given to people involved. In other words, it is not tolerable to have people hanging around for a long time in custody waiting for an analysis of the substance to be made.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member is available for interruption, having made his maiden speech. He has finally arrived. Is he advocating—given the precautions of restriction and the power to stop and search—that the police should have power to make random stops and searches and requests to accompany them to police stations, without arrest? Is that what he is advocating?
  Mr. Raison: Not random stops. Stops should be made only when the police have reasonable grounds for doing so. But the police should be able to stop and search, rather than have to arrest people formally.
  My essential point follows from that question. There has been some suspicion that the police have been making random searches. On the sub-committee we had very slender evidence that this was happening. I am not sure that we had any concrete evidence at all. Nevertheless, there is a feeling around that the police occasionally make random searches, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to make sure that this does not happen. In a sense, the justification for not introducing the qualifications that
  1800
  were desired by the minority of the members of the sub-committee lies in making sure that police practice is up to the highest standard.
  My last point concerns health education. We would all agree that it is very important to have effective education on this topic. I do not believe that anything can be done in terms of adding Clauses to the Bill. We have a Health Education Council, whose job it is to cope with these matters. It is unfortunate that it has taken a long time to bring this council into being, owing to a number of unlucky circumstances, but the council is now in being, and I hope that it will be allowed to get on with the job. We do not need new legislation to cover that subject.
  I believe that the Bill should command support. It evidently does so. We need to look at its details carefully, but I am sure that it will do the country a lot of good when it is enacted.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: We have heard some admirable maiden speeches today, and an admirable near-maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House was as pleased to hear the hon. Member's second effort as it was to hear his first. It was an interesting speech.
  I want to deal with one drug only—cannabis. I do so because the Home Secretary did so with charming modesty and lack of certainty. In the same way. I wish to put my views as much as can in the interrogative, but I am doubtful whether cannabis has not passed the point of no return—whether it is not something with which we now have to live. It is now in too general use. It is present in too great a quantity, and it is too easy to make.
  That is the difference between cannabis and the barbiturates and amphetamines. Basically, the source of barbiturates and amphetamines is over-prescription. They are quite complicated to make. They are made by manufacturers and are supplied in medicines. Such drugs may be difficult to control, but perhaps they can be controlled. But something that is as easy to produce, as general in its use, as available and as cheap as cannabis, is another matter, and I very much doubt whether it can be controlled.

  1801
  We have experience of two other drugs—alcohol and tobacco. Great efforts were made to control both those. It was not only the Americans who tried prohibition. In the case of tobacco we had the efforts of James I. The Czar of Russia went somewhat further and decreed that all people caught smoking should have their noses slit. The Porte, in Turkey, went even further, and decreed that the pushers of the dangerous drug, tobacco, should be sewn in a leather bag and thrown into the Bosphorus. But with none of those methods, anywhere in the world, was success achieved. I fear that in England, now, as in many other parts of the world for generations, cannabis has reached the point at which abolition will prove a futile exercise.
  This is so because, on the whole, it is an indulgence of youth—youth that is challenging the standards of the older generation. Youth has a right to challenge us; we have not made too good a job of things. It is not a very inspiring society in which we live. We have just got through an election in which, as far as I am aware, no ideal or principle impinged, and in which I do not think that anybody seriously believed anything that we politicians were saying. It was rather a humiliating election.
  That is the kind of society which the young, in a high degree, are rejecting today. They say, "We do not like your standards. We do not think much of them. We believe in a less acquisitive society—a society that is gentler and that associates more quietly." They compare their drug with ours and say, "Take your tobacco. It is dirty, unlike ours. It is habit-forming, unlike ours. It is a drug very often taken alone, unlike ours, which is taken socially." They also look at those of us who get our lift and our level of inebriation through alcohol and they say, "Here is something that is very much worse. You may be able to get drunk on pot. You may over-indulge in it. You can equally over-indulge in alcohol, and if you do the results are a good deal worse. "Pot" will not give you cirrhosis of the liver. Pot will not give you the D.T.s". When we find that kind of comparison being made—where we find prohibition not only being ineffective but awfully difficult to make sense of—it is inviting trouble simply to say, "No".
  1802
  What is the case against cannabis? It is not a drug of addiction. It is not a drug that reduces efficiency, taken in moderation. As far as I can make out, it is not a drug that produces lung cancer or anything like that, taken in moderation. Of course, taken in excess it can have bad effects, but not such bad effects as alcohol has. The case against it is basically that it leads to something else. It is said that all people who go in for the serious hard drugs—heroin and so on—probably started on cannabis. This may or may not be so, but a tremendous lot of people who began on cannabis do not go on to hard drugs—
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I wonder if in relation to the Motion which now stands on the Order Paper for Private Business at 7 o'clock it would be convenient to take the item in two parts, the procedure part and then the Third Reading?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to inform me that he was to make this request. I have considered it and decided that we shall take the Motion in two parts. The Chairman of Ways and Means will move first the procedural part.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended.—[The Chairman of Way and Means.]
Mr. Wellbeloved: I make no apology to the House for the fact that we have this interruption at Seven o'clock in the normal business to deal with this matter. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament to use the procedure of Parliament to protect the interests of his constituents. The Greater London Council, whose Bill

1803
we will later be considering, has a responsibility for a number of matters of considerable importance to my constituency and, in particular, for the flood protection of London. The siting of the Thames flood barrier is a matter of vital importance to those whom I represent.
In the past I have used the procedure of Private Business, and I intend to continue to do so as I think it is my responsibility to use every Parliamentary means at my disposal in the discharge of my responsibility to my electorate. I am pleased to be able to say that the Greater London Council has now delivered to me, this afternoon, a letter which it felt unable to deliver this morning, before I objected at 2.30 p.m. That letter has now made it possible for proceedings to be less protracted than they might otherwise have been. Perhaps I might quote a paragraph from that letter for the record. The letter is signed by the appropriate official of the Greater London Council and says:
"To the best of my present knowledge and belief the documents referred to in this letter are the only reports to the Council, since the Report of Studies, which contain a reference to the siting of a barrier in the Crayford area. It during the course of the next seven days any further documents come to my knowledge upon which the Council decision not to proceed with Crayfordness site was based, I will make them available to you."
That letter is signed by Mr. Horner who is in charge of the Council's business in relation to flood protection.
I have accepted that undertaking on the basis that a genuine search will be conducted by the G.L.C. for the information I have requested, and that if such information is found it will be made immediately available to me.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rossi: It is gratifying to hear that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is not pressing with his objections to this Bill, because it is a most important Measure upon which the whole of the capital financing of the Greater London area depends. Without the Bill London would be unable to proceed with the provision and equipment of schools, ambulance stations, fire stations, nor with the provision of housing accommodation as well as a number of other important matters.
1804
Since we are just before the Summer Recess, there was a real danger that if the hon. Gentleman had proceeded with the course upon which he had embarked then the whole of the financing of these important matters would have been in jeopardy, which would have been a deplorable matter for the whole of the people living in the Greater London Area. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman feels obliged to attempt to use parliamentary techniques to deal with a matter completely unconnected with the Bill. I am glad that I have played a small part in helping to produce the letter which the hon. Gentleman requires. All's well that ends well. London will have its money and he will have a sight of this report that was bothering him.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I cannot accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) because until a short while ago I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in opposing this Bill. Primarily he found the same problem as I did—it is impossible to get answers from the Greater London Council. We as Members of Parliament are entitled to raise the matter here when the Council comes to us and demands help to carry out its work. It is regrettable that we have to let this Bill go through as it were on the nod tonight, because as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out if we do not there will be no money for London.
There are very great issues raised in the Bill. There is insufficient money for my constituents to be able to travel properly in London at fares which they can afford. It is a direct responsibility of the G.L.C. in this Bill to provide that money. I do not have an opportunity owing to this procedural Motion which I accept of arguing the case on behalf of my constituents, who are suffering very much because of the indolence of the G.L.C. in producing this Bill too late for discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Paget: I had just got to the point in my argument when I was dealing with the case against cannabis. That case does not rest upon the evil results of cannabis, taken by itself or in moderate quantities. We have had the very elaborate examination of the use of this drug in 1893 by the Commission in India. We have had the Mayoralty Report in New York and the Wootton Commission here. All three gave cannabis a clean bill of health, moderately used. Like alcohol or any other stimulant excessive use can have bad results but on the whole not such bad results as alcohol.
But it is said that cannabis unlike alcohol and unlike tobacco can be a link leading to more serious drugs. It used to be said that people who took heroin began taking drugs through cannabis. That may or may not be so, but it is certainly the case that a vast number of people who have taken cannabis and who in other countries have used cannabis regularly all their lives, as their fathers did before them, have not found it necessary to move on to any other more serious drug, nor has anyone produced any medical reason suggesting that cannabis creates a weakness or a craving or anything of that sort which looks for a greater satisfaction.
Every one of the Commissions which examined this rejected it. It was suggested today that, even if that is not the case it leads to the taking of one of the hallucinants such as LSD. I find this an unconvincing argument because, used moderately and in the normal way as a social drug whereby a party gets some exhilaration and euphoria and finds that people's conversation seems more brilliant than it was before, cannabis has none of the elements of the hallucinant.
The hallucinant effect comes only when the drug is used in gross excess and the user is heavily inebriated. But it comes with highly unpleasant results, when he is sick, when he feels jolly ill. All I have understood from the literature is that the hallucinations of cannabis are very unpleasant, and I should have thought that
1806
that kind of experience did not really make hallucination more attractive—indeed, rather less so. A person on LSD or one of the hallucinants has the hallucination without the unpleasantnesses of inebriation. So it seems to me that that argument falls down.
The only link which I can find—I regard it as a dangerous link—between cannabis and the hard drugs is illegality. Making illegal the use of this drug which has become so common means that a person has to obtain it from illegal sources. He is made a customer of the pushers, and the pushers are pushing the more dangerous drugs, too. In contrast to what happens with tobacco, which one can obtain without being in any way connected with the people who sell dangerous drugs, illegality means that one can obtain cannabis only by being connected with pushers and all the dangers which that involves.
It seems to me that one has to weigh these two evils. On the one hand, with a drug as easy to obtain as cannabis, and in wide use, is there any reasonable prospect left of eliminating it or even much reducing it? If we cannot eliminate it or reduce it much, should we not be better advised to try control rather than prohibition? If we brought this drug under control, as we do with tobacco and alcohol, we could lay down standards, preventing the sort of difficulties referred to in an admirable speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The trouble with cannabis is that one never quite knows what one is getting. What may be a moderate dose with one batch is a dangerous dose with another. One does not know the standards and strengths. A person stumbles into the bad effects which come with excessive use. Control could deal with that. We could look into it and see what was the least harmful method of supply and the strength to provide the least objectionable effects. We could exercise control.
Second, we could educate people more in distinguishing use from misuse. At present, by treating the use of cannabis as a crime, when that conflicts with the experience of so many people and so many people's friends who have found it, or who have seen it used, with no ill effects, with pleasant results, and without loss or deterioration of faculty, what we

1807
say lacks conviction. If, on the other hand, one could concentrate on educating people about what happens when it is used in excess, one could carry more conviction because the propaganda and education would be true.
Finally, we could tax. At present, "pot" offers much the cheapest way of getting "tight". The young who have not much money can get from "pot" the results which would be much more expensive to get from alcohol. This is something else which may be worth considering.
I am extremely glad that the Home Secretary introduced the matter in the way he did, saying that he would look at all aspects of these questions. I urge him to look carefully, among other matters, into the question of cannabis and see whether, in the light of all the experience, and at the point we have reached—a point probably beyond return as regards elimination—we should be more sensible to try control rather than prohibition.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Percy Grieve: The debate has been distinguished by some excellent, helpful and cogent maiden speeches. Those who have followed the maiden speakers have paid their individual tributes to them, but I feel that I should fail in my duty if I did not say how impressed I have been, as all hon. Members have been, by the maiden speeches we have heard today. If I may say so, without wishing to single anyone out, I found particularly helpful the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) who showed with many facts the difficulties which face the general practitioner in medicine in dealing with the problem of drug addiction. This is not the first time that I have heard of these things from the mouth of a doctor. Anyone who consults his own medical practitioner in London, for instance, will learn that many doctors have been subjected to threats and have had their lives made difficult in many ways by people so inflamed by their addiction to drugs that they are willing to go to almost any lengths to satisfy their craving.
That, I submit, is one answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he sought to make a case for legalising marijuana—"pot", cannabis, or
1808
whatever one calls it—one sort of drug under many headings. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, who makes his points with skill and persuasion, but I cannot accept the case which he sought to make for cannabis. From the point of view of its ill effects, it is still a comparatively new drug in this country, certainly on the scale at which it is being smoked now, and one need not throw oneself very far back in history to remember that the sect of the assassins buoyed themselves up by smoking hashish in order to carry out their crimes. I submit that there is no doubt that this is a powerful hallucinatory agent. We should require to be very strongly persuaded by medical evidence that cannabis was fit to be smoked before coming to any such concusion on legalisation.
For my part, I cannot accept a number of the statements made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, however persuasively, and I do not agree that the extent of cannabis taking in our community is not a grave social evil which we must do our best by every legal means to prevent.
That does not mean that we must stock at legal means. Of course not. The law is the last resort. We must, as many hon. Members have said, look to education. We must look to research. I am sure that the Home Office will do its utmost to reseach into the causes of the spread of drug taking, which I believe, is one of the most pernicious and dangerous happenings in our society today. For this reason, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having reintroduce this Bill so soon. It is very important that the additional legal safeguards in the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible.
I did not have the opportunity of addressing the House on the Second Reading of the original Bill. I am particularly happy to have that opportunity this evening because only this week I have had exemplified in a trial at which I was presiding the fact that a distinction should and can be drawn, and I suggest will with great advantage be drawn, between those who are merely takers of the drug cannabis, who are in possession of it to smoke it themselves, and those who are purveying it, pushing it, trading in it to enrich themselves. It is often

1809
said in the criminal law that without receivers there would be no theives. If there were no fences for the thieves to take their stolen loot to, they would have great difficuty in disposing of it. In a way, the same consideration applies here. I concede at once that there is a class of person who proselytises because he thinks it is a good thing to do, or he has friends who want the drug and he misguidely thinks that he is helping them. But if there were no evil people to supply the drug, very often to enrich themselves, we should not have the same problem. There are people in our community enriching themselves by this pernicious trade.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether someone is just in possession of the drug or is supplying it, selling or pushing it. In such a case in a court of law he will always get the benefit of the doubt, either in the jury's verdict or, if he has pleaded guilty to possessing it, in the decision of the judge as to sentence. But there will be cases where it is conclusively proved that a man is a supplier, living on this traffic just as people have lived and no doubt still live, for instance, on illegal abortions, though much less since the Abortion Act. It is at that traffic that the law and its penalties should primarily be aimed. Therefore, I con-congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary upon having drawn this distinction by way of penalty between two classes of act—on the one hand supplying drugs in the Schedules to the Act and on the other merely being in possession of them.
It is true that a case would have to be very serious to merit a penalty of 14 years imprisonment, but we do not have to look at the ultimate sentence to appreciate the value of such a distinction. Its value lies in the fact that Parliament has drawn a distinction between the gravity of pushing the drug and the relatively lesser gravity of possessing it for personal consumption.
I recognise, as I am sure all my hon. Friends will, that many of those in possession of it for their own consumption would evoke sympathy in all of us. Many of them stand in need of great help, and when they appear before the courts are much less often sentenced than they are helped by being put on
1810
probation or recommended for treatment, or dealt with in some other way. But in order that this pernicious evil shall be met, and society shall fight it, it is absolutely essential that those who are proved to have been suppliers, to be enriching themselves by this trade, should meet with the rigours of the law, much less to punish them than as an example to others.
I cannot accept what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, that this evil has come to stay and cannot be rooted out. If we can get at the suppliers and the sources of supply, and deal with them with the severity which their offences demand, we shall have gone a long way to rooting out this new evil in our midst. It is an evil about which any parent with children growing up in a world in which drug taking is flourishing must feel very deeply and very personally.
I said that this week I had seen such a case. I shall not mention its name, because it might be subject to appeal and I would not wish to bring out all the facts in the House. But I presided at Northampton, where I am Recorder, at a trial where a man pleaded guilty to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not pursue this.
Mr. Grieve: I will not, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that there was brought to my notice a case in which once a man who was a source of supply had been removed from the scene in the town where he was operating the number of cases of persons in possession of cannabis fell dramatically. This illustrated the evil that the supplier can do, and that when he is removed there will often be a substantial improvement in the local situation with regard to drug-taking.
I found myself in some agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers), to whose maiden speech I listened with great pleasure, when he suggested that Clause 25 might well be subject to amendment, and that the ordinary provisions should apply with regard to the prosecution of offences under the Bill.
Subject to that, and having wished to speak only briefly to make my point about the distinction between pushing the drug and taking it, I congratulate my

1811
right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill once more before the House.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The subject which we have been discussing is rather unusual in that it draws both support and opposition and criticism right across normal party political lines in the House. I find myself in rather more support of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve)—though not entirely—and of his general attitude and approach than of the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), though they will probably be supported by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The debate thus crosses over party lines.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My views are certainly not represented by those of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He is most eloquent, persuasive, high-principled and everything else, but his views are certainly not mine, and I trust that if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to speak for myself in due course.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is better to do that than to intervene in another hon. Member's speech.
Mr. Ogden: I should be the last to try to speak for the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I was saying that to judge from his previous contribution he would be rather more in sympathy with some of the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend than with the comments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull.
My contribution to the debate will be short, as I want to speak about the Bill and not the wider aspects of the drug scene in the United Kingdom, the United States or anywhere else. I have not the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull or the esoteric knowledge about what is hallucinatory and what is not. As a politician, I should be the last to suggest what causes hallucinations and what does not.
We have had a series of notable maiden speeches from both sides of the House.
1812
The membership of the House has been enriched by those who have been able to bring to this debate knowledge and experience which will be useful in the days and years ahead. I do not know whether those who have made their maiden speeches today know the tradition that anyone taking part in a Second Reading debate is automatically offering himself for service on the Committee which considers the Bill. I hope that that is explained to new hon. Members somewhere along the line. However, they will be useful members of the Committee if they are appointed to it.
The debate has fallen into two parts, one about the Bill—and it is not many months ago that we debated an almost identical Bill—and the other about the general use or misuse of drugs. It must be repeated that this is a limited Bill which does not set out to solve all the problems of the misuse of drugs, but although it is limited, it is very useful. It is almost identical to the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary. I spent about one-and-a-half hours wading through the old Bill and comparing it with the new before I found any alterations. It was not exactly a wasted exercise.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think me uncharitable if I say that the Government have been fortunate in having inherited from my right hon. Friends many useful Measures which they are able to bring before the House while spending some weeks, months and possibly years making up their minds about what kind of legislation to introduce in this Session and the next. No doubt when eventually introduced in the autumn that legislation will not have the same degree of all-party support.
I ought to declare my interest. I did so on the last occasion we debated the subject in the last Session, but some hon. Members may not know that I have the honour to be the parliamentary adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It is a two-way exchange. I am not a pharmacist. The society advises me about pharmacy and I advise it about proceedings in Parliament. I learn from the society a great deal and it learns from me in some ways.

1813
I must make it clear that the support which the pharmaceutical profession gave to my right hon. Friend's Bill will be repeated for this Bill. Its interest and support will be available to the new Home Secretary. Many enactments and regulations which will be made under the Bill will have a direct effect on pharmacists as well as on the medical profession and they are equally concerned to implement them. My further remarks are entirely mine and should not be attributed to the Pharmaceutical Society, or any member of it.
There are many matters which ought to be discussed in Committee. I have two comments to make and two questions to ask. The Home Secretary referred to the consultations which he will probably have with the General Medical Council in the coming months. We ought to have some idea about the kind of points which the right hon. Gentleman will be putting to the council. I hope that he will be able to tell us later more about the kind of things which the Government will seek from the G.M.C. It may be unfortunate that such consultation was not possible 12 months or 18 months ago, because the Bill is largely the result of the failure and shortcomings of some members of the General Medical Council and the medical profession.
As the last Bill proceeded through Committee, party divisions were almost non-existent and the Government of the day made a number of concessions on matters which were raised by back benchers. There were five or six meetings of the Committee, and the Government of the day accepted some Amendments, or at least said that they did not like the form of words and would introduce another form of words to cover what was proposed, having accepted a point of view supported by both sides of the Committee.
What are the new Government's intentions about such Amendments made at that time? The then Government's undertakings did not bind Parliament, of course, but there was a general understanding that some changes would be made. I had expected the new Bill to include those changes, but it does not do so. The Under-Secretary will know that his colleagues suggested many Amendments on behalf of the Opposition at that time. May we take those
1814
Amendments to be an indication of the Government Amendments which will be introduced later?
I now come to my comments. From time to time during this debate and even more during the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill and during its Committee stage, the American drug scene has been mentioned. I should be the first to say that we have much to learn from American experience, but American experience has differed within the boundaries of that country. The situation in Boston has been very different from that in California and that in California very different from that in Memphis, Tennessee. We have something to learn from American mistakes and experience—and the experiments have been mentioned—but there is a danger of believing that because something has been proved effective or ineffective in the United States, it will be good or bad in this country. Let us not carry the similarity too far, because the differences between our drug scene and the American are greater than the similarities.
The term "drug" is very emotive. If I wished to be difficult or awkward to the Under-Secretary, I should ask him to inquire of his advisers the definition of "drug". They might be able to tell him what a pharmaceutical product was, or to give him a list of scheduled drugs—I will spare the House that, although it may arise later. However, the word "drug" attracts six-inch headlines in the newspapers and there has already been a reference to "Swinging London" and so on.
There is a danger with the use of these newsworthy phrases which make a story or a scandal that we overlook that while many are affected or afflicted, while the misuse of drugs can cause damage, danger and death, the proper use of drugs is an effective and necessary part of the welfare and well-being of people and of life itself. The people with whom this limited Bill is concerned are a small proportion of the total number of young people and old people. While we may get the headlines by talking about drugs, let us try to keep a balance and to remember that the vast majority of people have not, are not and are never likely to use drugs. While we concern ourselves with these vital issues with which the Bill is concerned, let us keep a balance.

1815
We are dealing with a limited Bill, although it will be very useful. In many ways, the powers in it are quite Draconian. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred to some and the Daily Telegraph dealt with the issue this morning. Quite extensive powers are being given to the Home Secretary. We shall have to consider them in Committee. However, the Bill deserves support. I hope that those who serve on the Committee which considers it will be able to get on with the work as soon as we return from the Summer Recess and I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The only comment which I wish to make at this stage on the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is that "drug" may be an emotive word, but, thank heavens, when we mean "drug", we do not have to talk about a "pharmaceutical product".
Mr. Ogden: I hesitate to try to teach the hon. Member how to suck eggs, but I did not use the words "pharmaceutical product"; I said, "medicinal product".
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know that that makes much difference to my point. This is a case where a shorter word, as always, is to be preferred to a longer one.
I wish to join in the congratulations which have been given on behalf of the House to the numerous maiden speakers we have heard today. The great flood of eloquence makes one rather nervous. If this is what they do in the green wood, what will they do in the dry? I congratulate the maiden speakers whom I heard—the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers), the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) and Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I should particularly like to associate myself with the tribute paid by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon to his predecessor, Sir Cyril Black, whose courage and
1816
integrity in this House was an encouragement to many people while he sat here.
I wish that I could congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is no longer present. I cannot do that because he behaved in what, I thought, was an unscrupulous manner. He was extremely offensive personally to me without having received any provocation of any kind. He referred to me as a television pundit. I cannot help it if the right hon. Gentleman is not invited to appear on television as many times as I am. He must address his complaints to the B.B.C. or to the Independent Television Authority but not come here and take out his spleen on me.
If I may say something in absentia to the right hon. Gentleman, the rights and position of the smallest he in this House are as important as the rights of the greatest he. We come here to take part in debate, not to be insulted.
I have had occasion to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in the past. He said that he would not put up with me in the future. That, however, rests not with him, but with Mr. Speaker, who decides who puts up with whom in this House and when. I have had occasion to criticise the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of drugs because of his unchivalrous and unfair behaviour towards the most distinguished lady, Lady Wootton, when she produced her Report. On this occasion, I had to put the right hon. Gentleman right on a different matter.
The sequence of events was this. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. When I rose to put right the misrepresentation, he then proceeded to misrepresent me by suggesting, quite gratuitously, that my views were different from those of my right hon. Friend. They are not. We are in complete agreement. What my right hon. Friend said, quoting another right hon. Friend of mine, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), was the need to make the case for the Bill credible to young people—a most important and constructive point. The Home Secretary was misrepresented by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East as having said that the majority of young people were in favour

1817
of legalising cannabis. That is a quite different point.
It is unjust to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it misrepresents his view and it is the kind of smear that is calculated to inhibit honest discussion of this problem in the House, because if One points to the realities of the situation and says that there are these difficulties, that some young people have a view and it is not always identical with that of the older generation, and one is then to be presented as being in some way in favour of legalising cannabis and being in favour of permissiveness, that destroys the whole basis of honest discussion of this extremely difficult problem. The former Home Secretary did a disservice to the House on this occasion. He fell below his own better standards and he certainly did not contribute to the rationality of our discussions. I am sorry that he is not present to hear my rebuke, but I would like him to know that I forgive him.
The Bill gives me a certain sense of déja vu since the last occasion when we debated this matter—I am sorry to sound like the Leader of the Opposition: I recall that it was on 25th March this year—the hon. Member for West Derby and I have become a kind of mirror image of each other, because he was on this side of the House and I was on the benches opposite; I spoke before him and he spoke after me. On this occasion, we have reversed the whole thing. I congratulate the hon. Member. I read part of his earlier speech while he was making his current speech. It was substantially different—not in principle, but in presentation—from his previous speech. I congratulate the hon. Member on his versatility.
The only difference has been that the sponsoring party has changed. That does not matter because, as the hon. Member for West Derby said, there is no great division in the House on party lines. When the Government were in opposition, we suggested improvements. I hope that they will not be abandoned merely because the Opposition have now become the Government. I was extremely encouraged by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in this respect that he will take fully into account the previous debates and the points made in Committee on the previous Bill with
1818
a view to tabling Amendments to improve the Bill further. That is the right course to take. I congratulate him on his extremely sensitive and perceptive speech on this most difficult problem.
I welcome the Bill. On this fearful and emotional subject, one wants to be as rational as possible. It is not a question of choice between morality and immorality. It is not a choice between being permissive and restrictive. It is a choice which we have to make between having a sensible law or a silly law. The Bill represents a step towards a more rational position in the law and I therefore welcome it. The welcome must, however, be qualified because it is my considered view that this is only one chapter of the novel. It is not the end of the story.
The principles on which a good law on this subject should be based are threefold. First, drugs must be controlled; everyone is in agreement about that. They should be more or less strictly controlled according to their degree of danger; the reclassification in the Bill does that. Thirdly, a distinction should be drawn between different types of offences, and the Bill does that. Pushing is certainly one thing and possession is another. Clearly, pushing a drug should be punished much more severely than merely having possession of it.
I know that great difficulties will arise—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows this—in making those distinctions work in practice, and one has to look at this from the practical as well as the theoretical point of view. Nevertheless, the distinction which the law is embodying is sound and we must ensure that the matter is thoroughly probed in Committee.
I turn to the question of cannabis which was made the principal theme of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) with which the hon. Member for West Derby unwisely suggested I would be in agreement, or at least more in agreement than with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I did not find myself particularly in sympathy with the approach of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but he voiced a point of view

1819
which is much more widespread than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East allowed. It is much more widespread among young people than he allowed. The right hon. Gentleman, as is the habit of the elderly, pontificated about the habits of the young. That has been a fault of the elderly throughout the ages.
I have been in touch on this matter with members of the Young Conservative movement over a long period. Nobody would suggest that they are a set of revolutionaries wanting to undermine our moral fibre by drug peddling. It is interesting that there is a wide variety of views among Young Conservatives about how we should deal with this problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, who perhaps has more expert knowledge on this subject than any other Member, alluded to that spectrum of opinion when he said that it was necessary to make our arguments and laws credible.
Cannabis is at the forefront of discussion, but it is not necessarily the most important issue. Abuse of LSD is, in my opinion, a much more important matter than cannabis. I am sure the Home Secretary and others in the Home Office will look very carefully at this part of the problem. LSD has very useful psychiatric purposes. It can be used as an instrument of analysis, and it is a much cheaper means of analysis than a full Freudian analysis. But it is essential that it should be used under medical control and not for getting "kicks" or personal sensations. It is a much more dangerous drug than cannabis and we should be much more concerned about its spread.
With regard to legal sanctions on cannabis, the very distinguished Wootton Report, which should be read by everyone concerned about this subject, ended in an agnostic position. Curiously, I find myself in the same position for once. I agree with the Wootton Report that the law against cannabis should be maintained; but I also agree with the gloss which it puts on it, namely, for the time being.
The reason why we must retain the law against cannabis is twofold. First, we do not know what would be the effect of
1820
removing it, although we know that it would be very difficult to put it back again. Secondly, in the present state of knowledge on the vital question whether the taking of cannabis leads to the taking of hard drugs, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Parliament to remove the sanctions. Unless we can give a clear negative answer to that question, cannabis must remain on the list of banned and controlled drugs.
That brings me to a major point—the need for research. I hope that the Government will be generous in the provision of funds for this purpose and, not only that research will be undertaken by the Home Office, but that the Home Office will be generous in encouraging independent medical research organisations to carry out their work and will co-ordinate whatever research they may be doing with those other organisations.
I am also concerned about the liberties of the subject and of the medical profession; they are very much interconnected. There are two questions which hon. Members must examine very closely. First, there is the executive power which is to be taken to strike off the register or penalise doctors who over-prescribe or who have committed an offence. It is appalling to introduce that principle into the Bill. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is reopening discussions with the medical profession on this point.
It is a good Conservative principle and a principle of common sense—very often the two coincide—that the Government should do nothing for a profession which a profession can do for itself. One of the great safeguards of liberty in this country is self-governing, self-ordered professions. One should regard any inroad into that principle with high suspicion. I am not happy about the executive arrogating this power to itself, and I hope that there will be a sharing of disciplinary powers in the Bill in its final form.
I am concerned about the searching of premises and the powers of arrest. The distinguished Sub-Committee which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford headed was unable to agree on the question of powers of arrest, but it was able to agree on one very important

1821
paint which is incorporated in the Bill, namely, that the power of arrest without a warrant must be subject to the objective test of reasonableness. It is an important safeguard of individual liberty that there should be the test of the reasonable man to keep the activities of the police, as the arm of the Executive, in check. What is meant by "reasonableness" must be probed and discussed in Committee so that guidance can be given.
I come to my final point on which the Home Secretary, in welcome contrast to his predecessor, laid great emphasis—the need for education. The law has only a limited rôle to play in drugs. It may be a very important role, but it is limited. We need an intensive programme of education in the schools on the facts and dangers of drug taking. This has been recommended by the Magistrates' Association.
What is important is that instruction should be part of the ordinary school curriculum, given by resident teachers and not by specialist outsiders, coming on visits to the schools. It should be accepted as part of the ordinary instruction in schools. In that way we avoid the danger of sensationalising the issue and at the same time we impart the necessary information. This is a case where ignorance is very far from bliss. Magistrates also need courses in the whole question of drug taking and its effect if they are to discharge their duties imaginatively and helpfully. It is only if the law is supported by a moral con-census in the community, particularly among the younger section of the community, that it can become effective.
I hope that the Home Secretary who has an enlightened and reasonable approach to this and other problems will seek to co-ordinate any ideas or programmes the Home Office may have in mind with the Ministry of Education so that a combined approach can be made to this problem.
In his closing remarks the Home Secretary raised a profound philosophical question: how far should society interfere with the life of the individual and with freedom of choice? I would like to move that question down to a rather lower level of pragmatism and say how far can society interfere with individual lives and freedom of choice? I would
1822
say that it is only in so far as the law which is the agency of society's interference is supported by and accepted by public opinion. The law is an agency charged with a purpose which is beyond its power to accomplish. When considering legal matters we should always have that wider setting in mind.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of a distinguished philosopher and historian, not Walter Bagehot but Cardinal Newman, who in one of his essays made a profound observation about jurisprudence when he said "it is essential that public opinion should give the law to law." I am confident that the Home Secretary in discharging his most difficult tasks will see that the dictum of Cardinal Newman is realised in practice.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: While I support many of the views put forward by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), I find it somewhat amusing that it should have taken him nearly four hours of waiting to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for having administered the mildest of rebukes to him.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am hardly responsible for that. I have sat here for tour hours, but the right hon. Gentleman would not give way when I attempted to interrupt him. If the hon. Member wishes to censure anyone for waiting a long time, he should direct his censure towards the Chair.
Mr. Davis: I certainly will not at this stage of my parliamentary life seek to censure the Chair. I could see the hon. Member frothing over for four hours, but it was the mildest of rebukes. He was referred to as a television pundit, and I have always regarded him as the most distinguished of all television pundits. No doubt my right hon. Friend will rest easily in his bed tonight because he has been forgiven.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) referred to the Bill as a limited Bill. It is indeed that, and I have a fear that it might be taken to be the last word. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not so regard it because the limitations are very serious. Unquestionably

1823
the problem of drug taking is a menacing one with tremendous difficulties. It is also right that hitherto the law has been confused and fragmented, full of difficulties and it is right that it should be consolidated. What this Bill fails to do is to make proper provision for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation which is all-essential in our consideration of drug addiction.
The whole emphasis here is really on penal sanctions. I am not sure that the penalties for taking cannabis are not already sufficiently adequate. What I am concerned about is the emphasis which the Bill gives to penal sanctions. I want to deal with the Bill and make some observations which I hope will be noted later. These remarks deal with matters which cause me grave concern, particularly over the matter of civil liberties and here I join with the observations of the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
Clause 8 of the Bill reads:
"A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers …"
certain activities to take place. This is in contrast to the provisions in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 9 where there is no such requirement, where the word "knowing" is not imported into any of those Clauses. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this later. If it is right to include the word "knowing" in Clause 8 it is equally right to include it in the other Clauses.
Clause 9 deals with the question of opium and the apparatus to be used in administering opium, but it has nothing to say, nor is there anything in the rest of the Bill as I understand it, to deal with devices such as syringes so frequently used in the administration of drugs which are more commonly used than opium.
Clause 10 deals with the prevention of the misuse of controlled drugs. I would have thought it appropriate within the terms of that Clause to have made some provision for programmes of education and research into the causes, treatment and prevention of drug addiction. There is nothing in the Clause about it. There is nothing in the Clause about facilities for treatment of drug
1824
addiction or rehabilitation or after-care of drug addicts. These are serious omissions which I hope will be remedied.
The main burden of my speech deals with civil liberties. I am a great believer in these, as is the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I believe that in our democratic society we must zealously guard our civil liberties, and I am rather worried that this Bill in its present form falls far short of doing that. Those who are aimed at in the Bill are those who are aften not really able to look after themselves when subject to arrest. Often they are depressed and confused, not really able to understand the Judges' Rules, sometimes unable to understand questions put by police officers. I am exceedingly worried that the power of search and arrest contained in Clause 23 goes far too wide. If we seek to preserve our civil liberties in this regard we shall also be assisting the police in their duties, not creating barriers for them, as the Home Office report seems to suggest. It would prevent irresponsible criticism from being charged against the police.
One of the points made about search and arrest when this was being debated was that there was an essential balance which needed to be struck in all law enforcement between police powers and individual rights, which must be preserved, and yet the majority, in the Home Office Report on "Powers of Arrest and Search in Relation to Drug Offences" upheld the powers of search and, on balance, thought that these powers should be retained, but made no attempt to define "reasonable grounds", the words which appear in Clause 23.
There was a minority view, which I personally adopt, and which embodied the criticisms of the Law Society, the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Release, and the majority view was savagely attacked in the New Law Journal of Thursday, 14th May of this year. It was proposed to the subcommittee that the power of arrest should be substituted for the stop-search power; in other words that police procedures in this sort of case, in suspected drug cases, should conform with police procedures in dealing with suspected offenders generally. These criticisms were not, I think, ever answered by the majority in the report.

1825
What they did say was that there was a danger for the police of actions for wrongful arrest, which would frequently occur because the police are particularly vulnerable when searching a suspected drug offender. This seems to me to be a quite extraordinary argument, because it suggests that innocent people should be put in jeopardy but not the police.
I would support the minority view in this regard, a minority view which went into this question in very great detail. It suggested that "reasonable grounds" could be defined by exclusion:
"The following circumstances shall not be sufficient in themselves whether alone or in conjunction with each other to establish reasonable grounds of suspicion: first that the person searched appears to be the kind of person frequently found in possession of drugs; second, that he was in places locally commonly associated with possession of drugs; third, he was in a locality where drugs are possessed; fourth, he was found in a public place by night or in the early morning."
It was argued that it was not impossible to define "reasonable grounds" and I would have thought that this would have met the criticisms suggested by the Law Society. I have a bit of an axe to grind as far as that is concerned, but I would have thought criticisms based on the practical experience of people who are advocates in Magistrates' courts, and who deal with this sort of problem day in and day out were worth considering.
The police argued that it would be time consuming, inconvenient and sometimes impracticable if another of the suggestions of the minority were adopted, and that was that there should be a third party present when someone is searched. This is an essential safeguard. When a young person under 17 is being questioned by the police it is essential that his parent or guardian should be present during the questioning, and it would be equally right, I suppose, if the police were found to argue that it would be time consuming, inconvenient and sometimes impracticable in those circumstances, but the fact remains that the law has imposed an obligation on the police, and I would have thought that the law equally owes a duty to those unfortunate people who may be suspected of being in possession of drugs and who may need this protection additionally.
I am very sensitive about the need for ensuring that civil liberties are observed, and I hope that when the Bill is debated
1826
in Committee the points I have made, perhaps inadequately, will be given some heed, because it is essential, when we are dealing with a matter as emotive as this, and where a great deal of hysteria can be so easily engendered, that we always have regard to the civil liberties of the minority of people who may be very adversely prejudiced if these rights are not established.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said he hoped the points which he raised so forcefully and fluently would be taken up in Committee. If the Whips of his party have any sense at all he will be there in person in Committee to argue them himself, and I am sure he will argue them very forcefully indeed.
It is, of course, true, as he said, that this Bill will in some ways accentuate the clash between the forces of law and order and a substantial section of the population. We have heard many estimates this afternoon, and one can exaggerate the size of this problem, but we do not know how large is the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who knows more about this subject and brings more common sense to it than perhaps any other Member of the House, has reminded us that the Wootton Report estimated that there may be anything between 30,000 and 300,000 users of cannabis in this country at this moment, and he said that he would not be wholly surprised if the right number were a million. The fact of the matter is we do not know how large a section of the community are now in conflict with the law.
At the same time, one must clearly be torn in two directions in any discussion of this subject. The Bill itself is torn in two directions. On the one hand, one wants to see that all possible provision is made for bringing back into the community as a whole those who are misusing drugs; one does not want to condemn them out of hand. On the other hand, one wants to see that deterrents are there to deter the vast majority who do not use drugs from experimenting needlessly.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central referred to Clause 9, perhaps the oddest

1827
Clause in the Bill, which seeks to outlaw the possession of opium pipes. I suspect that a permanent under-secretary when considering the problem of drugs in 1869 looked at a Clause produced by the clerks in the Home Office and said, "For heaven's sake bring this forward in 100 years' time." Such is the efficiency of the filing system in the Home Office that it was brought forward 100 years later, and we have this odd reference to a form of drug taking which, happily, is a problem no longer.
When the previous Bill was in Committee we did exactly what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central suggested and put down an Amendment which proposed that the possession of hypodermic syringes should be brought within the meaning of Clause 9. The then Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health quite properly pointed out that if the number of syringes and hypodermics in circulation were restricted those who were on the needle already would be more likely to use needles which were contaminated, with the risk of spreading the illness and poisoning which come from the needle. There is a direct clash of interest between the welfare of those who are already addicted and a possible deterrent to those who might be tempted later to move on to this most dreadful of all addictions, the addiction to the needle. I hope that the Bill will move more in the direction of deterrence.
The Bill proposes substantial deterrents for pushers, those who sell drugs to others. I am sure that the whole House is united in its detestation of the Mafia type of pusher who blossoms in detective stories and films, but the sad fact is that the person who pushes harmful drugs to children of 14, the person we want to condemn out of hand, is usually a child of 15, and that the retail side of the distribution of drugs is largely in the hands of those whom we would regard as more sinned against than sinning. I would wish to see the penalties for those who are manufacturing or importing large quantities of drugs substantially increased, but the child pusher cannot be dealt with in this way.
I was taken by the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that while we come down heavily on the individual who sells a small
1828
amount of drugs to a friend or neighbour, we have no special penalty for those in the van of spreading propaganda in favour of the drug culture. I have in the past been in favour of exemplary sentences and fines for film stars and pop stars who are apprehended. The fact that it is known that a famous pop star or film star is on drugs has a bad effect on impressionable adolescents, and there is a case for imposing substantial penalties on this small group. My feeling that those in public life should be given exemplary sentences if they break the drugs law is slightly blunted when I look through Schedule 2, Part II, Class B, and find that, quite unwittingly, on my dentist's instructions, while engaged on the business of the House of Commons, I exported a scheduled drug for my own use to ease a toothache and then imported it back into this country, without realising that I was infringing the law. As more and more complicated drugs come into use, the number of people who unwittingly infringe the law will grow.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in hoping that substantially more money will be spent on research in the near future. We know that the amount of money which has been spent on research in the past, amounting to some £5,000 or £10,000 a year by no means presents the full picture, but we are faced with a potentially disastrous situation.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that there were many reasons why we should not follow the American drug scene completely in that our situation is not likely to get as bad as the situation in the United States at the moment. However, we can still miss the disastrous American experience by a very wide margin and have room for calamity in this country. It is a fact that the principal cause of death amongst adolescents in New York City at present is addiction to heroin. The situation here could get very much worse and still be a long way from that appalling situation.
There is, of course, room for much more knowledge and research on this subject. In my constituency we have in the Royal Bethlem Hospital one of the best drug centres in the country, where excellent treatment is administered and

1829
first-class research is carried out. But some of the value of that research is lost because when patients leave the hospital there is little idea whether they immediately go back on to drugs. The reason is that there are not enough trained social workers to keep in touch with them and to follow up their histories. Patients who go into the clinic often are disordered personalities even before they take drugs. A deficient personality is not necessarily cured during drug treatment. Once patients go out of the influence of the clinic it is difficult to keep in touch with them. Therefore, it is not known whether the treatment has had any lasting value. There is obviously room for much more of a follow-up in research. There is certainly room for more research on the clinical side and in educational matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford pleaded for integrated education on drugs in the normal school curriculum. This might be a recipe for total disaster because if the education is badly carried out it may advertise a form of behaviour which nobody wants to see carried on. I made some rather critical comments about education in drug use during the Committee stage of the previous Bill. One letter which I received came from a widow of a former chief of the fire service in one of the great cities of this country. She told me that her late husband had been plagued by an outbreak of false alarms caused by children. The fire service and the education authorities arranged for a number of lectures to schools to put over how wicked and dangerous it was to set off false fire alarms. I need hardly say that the number of false alarms shot up to quite incredible proportions but dropped immediately the lectures stopped. We need far more research into the whole subject of deterrent education.
I welcome the Bill as it stands. It would have been better if we had waited until after the summer, particularly since conversations are to take place with the General Medical Council on the responsibilities of the medical profession. I should have liked to see the Home Office thinking about the matter during the summer before presenting the House with a Bill, but on balance I believe that the Bill will considerably improve the situation. We have much to learn, but our
1830
discussions on the Bill should teach us a great deal.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Cox: Having listened to all the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is obvious to me that this is a debate on a subject in which we find a great deal of agreement. Hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern about the number of young people involved in the taking of drugs.
The reason why I wish to take a brief part in the debate is that I have served as chairman of a children's committee with special responsibilities for the administration of a boys' remand home and now serve on the board of a senior boys' detention centre, and I have long been appalled at the number of youngsters taken into custody as a result either of drug offences or of other offences while under the influence of drugs. Anything that can be done to lessen the problem is to be welcomed.
No one who has taken part in this debate can have any idea of the number of people taking drugs. There have been many different reports on the subject. I have read that, while there are some 3,000 registered addicts in the country, the number on hard drugs may be in the region of 35,000 and there are some 200,000 people on other forms of drugs. That is some indication of the problem that we face.
As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, it is to be hoped that we shall at least start on the research which is so badly needed. Many people are quite unaware of the dangers resulting from taking drugs. I have often sat in juvenile courts and realised that youngsters appearing before the court and their parents are completely unaware of the dangers that they face. Obviously, we must concentrate on the education and research aspects of the Bill.
Often there is a great reluctance on the part of parents to acknowledge that their children may be involved in some form of drug taking, and it is not until it is too late that they become conscious that something is wrong and try to put it right. It is often the case, too, that in areas where there are drug problems there is a reluctance on the part of

1831
authority to admit it and to try to solve it.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill dealing with research. There is a reference to the sum of £10,000, and it is said that it is not expected to be more than £10,000 in the first year or two. I hope that the Government will not be rigid about the figure.
When it comes to education, we have to try to involve all the respective organisations in which young people are concerned, and my comments are directed principally at young people. Education authorities can play a valuable rôle, as can the youth organisations. I hope that it will be possible to get them together with a view to discussing the problem with them and seeking to point out the dangers that can arise from the consequences of drug taking. I should like to think, too, that the same could be done in our schools.
Clauses 12 and 13 relate to the over-prescription of drugs. However, it should be pointed out that only a very small percentage of the medical profession is involved. We should take whatever measures are necessary to try to put a stop to it. I should like to see this dealt with by the medical profession rather than by the reliance on prosecution.
Clause 25 relates to the new punishments. There has been an increase in the maximum penalty from 10 years to 14 years. I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with those who feel that anyone caught trafficking in drugs should be severely punished. But I wonder whether the increased sentence will be a deterrent to many. Only time will tell. I should like to see more drug traffickers caught.
This brings me to the attitude of the police towards the proposals in the Bill. The Metropolitan area is, unfortunately, short of police. I believe that this problem calls for police officers specially trained in drug investigation. I hope that we shall have the closest contact and co-operation with the police.
I have mentioned the increased penalties in the Bill. I have often been appalled at what I should term the relatively lenient sentences imposed by the courts. Without wishing to criticise magistrates as such, I think that it is
1832
farcical, when heavy penalties are laid down in statutes for serious offences like trafficking in drugs, to impose quite lenient sentences. Such sentences do not deter people. Therefore, I hope that the courts will take note of what has been said today. I hope that they will also take note of the increased penalties set out in the Bill.
It has rightly been pointed out that there must be a clear distinction between those who traffick in drugs and those who take or are in possession of them. This point is relevant. We should extend some degree of sympathy to many of those who unfortunately take drugs. I feel a certain degree of sympathy for such people. Earlier this week I visited Wandsworth Prison. It was pointed out to me that often people convicted of taking drugs are sent there who are not only a problem to themselves but also to the prison. I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that more enlightenment should be given to magistrates before they sentence people charged with having taken drugs.
I welcome the Bill because it will enable us to tackle some of the abuses that hon. Members on both sides are fully aware have been taking place. I should like to stress that we are dealing with people—often very young people—who need help, not punishment. Therefore, I hope that we shall concentrate on research into the problem of drug taking. As I said, there can often be a degree of sympathy for young people who take drugs, and we all know the tragic consequences that drug taking can lead to from what we read in the national Press. This is why I fully support the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: This debate has been graced by the delivery of five maiden speeches, and I regard myself privileged indeed to have heard them. They were delivered with great fervour, and each showed ability and sparkle, and I am sure that the House looks forward to further contributions from each and every one of those Members.
I am glad that the Government have been so gracious as to adopt the Bill in toto. It means that the Front Bench on this side has no need, and indeed

1833
would in any event find it impossible, to make any substantial objections to the content of the Bill. If there is any truth whatsoever in the allegation that the Government came to power rather unexpectedly by a freak of fortune and found themselves without a fully thought-out programme, clearly a Bill such as this was a godsend. It was tailor-made to till such a gap.
In any event, the Government have paid the previous Administration the highest compliment they possibly could pay. It was the Romans who, when they overran a tribe, from time to time adopted the gods of those people. I do not think that the triumph of the Conservative Party will be so complete, but it is, nevertheless, a high tribute, and I give the undertaking on behalf of the Opposition that if the Government change before the Bill receives the Royal Assent it will be introduced again in its original form. Whatever rather brassy claims were made by the law-and-order brigade opposite about sweeping changes which might be necessary in the criminal law, it is obvious that with regard to the law on the misuse of drugs we on this side managed to get this right to the last syllable.
Although the Bill is largely a consolidating Measure, it is inevitable that certain substantial changes should be made. As the Home Secretary rightly said, the current law is fragmentary, inadequate and inflexible. It is fragmentary because much of the legislation consists of ad hoc Measures, and there has not been a dovetailing into a comprehensive pattern. In considering the powers which are available one has to sniff like a truffle hound from the Poisons Act, 1933, to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, to the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1965 and 1967. The law is inadequate because in each of those Acts there are massive lacunae. The Poisons Act covers possession only. The 1965 Dangerous Drugs Act allows total prohibition of the supply of opium, but not other substances, such as heroin. The 1967 Act provides only for the control of over-subscribing and notification of addicts with regard to a limited range of drugs.
As we have heard, the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1965 and 1967 dealt only with drugs which had been listed by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic
1834
Drugs of 1961, and it meant that if international authorities decided to schedule a drug under that Convention, under Section 12 of the 1965 Act Her Majesty's Government were obliged to incorporate that into United Kingdom law. It meant that all the authorities which were entitled to use that drug automatically had their authority extended, quite irrespective of whether there was the slightest necessity for them to use it.
The battle against drugs is a swiftly moving affair, and it therefore demands powers of quick reaction. It is exactly such powers that this Measure provides. The drug scene can change so rapidly as to make it necessary for a Home Secretary—if he is to save the situation from getting out of hand—to be able to act within a matter of weeks rather than months or years.
As others have pointed out, Clause 2, with its tripartite division of drugs, enables such swift changes of classification to be made. But it achieves more. It enables the threat, or potential threat, of any scheduled drug at any given time to be categorised. In its report on L.S.D. the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence said, in paragraph 7:
"… we recognise certain differences between particular drugs which make it desirable that they should not all be dealt with in the same way. In the first place there is a hierarchy of danger, and we think it important, both for the guidance of the courts and for the education of the public, that this should be taken into account in the relevant statutes."
There are no established guidelines for classifying drugs according to their harmfulness, but any measure of a threat which a drug poses to the public involves judgment of its toxic effect, the prevalance or potential of misuse, and the danger to society from anti-social behaviour in relation to that drug.
I bear very much in mind the words of the Home Secretary when he reminded us that we were here dealing with an issue of human freedom—the question of a person's choice in relation to his consumption pattern. I believe that there are three types of challenge to which the new law will have to react. First, there is the pharmacologically potent drug, with a high risk to the user; secondly, there is the less potent drug, the misuse of which, if sufficiently widespread or endemic, may complicate drug

1835
misuse and produce other social problems; and, thirdly, there is what might be called the spree drugs, misuse of which will ebb and flow like an epidemic.
In the case of the first category the law must follow the pharmacology, but with the second and third categories the pharmacology may be subsidiary to the social situation at any given time. When an identical Bill was first published four months ago it was popularly referred to in the Press as a Bill which provided for harsher measures against traffickers, and tonight the Home Secretary gave that aspect pride of place in describing in general terms the contents of the Bill.
Although it is only one of the score of objectives that this legislation seeks to achieve, it is right that public opinion should regard this as a dominant theme, for the area of the pusher is the very area in which criminal sanctions can have their greatest effect. The weak, the inadequate, the dispirited—those who must place themselves outside the mores of society, those who have a lust for selfinjury—their cure does not lie in the threat of criminal punishment. Their therapy is a compassionate reintroduction into society.
But there are those whose acumen makes this traffic possible—as was said very clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve)—those who invest in the misery of their fellow humans. It is right and necessary that they should be exposed to the full harshness of the criminal law.
So many points have been made in the debate which will doubtless be repeated in Committee that it is not proper to refer to them at this stage, but I should make reference to a theme that has been recurring in the debate, as it did in the earlier debate on 26th March and the sixth session of the Committee that we had. That is the feeling of many hon. Members that the Bill revels in negative prohibitions and contains few positive steps to combat the problems of drugs. It is unnecessary to refer specifically to health education in the Bill. There is no need for special sanction for any money to be spent in that respect.
But the case goes further than that, maintaining that there should be reference here to positive measures in formal
1836
education. It is a fundamental question how well equipped our community is for such official action. The problems of using formal education as a weapon against drugs misuse are as complex as using the law to the same end. As the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) reminded us, we are singularly ill-prepared to educate the community about the misuse of drugs.
A major inquiry into the question of public attitudes towards drugs is being conducted at the moment by the Department of Social Services, at the request of the Government. I understand that this survey will soon produce a report; perhaps the Minister of State can give us some information on that. Such a study should be invaluable to us in deciding what is effective drug education and what is not. To rush into this without such a reconnaissance might lead to more dangers than we removed.
Clause 8 has been drafted to save a multitude of lengthy arguments in the courts. It reiterates the principle which appeared in the High Court decision in Sweet v. Parsley in January 1969. That principle, briefly, is that guilty knowledge should always be a necessary ingredient in a drugs offence involving the occupier of premises. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) undertook that there would be a review of the law in relation to absolute offences very soon after the case of Warner v. the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in 1968.
Second, the Clause avoids a pitfall which exists on treatment in Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965. That provision refers to premises being used
"for the purpose of smoking cannabis".
As Lord Reid and others in Sweet v. Parsley pointed out, it involves a stretching of language to say that when a person lights a cannabis cigarette in a room with the knowledge of the occupier, that room is used for the purpose of cannabis smoking.
I welcome the fact that Clause 8 has found a wholesome formula for defining the offence by reference not to the premises but to the person himself,
"… who knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on the premises …"

1837
The clear statement that guilty knowledge is a condition precedent to conviction is a great safeguard against injustice. But it can be a road for the acquittal of the guilty.
I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether it is possible to draw a distinction between the occupiers of public premises where these prohibited activities take place and the occupiers of private premises in the same circumstances. It may well be that, after the police have gone to a café or a restaurant which is known to be frequented by such people, the floor littered, perhaps, with dozens of half-smoked reefers, the prosecution will still be unable to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the occupier had the guilty knowledge which is necessary under Clause 8.
Is there not a case, therefore, for having a different test for public premises? Is it not in the public interest that there should be a test whereby, once it has been shown that the activity has taken place on the premises, there is a presumption that it took place with the knowledge of the occupier? But that would lead to the creation of an absolute offence, which could be damnably unfair in many circumstances. Attached to that presumption, therefore, there could be the defence, a defence provable on a balance of probability, that the owner did not have that guilty knowledge. Then, as regards private premises, one could resort to the ordinary standard of criminal proof such as appears in Clause 8 now.
To my mind, such a distinction between public and private premises, with a different standard of proof, would achieve a balance between a determination to protect the innocent and, on the other hand, a desire to punish the guilty.
Cannabis has once again reared its ugly head, and that, I believe, for the third time in the House within 14 or 15 months. No doubt, a great deal will be said about it at later stages. At this point, I make three observations. First, I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said. It is clear on the latest market researches that nine out of every 10 young people utterly condemn the use of cannabis. I realise full well what the right hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)
1838
are saying in this connection, that there is a fundamental feeling of incredulity and cynicism among young people towards the older generation and towards the law enforcement authorities on this matter. If they accept those market researches as correct, their case cannot stand. If there is a general condemnation of cannabis among young people, as I believe there to be, just as in all other age groups in society, the cynicism is not as widespread as they make out.
Second, it was put to us forcefully, in an eloquent speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that cannabis had by now passed the point of no return, that we had to accept the inevitable. Every expert who testifies on this subject qualifies his observations by saying that the number of people addicted to cannabis, or who take cannabis with any frequency at all, simply cannot be gauged. Lady Wootton put it fairly and said that it might be anywhere between 30,000 and 300,000. Professor Paton, professor of pharmacology at Oxford, in a publication about 18 months ago, said that it might be about 0·005 per cent. of the population. The right hon. Member for Ashford does not know whether it is tens or hundreds of thousands or a million. How then can my hon. and learned Friend say with any certainty that we have passed any point at this stage?
Third, as to the case with regard to the possible liberalisation of the law on cannabis, if we were starting from scratch, if there had never been any prohibition against cannabis, the onus of proof would be upon those who make out that it is harmful, who say that there may be a causal connection between the taking of cannabis and moving on to hard drugs. But that is not the case. The prohibition, the condemnation, has existed for a very long time. A League of Nations resolution of 1925, which was subscribed to by about two dozen countries, clearly condemned cannabis, and our law has condemned it for a considerable time. The question now is whether we should go back. The onus of proof is upon those who wish to change the law, and with the greatest respect to them all, they have never been able, and are not able with the present state of knowledge, to discharge that heavy onus of proof.

1839
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East introduced his Bill on 25th March this year he made it clear that he made no extreme claims on behalf of that Measure. I am glad that no one who has taken part in the excellent debate today has made any such claims. No country has ever succeeded in ridding itself of drug abuse by criminal prohibitions alone. There is more to promoting good health than fighting the bacillus of disease. The Bill is a skeletal structure of restrictions, prohibitions, disciplines and sanctions. Into the dry bones and the cold clay of that structure there must breathe the spirit of compassion and understanding, willingness to learn and eagerness to assist.
By itself, the letter of the criminal law is of very limited power in this connection. Far more does the long-term success or failure of this legislation lie with the social worker, the youth leader, the police officer running a juvenile liaison scheme, the doctor in his surgery, the teacher in his classroom, and above all the conscientious and intelligent parent who is concerned with the conditions in which his children live.
It is my fervent hope that the Bill will be seen by all people, especially young people, not as a magisterial rebuke delivered by an older generation but as a challenge and inspiration to the determination of society to combat one of the most dreadful maladies of modern life.
9.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The debate has throughout been thoughtful and constructive, and that theme was continued by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elysian Morgan). The House will wish to pay tribute to him for the great deal of work he did whilst in office in the preparation of the Bill. We are very glad that he was able to take part in the debate this evening.
The hon. Gentleman asked me one or two specific questions to which perhaps I might refer right at the outset. One was about the report of the Social Survey. I understand that it is now not expected until some time later this year.
The hon. Gentleman also referred specifically to Clause 8. I am sure that
1840
he will not expect me to comment on what he said at this stage, but my right hon. Friend will of course take careful note of his suggestion.
I said in opening that this had been a thoughtful and constructive debate. We were particularly fortunate to have five maiden speeches, every one of which was of outstanding quality. We were also fortunate in having contributions from three members of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, who have done a great deal of work in this field. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I shall refer later to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, but I should like now particularly to endorse his tribute to the work and knowledge of the police in this difficult matter. In many respects, it is a new problem for the police and they are tackling it in a way which is both humane and effective, and I sincerely join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to them.
I was sorry that I was not able to hear the whole of the excellent and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). He brings to the House the experience of a general practitioner who has had to deal with this problem practically, and I am sure that the clearly wide knowledge of medical matters which he brings to the House will be of great value to us in future.
I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), but I had a full report of what he said. As other hon. Members did, he rightly stressed the need for education in this matter. I know that he supported the Bill while having certain reservations about it. I hope that he will be able to take part in our further discussions. With his pleasant manner, he will always be heard with interest by the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) is an eminent lawyer who will bring to the House his legal experience and knowledge, which should be especially useful in our consideration of matters of this kind.

1841
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), whose speech I heard in full, spoke of the importance of community and family relationships in dealing with problems of this kind. He put the problem into perspective. His was a thoughtful speech and I look forward to hearing him again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) spoke, as one would expect, with great knowledge and stressed the difficult rôle of the police. I should like to look carefully into his suggestion for regional drug squads. There are difficulties and complications, but I assure him that it is a matter which we shall study carefully.
The Government clearly carefully considered the whole question of whether to introduce the Bill in the form of the original Bill, or to incorporate some of the Amendments suggested in Committee on the original and to take into account events since that time. The arguments on either side were balanced, but I think that we were right to bring forward the Bill for Second Reading at this stage, for that makes it clear that the Government accept the broad principles of the original Bill.
We shall now have the whole of the summer months before the Committee stage starts to consider carefully and at length the Amendments which have been suggested and the debates, both in the House and in Committee. We shall be able to consider the reports of the advisory committees and the bodies outside the official arena, such as the valuable report produced by the Bow Group.
Between now and Committee stage we shall be able to consider all these things. Perhaps the most encouraging development which has taken place in the last day or so is the approach which my right hon. Friend has received from Lord Cohen. I very much hope that as a result of that approach it will be possible for the General Medical Council to take a larger part in the enforcement of the disciplines inside the profession. Everyone would like to see a move in that direction and this was stressed particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. No one pretends that the General Medical Council could do all of the job. That would be impractical, but
1842
the greater the part of the job of enforcement of the disciplines which passes over to it, the better it will be for the profession and the community as a whole.
A number of hon. Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and the hon. Member for South Shields have spoken about the need for another look at the question of treatment and after-care. I have looked at the very valuable report of the Committee on LSD on which the hon. Gentleman served. Some of the recommendations, I am sure he would agree, fall outside the scope of the Bill but they are obviously matters at which we shall want to look carefully.
I can tell the House that good progress has been made in establishing hostels for addicts who have withdrawn from drugs. In addition to several, run and financed entirely by voluntary bodies there are two, Featherstone Lodge at Forest Hill operated by the Community Drug Project at Camberwell and Suffolk House, Iver, Bucks., which receive financial support from local authority sources and are associated with hospitals specialising in the treatment of drug addiction. These hostels have accommodation for over 30 residents. At present the number in residence is only six. It may be that these hostels will prove sufficient for the number of addicts withdrawn from drugs requiring hostel accommodation.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I know something of these projects. There is anxiety as to whether our present form of treatment of some of the heroin cases gives sufficient encouragement to people to move out into centres of this sort. We need to look at what is going on in our treatment centres.
Mr. Sharples: I agree. This is one of the matters referred to in the report on LSD and is something with which we are all concerned. There is a particular problem, and this is part of it, over accommodation for the addict who is still receiving drugs as part of his treatment. This is something at present being discussed between the Department of Health and Social Security, the hospital treatment centres and the London Boroughs Association.

1843
Much has been said by hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about research. The Home Office Drugs Branch has compiled a register of research and researchers in the United Kingdom. This includes research done by the Medical Research Council and shows that 105 projects have been or are in progress. What is needed now is perhaps more co-ordination of this effort. This is one of the things at which we shall be looking. Discussions will shortly be held on the question of co-ordination and we shall be announcing future Government policy in due course, as well as the level of expenditure which will be needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred particularly to the question of barbiturates. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, the Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Wayne has started work on this very difficult subject. I do not think anybody would under-estimate the difficulties and complexities of this problem. One great difficulty is the very large number of National Health prescriptions given for barbiturates in the normal course of treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred particularly to the number of tablets given on prescription. We will want to consider this matter. The Sub-Committee had its first meeting a month ago, I think, and I cannot say at this stage when it will report, but I doubt, from the information which I have, whether it will report before we start the Committee stage of the Bill. It appreciates the urgency of the problem and will try to get out its report as soon as it can.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Report of the Committee on cannabis which was debated in the House on 27th January, 1969. The House came to the very firm conclusion that the law should be enforced. None of us should be under any illusion about the extent to which the traffic in cannabis could grow unless the law were enforced effectively.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I did not agree with what he said and I did not accept by any means the premise on which he
1844
based his argument. We simply do not know the extent of the problem. I do not believe that the problem here bears any relation to the problem in the United States, particularly in California. I do not accept—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take this in the right way—the defeatist attitude that this battle is lost. It certainly is not lost among the vast majority of young people.
Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that he can eradicate cannabis smoking?
Mr. Sharples: I believe that we can keep it under control. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan. If we were starting from scratch it might be different, but if we were to take steps to legalise cannabis I believe that it would have grave effects indeed.
I do not think that there has been any dispute in this debate or in the debates which preceded it about the general rightness of the policy of trying to restrict and control the spread of cannabis.
Mr. Paget: I think that probably all of us would say that if we could eradicate tobacco smoking we would be a little better for it. Probably most of us would say that if we could eradicate alcohol we would be better for it. But since we cannot we have to control it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we can eradicate cannabis? Has not the smoking of it gone too far?
Mr. Sharples: I do not accept that it has gone too far. I still believe that it is confined to a small proportion of the population. When I was at Berkeley University, in the United States, I asked one of the members of the faculty the extent of smoking marijuana at the university. I was told that in that university 60 per cent. of the faculty were smoking marijuana. We have reached nothing approaching that level and I am very glad that we have not done so. I shall do all in my power to try to prevent that situation arising.
Where there has been argument, during this debate and outside the House, is not in the main about the rightness of the policy but about the methods of enforcement and the penalties available to the courts. On penalties, which were not discussed in Committee on the previous Bill, it would be helpful if we were to have

1845
the views of hon. Members, on both sides, at some stage. My feeling is that there is not much point in introducing maximum penalties which are never likely to be enforced in the courts. That does not give credence to the law. This is a matter which we shall want to consider at a future stage.
I believe, as other hon. Members have said, that the real problem, particuarly with cannabis and to a lesser extent with other drugs, is to convince the small minority of young people—I accept that it is a small minority—of the logic of the case against the use of drugs of this kind. This is where I parted company strongly with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
I do not believe that the vast majority of young people need convincing, but I do believe that we must recognise that there is a minority who need such convincing. It is here where I accept that we have not yet succeeded as we should have clone. This is a matter which we shall have to look at very carefully indeed in the future.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, have referred to the powers of search and arrest. Since the Bill was published, we now have the Report of the Advisory Committee on Powers of Search and Arrest, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was a member. I am sure that the House will wish to study carefully that report, including the minority report, as we shall ourselves, before reaching an absolutely firm decision on this difficult matter. The arguments both for and against statutory powers of search are clearly set out in the report.
The problem—and this is an argument in favour of those special powers—is the ease with which drugs can be concealed, not only by the person who is concealing them for his own use but, because of their size, by the trafficker as well. That is the real problem. I would not pretend that this is at all an easy matter or that the arguments are all on one side. As my right hon. Friend has said, this is a matter which we shall want to look at carefully before the Bill goes into Committee.
We do not want to exaggerate the problem but, as I have already said, one
1846
of the great difficulties in this whole question is that we simply do not know the size of the problem.
I should like to echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford when he spoke on the Bill originally introduced, when he said that what the law can do to cope with the problem is severely limited:
"The law can do only so much. This Bill can do only so much."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1462.]
I entirely agree that the Bill has, perhaps, a certain punitive image which could be misunderstood. Inevitably a Bill to restrict the availability of drugs is bound to have a penal form. We will certainly look at possible and sensible ways of redressing certain provisions in the Bill so as to give stronger impetus to such matters as treatment, rehabilitation, education, publicity, counselling, community effort, research and all the other matters which have been raised in the debate. Perhaps the most important point is to make certain that the terms of reference of the new Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs are right, so that we can stimulate the Departments, the local authorities, the professions, the services and agencies which have a part to play. Whether we can go further than this in the Bill may be doubtful, but what I can assure the House is that we will review the whole field of social and community effort in the light of the suggestions which have been made today and in the light of the reports of the Advisory Committees.
Whatever we may do to the Bill in Committee, whatever changes may be made to the Bill in Committee, I believe that it does represent a major advance. It introduces a new element of flexibility, and in this field, where the climate is changing so frequently, where the problems change so frequently, flexibility is all-important in combating these dangers. It does integrate and in certain respects does reinforce the law, and it is important that the law should be integrated so that people know what the law is and so that the law is set out as clearly as it possibly can be in this most complex field. I believe myself that while there may be criticism in detail of the Bill it has the support of the vast majority of those whose concern with this problem is very real, and I commend the Bill to the House.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for speaking very briefly now, when I have not been able to be present during the whole of the debate and, therefore, may possibly repeat some remarks which may already have been made—though, I think, not by many hon. Members who are at present in the House.
I liked very much the stress on flexibility towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because, as he said, attitudes are changing and conditions are changing. On the whole, I think I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said to the House: I think it is extremely important to separate cannabis from the harder drugs, and I do not accept the familiar "escalation" argument, in itself. In my view, the escalation occurs largely because the same pushers push both cannabis and heroin and are naturally anxious to get their clients on to the more addictive and lucrative drug.
I think also—I repeat the word "think", because I agree that there is need for more research, as well as more treatment of those who are addicted to the harder drugs—I think from what I know, from observing the considerable number of young people who do smoke cannabis from time to time, that it is not addictive. It may be to some extent habit forming, which is not quite the same thing as being addictive. I also believe, on such medical evidence as is available, that it is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine potentially are.
I remember the quite plausible argument advanced in the debate in the previous Parliament by the then right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who has once more left us for the other place, that since we have two socially acceptable drugs, nicotine and alcohol, why should we add a third one? I can understand that argument, but I am not sure that it is completely acceptable or logical. If, as seems to be the case, the users of cannabis do not take, or take very little, strong alcoholic drink, it is perhaps rather less likely that they will die of cirrhosis of the liver. Similarly, with the smoking of cigarettes: the Department of Health and Social Security has spent a lot of public money, quite rightly, in propaganda and advertising
1848
against cigarette-smoking. I think that there is no evidence that cannabis gives anyone cancer of the lung. I do not say that every cigarette-smoker gets that, but there is a proved causal relationship between cigarette-smoking and lung cancer.
Mr. Deedes Mr. Deedes rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. We have wound up this debate once.
Mr. Deedes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that smoking more than a certain amount of cannabis may cause serious organic damage?
Mr. Driberg: I do not know whether or not that is so, and I carefully used the word "think" rather than "know" a few sentences ago, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I respect the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his speeches in the previous Parliament on this subject, and I do not presume to be dogmatic about this. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, if you think that we should not prolong the debate until ten o'clock, which is the normal time for finishing the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not criticise the hon. Gentleman for prolonging the debate, but usually the debate is wound up by the Front Bench. This procedure is unusual but not irregular.
Mr. Driberg: I was aware of that, since I have been in the House for even longer than you have, with great respect; and I do not intend to prolong the debate for more than a minute of two. [Interruption.] If there were too much interruption of any kind, Mr. Speaker would be justified in reminding us that interventions tend to prolong speeches; so let us be quiet.
A fairly large number of people, mainly young people, use cannabis. The right hon. Member for Ashford may be right about the excessive use of it, but I regard as of the greatest importance the separation of this relatively harmless drug from those which are undoubtedly the most harmful, and killing, drugs, such as heroin.
I should have thought that this was at least an arguable point, but it is not easy to know how, statutorily, one can separate these drugs. I am sure, together with

1849
the research and the treatment that is going on, that the experts who advise the right hon. Gentleman should be addressing their attention to how to separate them. Even if cannabis is kept strictly illegal for a certain transitional period, at least I suggest that attention should be paid to ways and means of separating it from the more harmful drugs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MISUSE OF DRUGS [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under or in consequence of the Provisions of that Act.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Paget, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Miss Quennell, Mr. Julian Ridsdale, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. Michael Shaw and Mr. Robert Sheldon be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business:
Ordered,
That Mr. Austen Albu, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Turton, and Dame Irene Ward be Members of the Committee:
Ordered,
That so much of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of the last Parliament as relates to Scrutiny of Taxation, together with the relevant Appendices, be referred to the Committee:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time:
Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts, occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and to report thereon to this House:—
That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members:
Ordered,
That Mr. Humphrey Atkins, Mr. Brian Batsford, Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Robin Cooke, Mr. James A. Dunn. Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Walter Harrison, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. David Lane, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Wellbeloved, and Mr. John Wells be Members of the Committee:
Ordered,
That five be the Quorum:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
Ordered,
That two be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report to the Committee from time to time:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:
Ordered,
That any Sub-Committee which may be appointed to deal with the organisation of, and the provision of services in, the Library do have the assistance of the Librarian.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

BUS FARES, FLINTSHIRE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that a record number of hon. Members wish to participate in the Adjournment debate. I hope that I shall be able to call a number of them.
9.42 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: This House in its wisdom does not accord to hon. Members the privilege of a second maiden speech. But since I have the opportunity I should like to place on record a tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Nigel Birch, whose wit and wisdom made him such a notable ornament of the House. We are glad that he is still serving the public in another place.
I am grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the mounting discontent in my constituency, and indeed throughout North Wales, at the recent severe increases in the charges of the Crosville Bus Company. I have in my hand a petition signed by no fewer than 500 inhabitants in the town of Prestatyn alone. Crosville is the nationalised and monopoly passenger carrier throughout the whole of North Wales. Ever since 1965 the company has applied for and been granted an annual increase in fares. The last such increase was in January of this year.
Now the pace has quickened, as indeed the pace of inflation has speeded up
1852
throughout the economy in the nine months of the now happily deceased Labour Government. Instead of an annual increase in fares, we have the bus company seeking an increase in fares only six months after the last increase was granted and being awarded the increase by the Traffic Commissioners. On 2nd July the Traffic Commissioners for the North-West Traffic Area granted an application by the Crosville Company in full, subject only to the most derisory of abatements. The company asked that the children's fares should be increased by 50 per cent. of the full fare to 75 per cent. and were told that they could charge only 66 per cent. Apart from that, the application was granted in full.
Most concessional fares have been abolished, and the majority of cheap fares have gone, including all weekly tickets and contract tickets. Return fares are now based on single fares, plus 90 per cent., and single fares are based on a charge of 5d. a mile. The end result seems to be that we in North Wales lose on the swings and on the roundabouts.
Crosville is pretty well a local monopoly over the whole area and therefore is not subject to the local competition which might have served to keep down fares, at any rate on journeys which could be made to yield a profit. But Crosville is not merely a local monopoly. It is part of the National Bus Company, a national monopoly. As such, it is required by law, notably by Section 41 of the 1968 Transport Act, to earn sufficient profit not merely to cover its operating costs but also to cover depreciation and the renewal of assets.
The Company has to provide services on a large number of sparsely populated routes, and it is required to provide a surplus of no less than £800,000 annually. I gather that there is some mystery as to how that figure is arrived at. However that may be, it seems an excessive and an excessively inflexible requirement. That is our loss on the swings.
It might have been supposed that, since Crosville is part of a national monopoly, there would be some approximation to equality of conditions between it and the other companies which form part of that monopoly, and that there would be some system of internal compensation whereby the profit margins fixed for the separate

1853
companies took account of the earnings potential of the regions which they serve.
That is far from being the case. If there is one single journey in my constituency which should be able to be made to operate at a profit, it must be the journey between the two largest centres of population, Rhy1 and Prestatyn, which are only three miles apart. That three-mile journey covers a built-up area, with the possibility of picking up fares on the way. The single fare over that distance is an almost unbelievable 2s., and there is no reduction on the return fare. It is 4s.
Until recently, I have been living in Sunningdale, in Berkshire. The other day, I took a bus run by the nationalised Aldershot and District Company a distance of four miles to Egham, the nearest railway station. The charge for that four miles was 1s. 3d. I confess that I did not ask what the return fare would be. Here, we have a 1s. 3d. charge for a four-mile run in the prosperous South-East and a 2s. charge for the three-mile run in North Wales. That is why I say that in North Wales we lose both on the roundabouts, and on the swings.
A nationalised monopoly means that there is no local competition and no undercutting. It also means that our monopoly is compelled to try to achieve a target which may be attainable elsewhere but certainly is not attainable in relatively sparsely populated areas. I shudder to think what the situation must be in Mid-Wales.
I hope that I have made it clear that what I blame in all of this is the system. But, even within the present highly unsatisfactory system, I am sure that it would be possible to make better arrangements. The last Government issued a White Paper (Cmnd. 3481) in December, 1967. Paragraph 98 of that contains the following passage:
"In many cases services to outlying villages can best be provided by private operators, who may well run a bus service in conjunction with other activities; and the service may be best provided with a relatively small vehicle. The Government itself is experimenting on some postal services with the use of minibuses which will at the same time carry a few passengers."
I cannot help feeling that if ideas of this kind had been followed through with more imagination and flexibility, Crosville, and perhaps other companies
1854
similarly placed, would be quit of its loss-making country routes and could afford to keep down fares on other routes. But flexibility and imagination are the last things to look for in a monopoly.
I am sure that the people who run the Crosville Company are overflowing with the milk of human kindness and that there is nothing they desire more than to provide the people of North Wales with a frequent, punctual and cheap form of public transport. The plain fact is that they have not provided a transport system at all, but a sort of brontosaur—a creature which took eight minutes to send a message from its head to its toes—a prehistoric monster doomed to extinction because of its inability to adapt itself to a changing environment; a cumbersome monster, what is more, which inflicts cruelty and suffering not out of malevolence but out of sheer incompetence and clumsiness.
So we get the old and the sick unable to afford the fare to the doctor, to the hospital, to the chemist, or to visit their friends. So we get families unable to afford the bus fare to send their children to school. We get cases such as I have had described in a letter from a constituent—
Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—
Sir A. Meyer: —of children being put off buses a long way from their destinations, in one case five miles.
Mr. Wyn Roberts Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, mere standing will not do it. He must ask his hon. Friend whether he may intervene.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Perhaps I may intervene. Does my hon. Friend realise the full impact of these bus fare increases on school children? I refer to the 1944 regulation which requires that a child under eight travelling less than two miles or a child over eight travelling under three miles to school has to be paid for by his parents and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a fully fledged Member of the House now. Interventions must be brief.
Sir A. Meyer: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his illustration of the hardship being caused to families with school children and of the need for measures to take account of that hardship.
I have great confidence in the ability of the present Government to slow the rate of inflation. In the years to come enterprises, whether public or private, will no longer be compelled to put up their prices year after year as they have in recent years. At least, I hope not. But I feel sadly certain that, even in a world of stable prices, Crosville and other such enterprises will be coming back year after year applying to increase fares. This monopoly, like other monopolies, is a chronic dweller on slippery slopes.
The process is familiar and inexorable. It cannot get enough passengers to pay its way, so it raises its charges. The fact of raising charges drives passengers away, so its revenue falls still further. So it raises its charges again and it gets fewer passengers; and so the charges go up again, and on and on, and down and down. The passengers club together. They go by bicycle. They walk. They get together with their workmates to buy a second-hand car. They do anything rather than pay what they regard as the exhorbitant fares of the bus company. So it is doomed to a process of extinction, and there seems no way of stopping it.
We are already a very long way down the slippery slope. Even if there is a change of heart; even if Crosville and other companies are given the courage and the incentive to attempt the opposite policy of reducing fares and offering special concessions such as cheap off-peak fares for the young and the old, of restoring all the concessions which any well-managed enterprise would find it profitable to provide, as I hope they will be, it will still be a very long time before it becomes possible to provide a decent public transport system at a realistic charge.
Until then I fear that it may be necessary to provide subsidised concessions; concessions subsidised out of taxation; concessions subsidised out of the rates. I have a strong prejudice against all forms of subsidy, and it is
1856
only with the greatest reluctance that I shall find myself shortly pressing the Flintshire County Council to subsidise cheap rates for school children and old-age pensioners. It is a very expensive business. I am told by the county council that even to provide concessionary fares for old-age pensioners over 75 will cost £30,000 per annum, and nobody will pretend that merely to provide concessionary fares for the over-75s is anything approaching a satisfactory solution.
I would not mind so much the idea of a subsidy if I saw some prospect of the subsidy being self-terminating; if by subsidising a bus company we could so improve its services that it became self-supporting. I suspect that it is too late for that, but it may not be. It is perhaps worth making the effort, but I do not believe that the long-term operation of putting public transport back on its feet can succeed as long as we continue on the present basis.
I accept that in very sparsely populated areas competition is just not feasible. Let us hive off these routes. Let us follow the suggestions in paragraph 98 of the White Paper. Let us have post buses. Let us have private operators combining the delivery of goods with the carriage of passengers. Let us waive the insurance provision, or whatever it is, to make this possible.
But once we have taken away from Crosville and such companies their most unprofitable routes and left them with routes on which it is possible to earn a profit, let us then expose them to competition along these profitable routes. It must be possible to carry passengers the three miles from Rhyl to Prestatyn and still make a profit at a fare much lower than that now charged.
We know that public transport is a difficult matter and that we in North Wales, or elsewhere, cannot expect to win both on the swings and on the roundabouts, but surely we could have a try at breaking even on one or the other? I believe that if we put the needs of people first and used a bit of imagination and flexibility we might even find that if we provided a decent service at a decent price it could make a modest profit.
I am not asking my hon. Friend to give me an answer tonight. This is

1857
clearly a matter about which he will have to think. What I beg of him is to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Let them put their fresh and excellent minds to this matter and in the course of time come up with a much better solution than that which we have now.
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) for raising this issue of bus fares with such alacrity, and I congratulate him on his appointment as P.P.S. to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's strictures on this nationalised bus company. After all, the recently announced increase in the price of petrol will, I suppose, make it even more difficult for companies which run buses to keep fares down. In my constituency, which is the neighbouring one to that of the hon. Gentleman, it is obvious that feelings are running very high indeed. I have had shoals of protests. I know that 200 parents in Connahs Quay, a township in my division, have signed a petition of protest, and the general opinion is that the Traffic Commissioners have perpetrated a shocking decision. They are penalising a hard-working community and, in effect, undermining the living standards of young families and aged persons. We feel that it is monstrous, unjust, unreasonable and even downright Draconian to burden my constituents with such increases.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
Mr. Jones: It would help me to put my point if I read a brief letter from a constituent which would shed light on the dilemma that many people face in Flintshire, where bus fares have been raised. My constituent writes:
"Dear Sir, I am writing to ask you if you could please assist me with the bus fare for my three children who go to the Roman Catholic School in Shotton …"
1858
She gives the names of the children, one of whom was born in 1961, another in 1962 and the third in 1964. She says:
"They have been going on the school bus till now but the bus company have raised the fares from 6d. each way to 10d. each way for the youngest two, to 1s. 3d. each way for the elder child who goes to the top school, making 14s. 2d. a week increase, which I cannot afford. It will make it £1 9s. 2d. altogether, plus dinner money of £1 6s. 3d. From tomorrow they will have to walk in the mornings and as this is such a long way they will have to leave the house at 8.15 a.m. I cannot take them because I have two younger children at home, one of three years and one of eight months. I do not like to beg, but if you are unable to help me I am afraid they will be having days off school during bad weather and I will keep them at home rather than change their school."
That sad letter is an instance of the effect that this rise in bus fares is having on people in East Flintshire.
A letter from a parent in my own village of Hawarden reads,
"With reference to the recent increase in Crosville bus fares I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my daughter, a pupil at Deeside High School, is now obliged to pay 2s. 10d. daily. As I feel this is an unreasonable amount to pay I would be grateful if anything could be done to relieve this situation."
There are many other instances of letters of protest, all of which make a case for saying that these fare rises are far too great. Although I have the documentation here I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and I therefore draw my remarks to a close.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Geraint Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene shortly in this debate, which raises a matter of great importance to all the inhabitants of North Wales, particularly in the rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), whom I am delighted to welcome back to the House as my political neighbour, for raising this matter, and I associate myself entirely with what he has said.
My constituency of Denbigh, which covers an area of nearly 600 sq. miles is probably affected more than any other area in North Wales by these extremely severe fare increases, which fall very heavily upon old-age pensioners and parents of school children whose fares are not paid by the local authorities. In the

1859
Denbigh division we are particularly hard hit because we were denuded of practically all our railways under the Beeching Plan about six years ago.
My hon. Friend said that he shuddered to think of the conditions in Mid-Wales. He need not penetrate that far into Wales to see the effect of these increases. In view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak I shall raise only one point. During the recent General Election campaign I was handed a letter from the Traffic Manager of Crosville Motor Services to a constituent of mine, living at Henllan, near Denbigh, which stated that, in so far as old-age pensioners were concerned, the company was ready to enter into schemes with local authorities. I should like to know from my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, whether any such schemes have been entered into, and to be given any relevant information on that point.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I regretted very much the increases granted by the Traffic Commissioners in East Flintshire, because they created a precedent for the Crosville Bus Company asking for increases in North Staffordshire. The present system of control is totally inadequate. I have been disappointed with the replies from the Government on the questtion of bus fares. Like other hon. Members, I had been misled into believing that there would be rather more stringent control on nationalised industry prices. I should have thought that, on coming to office, the Government would have looked very carefully at the problem of increasing bus fares, made worse by the increase in petrol prices. But this has just not happened.
Many hon. Members have asked that the increases be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. Many are concerned with the situation in their divisions. But the answer always is that this is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners. Yesterday, I appealed before the Commissioners against increases demanded by the Crosville. I have been told that the Commissioners are independent and that the Government have no control over them. I was told that the Commissioners were not even taking into account the demand by the National Bus Company for that
1860
rate of return from Crosville which has been mentioned. It appeared that the Commissioners were acting as a law unto themselves, taking only the necessity for the bus companies to earn what in their opinion was a reasonable rate of profit—whether 5½, 6 or 6½ per cent.
This is something which the Government must look at very closely. Either they must abandon the pretence to be controlling prices in the nationalised sector or they must do something about rising bus fares. It is intolerable for the Government to tell us that they will restrict price increases and refuse to refer this increase to the Prices and Incomes Board or to take direct action themselves. It is totally unacceptable to us to leave it, as it is left at present, to the Traffic Commissioners.
Sir A. Meyer: When the party opposite were in power, these increases in Crosville bus fares were awarded annually.
Mr. Golding: When I appeared before the Commissioners yesterday, I was appealing against two increases this year, one ow which was for an increase of 25 per cent., which the bus company was justifying, and which the Government have refused to intervene on.
The situation is getting worse. This is the situation that I hope the Government will face. It is sheer hypocrisy for them to be talking in terms of price control and keeping down the cost of living and at the same time indulging in their present masterly inactivity on the issue of bus fares.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am grateful for this second opportunity to enter the debate. I wish to make the point as strongly as I can that these bus fare increases are tempting parents to fail to comply with the law governing the sending of their children to school. I refer to the requirement dating from the 1944 Act that a child under eight is not required to walk more than two miles to school, or a child over that age more than three miles. In practice, this has come to mean that transport within those distances has to be paid for by the parents, and, such is the cost of transport now for certain parents in my constituency—as much as 14s. 2d. per week

1861
per child—that it is becoming prohibitive and is tempting them to keep their children away from school.
I submit that the two-mile and three-mile limits in those rules are anachronistic in the present context and, in today's circumstances, they should at least be reviewed, if not abolished, so that transport to and from school is free, particularly for children in rural areas.
10.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): It would be an impertinence for me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on a maiden speech. It is obvious that the skills for which he was reputed when last a Member have in no way deserted him in the period he has been absent from the House, and we are delighted to see him back.
I am sure that my hon. Friend and all other lion. Members who have spoken will understand that I am not able to follow them in the detailed examination and discussion of this increase tonight. The reason is that the independent Traffic Commissioners have only recently decided the case, and it may yet be the subject of appeal to the Minister. I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) did not fully appreciate that. There is a right of appeal to the Minister for local authorities and transport operators in the area, and the date on which the time for appeal runs out is 19th July. The matter may yet, therefore, come before my right hon. Friend.
If there were an appeal, the Minister would have to decide it in a quasi-judicial capacity. He would appoint an independent inspector to hold an inquiry and to report to him, and he would then decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence which the Commissioners had already heard and the submissions subsequently made to his inspector. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to go further in discussing the merits and implications of this case than I have gone in merely stating the legal position in which my Ministry finds itself. Perhaps it may, however, as a matter of factual record, help if I put some of the points in a wider national context. I very much hope that we may on a later occasion
1862
have an opportunity to discuss this problem of the provision of bus services throughout the country.
The Crossville application was intended to raise the gross revenue of the company by 15 per cent., with varying effect on the individual fares depending on the scales then introduced. This was granted by the Traffic Commissioners, after examination, with only the amendment mentioned by my hon. Friend, that the children's fare was increased from half the adult rate to two-thirds, as opposed to the three-quarters originally requested.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disturbing upward trend in bus fares generally. The main reason which bus operators have currently been giving for the fare increases which they have been seeking throughout the country has been the considerable additional costs which have come from substantial wage increases negotiated earlier this year. This is a labour-intensive industry, and labour costs account for about 70 per cent. of the operating costs of bus operators. Therefore, the opportunity for more productivity is limited. There is a certain amount of scope in one-man operation, which is one of the most promising fields. I am sure that both sides of the industry will do everything in their own interests to pursue this avenue with the vigour at their command, together with any other measures they find that will help to meet the problem of manpower shortages.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if his Government had not at the beginning of last week with such alacrity killed off the Welsh Rural Development Board in the areas within the boundaries of that Board, applications could have been made for subsidies to support these bus services in exactly the same way as applications have been made within the area of the Rural Development Board in the Pennines?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall come to this point in a moment.
My hon. Friend rightly said, and all hon. Members who have spoken have stressed, that the increases bear particularly hard on the elederly in the areas affected, and he asked about the prospect of concessions for them. I do not see how bus operators can reasonably be

1863
expected to provide such concessions out of their own revenue in present circumstances. To give the concessions would entail making the fares still higher for other members of the travelling public.
Sir A. Meyer: That may very well be so, but the point I was trying to make is that such concessionary fares might have the effect of attracting custom back to the bus services and might in the end not reduce their revenue but positively increase it.
Mr. Heseltine: I am coming on to this argument and to speak of the opportunities that exist. There are wide powers now available to all local authorities to arrange such concessions on any bus operator's services in their area. This has been traditionally available for many years for municipal bus undertakings, but under the 1968 Transport Act this concessionary power was made available throughout the general provision of bus undertakings.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I was deliberately referring not to the grants payable by local authorities but to grants payable by the Rural Development Board. For many poor local authorities in Wales the payment of a 50 per cent. grant would be too heavy an impost on their finances.
Mr. Heseltine: The matter does not stop with the payment of a 50 per cent. rural bus grant, because the balance of the 50 per cent. which is expected to be paid by the local authority is grant-aided. Therefore, there is a substantial additional benefit available. There are these opportunities for local councils, if they wish, to apply for local subsidies for various services which they suggest to the undertakings in the area, but it is for the local authorities to take the initiative.
The powers granted in 1968 have been little used by local authorities. The subsidies were available, and the grant aid is available on top of the subsidies. Therefore, it is perhaps surprising that local authorities have not made more use of them. It is for the hon. Members who have raised the point to take it up with the local authorities in the first place, to name the rural bus services they think could be the subject of grant aid,
1864
and see whether they can persuade the local authority to put it forward.
On a national basis, subsidies are already going to the bus industry at large. There is the fuel tax rebate, worth about £21 million a year, £5½ million provided through the 25 per cent. grant for the purchase of new vehicles, and an additional grant on capital projects, such as bus stations, of 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., amounting last year to £368,000. All these measures of financial help are already available from the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the bus licensing system, and suggested that the monopoly position by which the large operators are protected should be reviewed. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) on 9th July that he will examine the working of the licensing system. Within that examination, we will also want to deal with the experiments in mini buses and so on which have now been going on for some time and which we will take into account in whatever we decide.
But it is only fair to say that it is not as simple just to say that we will abolish the licensing system or dramatically amend it. There is not the slightest doubt that the whole subject requires a careful approach. It is the regular operators whom the licensing system deliberately protects. It was designed in the 1930s to protect regular and substantial operators and to protect networks of existing services, both profitable and unprofitable. If it is modified, or abolished, the profitable routes may be better served, but there would be a possibility that the unprofitable routes would suffer in a way which was unacceptable. It may be true that, as a result of smaller overheads for operators on the profitable routes, something could be done about fares on those routes, but one must not lose sight of the consequences which could result for the unprofitable routes, which might lose their services.
As my right hon. Friend has already announced, we will look at the whole of this problem to see what degree of flexibility may be introduced, but everybody understands that the provision of public

1865
transport is causing dilemmas which have not been found easy to solve, and I do not believe that there are easy solutions. We shall give the subject the best examination we can. This has been a valuable debate in stirring our determination to
1866
achieve the results of which we are capable.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  North-East Kent
  North-East Kent
  Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Monopolies (Consumer Protection)
  Monopolies (Consumer Protection)
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment)
  Employment (Safety Legislation)
  Employment (Safety Legislation)
  Employment Census Form ED90
  Employment Census Form ED90
  New Towns, Scotland (Redundancies)
  New Towns, Scotland (Redundancies)
  Minimum Weekly Wage
  Minimum Weekly Wage
  Doncaster
  Doncaster
  Estate Agents (Services)
  Estate Agents (Services)
  Agricultural Training Board
  Agricultural Training Board
  Bridport (Earnings)
  Bridport (Earnings)
  Exporting Companies (Staff)
  Exporting Companies (Staff)
  Departmental Staff and Expenditure
  Departmental Staff and Expenditure
  Earnings and Hours
  Earnings and Hours
  National Docks Strike
  National Docks Strike
  Industrial Earnings
  Industrial Earnings
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Public Lending Rights
  Public Lending Rights
  Secondary School Students (Examination Fees)
  Secondary School Students (Examination Fees)
  Unqualified Teachers
  Unqualified Teachers
  Daventry (School Places)
  Daventry (School Places)
  North Wales (Polytechnic)
  North Wales (Polytechnic)
  Reorganisation Proposals (Consultation)
  Reorganisation Proposals (Consultation)
  Teachers (Shortages)
  Teachers (Shortages)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Flintshire (Trainee Teachers)
  Flintshire (Trainee Teachers)
  Post-graduate Students (Grants)
  Post-graduate Students (Grants)
  School Transport (London Area)
  School Transport (London Area)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parole (Applications)
  Parole (Applications)
  Electoral Registers (Northern Ireland)
  Electoral Registers (Northern Ireland)
  Private Houses (Police Visits)
  Private Houses (Police Visits)
  H.M. Prison, Dartmoor (Subcontracting of Work)
  H.M. Prison, Dartmoor (Subcontracting of Work)
  Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Act
  Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Act
  Magistrates' Courts (Legal Aid)
  Magistrates' Courts (Legal Aid)
  Industrial Establishments, Sheffield (Fires)
  Industrial Establishments, Sheffield (Fires)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Manufacturing Industries, Scotland (Regional Employment Premiums)
  Manufacturing Industries, Scotland (Regional Employment Premiums)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Development and Expenditure (Government Statements)
  Development and Expenditure (Government Statements)
  Inflation
  Inflation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Seasonal Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Seasonal Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Illegitimacy (Birth Certificates)
  Illegitimacy (Birth Certificates)
  Death Grants
  Death Grants
  Doctors (Pay Awards)
  Doctors (Pay Awards)
  Drug Companies (Promotion Expenditure)
  Drug Companies (Promotion Expenditure)
SCOTLAND
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRANSPORT
  North Western Road Car Company (Fares)
  North Western Road Car Company (Fares)
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Development (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Nuclear Development (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
BOARD OF TRADE
  Car Insurance Rates
  Car Insurance Rates
  Crew Buffet, Manchester Airport (Price Increases)
  Crew Buffet, Manchester Airport (Price Increases)
  PORNOGRAPHIC LITERATURE
  PORNOGRAPHIC LITERATURE
  REGIONAL COUNCILS AND BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  REGIONAL COUNCILS AND BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE (TALKS)
  UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE (TALKS)
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
  COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Giant Hogweed
  Giant Hogweed
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Produce (Marketing)
  Produce (Marketing)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Alkali Inspectorate
  Atmospheric Pollution (Teesside)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Teesside)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  Water Companies (Charges)
  Water Companies (Charges)
  Rate Rebate Schemes
  Rate Rebate Schemes
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Weardale Transmitter (B.B.C.2)
  Weardale Transmitter (B.B.C.2)
TECHNOLOGY
  Landlords (Resale of Gas and Electricity)
  Landlords (Resale of Gas and Electricity)
  South-East Wales
  South-East Wales
  Yorkshire Coalfields (Industrial Development)
  Yorkshire Coalfields (Industrial Development)
  Steel Industry (Supply of Scrap)
  Steel Industry (Supply of Scrap)
  Steel Industry (Nickel and Chromium Supplies)
  Steel Industry (Nickel and Chromium Supplies)
  Special Steels Division (Investment Programme)
  Special Steels Division (Investment Programme)
  Daventry (New Industry)
  Daventry (New Industry)
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
WALES
  Midlands-South Wales Road Links
  Midlands-South Wales Road Links
  Llanelly General Hospital
  Llanelly General Hospital
  Welsh Rural Development Board
  Welsh Rural Development Board

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

LORD FLETCHER
The Right Honourable Sir Eric George Molyneux Fletcher, Knight, having been created Baron Fletcher, of Islington in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gardiner and the Lord Stow Hill.
The Duke of Bedford—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Wimborne—Took the Oath.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS
3.16 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: 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 a detailed timetable for the proposed improvements at Turnhouse Airport has now been worked out and by what date the second runway is expected to be in operation.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the provision of a new runway at Edinburgh (Turnhouse) Airport and of a new terminal complex to serve the new runway and the existing main runway will be subject to planning permission and the purchase of necessary land. It is therefore not yet possible to settle a detailed timetable, though in association with the British Airports Authority we are proceeding as quickly as may be with the essential preliminary planning. These proposals are, of course, subject to the grant of planning permission and involve the acquisition of land. It is
724
therefore unlikely that it will be possible to complete the new runway before the summer of 1974.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, which I find difficult to accept as entirely satisfactory, I would ask him whether he is aware that Edinburgh Airport has the worst record for cancellations of any airport in the United Kingdom, and that until a second runway is in operation this intolerable state of affairs will continue? May I ask him, therefore, to approach the matter, and to urge his colleagues in the Government to approach it, with every possible urgency?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the cancellation record of Turnhouse Airport is not entirely due to the unsatisfactory nature of the runway. The cause of one in five of the cancellations is the fact that the present runway is wrong for the prevailing wind. A much more frequent cause is the sea mist known locally as the "haar". As soon as the new runway is built the wind difficulties will be almost completely solved, but this will not solve all the problems. With regard to urgency, I am quite sure your Lordships will appreciate that, urgent as this airport is, other local interests such as may be affected by noise, the purchase of land, and matters like that, must also be taken into consideration. It is therefore very important that there are adequate local discussions.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, are we to understand that the new Government are unable to change the direction of the cross-wind at Turnhouse?
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, while I hesitate to intervene in this Scottish matter, may I ask for how many years this matter has been outstanding?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the future of Turnhouse Airport has been looked into for a number of years. There was a suggestion at one time that it should be handed over to the local authority. It has now been decided to transfer the airport to the British Airports Authority, and, as your Lordships will realise, the question of finance is important. Until one knew who was going to be responsible for this it was very difficult to make the necessary arrangements for major improvements.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply may I ask him to bear in mind that the construction of the runway is infinitely more important than the construction of a new terminal building? Would he ask his right honourable friend to have regard to the fact that what is needed is a runway, and that the building can be provided at a later date? Would not the noble Lord agree that the time to be taken in all the calculations might be saved if the matter were taken in two stages—runway, and building?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, unfortunately it is the new runway that will require the new acquisitions of land and planning permission.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, do Her Majesty's Government realise that, as the noble Lord himself has admitted, the runway, being situated almost at right angles to the prevailing wind, is extremely dangerous at the present time? I myself have seen a very near-accident take place there. Will the Government therefore expedite matters so far as they can, so that this present very dangerous situation may not continue for much longer?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since everything at Turnhouse seems so unhappy and so dangerous, would it not be more practical and more economic if the Government gave up any idea of improvements there and improved the aerodrome at Carlisle instead?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, would it not be better if the new runway were somewhat longer than the other one, so that it could take bigger aeroplanes?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Mansfield, may I say that since 1960 there has been only one notifiable accident at Turnhouse. On that occasion an aeroplane ran into a flock of birds and made a forced landing, but no one was seriously hurt. Of course Her Majesty's Government are conscious of possible dangers in the future. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ingle-wood is: No; Her Majesty's Government do not agree with that suggestion. In reply to my noble friend the Duke of Atholl I may say that it is intended that the new runway shall be built to 8,400
726
feet. We are not quite sure at the moment whether it will be necessary or desirable to have it quite as long as that, but that is the forecast; and at a later stage in the planning the length will of course be settled definitely.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new runway will make much more effective the new navigational aids for blind landing?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, when the airport is finally improved the new facilities will have the most efficient and up-to-date equipment for blind landing.

SEA RESCUE SERVICES: USE OF DIVERS
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made to hasten the improvement in the efficiency of the Sea Rescue Services by the inclusion of qualified divers as aquatic specialists in helicopters and lifeboats.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am advised that sea rescues in which specialised divers can assist occur only very rarely. However, Her Majesty's Coastguard keep lists of qualified divers on whom they can call when necessary. Because of considerations of bulk and weight, frogmen are not normally carried in military helicopters, but in appropriate cases they can be made available. I understand that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is at present conducting trials with specialised swimmers in lifeboat crews.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while flanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he has seen the report in to-day's papers of the tragedy off the North Foreland, and is he aware that when American helicopters arrived with American-trained divers it was too late for the rescue to be effective? Is he also aware that the number of trained divers in this country is very rapidly increasing, thanks to the training work done by the British Sub-Aqua Club? Will he now have a further

727
look at this matter, with a view to seeing what can be done quickly to improve the splendid work that is already being done in sea rescue by helicopters, life-boats and, indeed, other boats, because the new techniques of using divers can undoubtedly be more effective in saving life at sea in emergencies?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have certainly seen in the papers the reports of the tragic accident that occurred, but I am not able to say that had a helicopter been available more quickly that tragedy would have been averted. We shall need to get more details before we can say that. The general feeling—and the Board of Trade and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have been into this matter—is that only on very rare occasions would a diver with diving equipment mean a saving of life. It is thought that the additional weight and bulk which would be entailed could possibly mean danger and more loss of life.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that reply is not really satisfactory? Of course it is not possible in question and answer to go into long and involved technical details, but I hope to have an opportunity to raise this matter on another occasion.

NIGERIAN DISTRESS AND BRITISH AID
3.27 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what supplies and services this country is now providing in collaboration with the Nigerian Government to alleviate distress resulting from recent internal conflict and to assist Nigeria in its task of economic reconstruction.]
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, last January Her Majesty's Government offered £5 million for post-war relief and rehabilitation in Nigeria. By March 31 of this year about £1·8 million of this had been spent. From the balance we continue to support the field work of
728
voluntary agencies. Orders have been, or will soon be, placed for ambulances, vehicles, mobile telephone exchanges, agricultural implements, school equipment, building materials and other urgent supplies. Also, British goods and services for reconstruction are being provided under our normal aid programme. Their value—about £400,000 in this financial year—is covered by the balance of the £1·55 million capital aid made available in 1969. A further loan of up to £1·85 million was offered earlier this year and is expected to be signed before long.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him, particularly in view of what has recently been seen on television and elsewhere of the considerable distress in the Eastern part of Nigeria, whether in his estimation those reports are fair? Also, may I ask whether agencies such as the Red Cross and British philanthropic agencies are operating quite freely and are helping in that country to the satisfaction of the Nigerian Government?
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, with regard to the "Panorama" programme on July 13, it is the view of the Government that it was not an entirely objective programme. I can tell the House that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been personally concerning himself, and very urgently, with the question of aid to the former Biafra, and he has recent information that it is untrue that there is any widespread starvation in this area. Of course he is keeping the situation under very close review, and members of our High Commission in Lagos visit the area frequently—one was there only last week. I can assure the House that this matter will be looked at again and again.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the reassuring reply of the noble Lord, may I ask him this question? While there is no doubt at all that General Gowon is doing everything he can in this respect, is it not the case that the administration underneath him is not proving adequate to the needs of the Eastern Region? So could some consultation take place, without in any way depriving Nigeria of its self-government, by which the British Government might

729
go further than the noble Lord has indicated in the assistance given?
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, the administration of the East Central State of Nigeria, which is the Ibo heartland, is now in the hands of Ibos, and I am advised that since State Rehabilitation Commissions were set up at the beginning of July consultations between the Ibo rulers of the East Central State and the voluntary organisations take place regularly. The British Government receive reports from these voluntary organisations, and in this way we can keep a pretty close check on how our aid to Nigeria is spent.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said about the inaccuracy of the "Panorama" programme, may I ask him whether it is a fact that those pictures of queues of starving children holding up their basins for food were taken recently?
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I am advised that those pictures were taken in May, 1969, and that although the commentator on the programme mentioned that in passing, the impression was given that there was widespread starvation in Nigeria, and many people may have got that impression.

NORTH PENNINES RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
3.31 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 they will state their intentions about the future of the North Pennines Rural Development Board.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said in another place, we intend to continue the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, which I understand has widespread local support and which we regard as a worthwhile experiment in finding solutions to the problems of the hill areas.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that that Answer is not entirely satisfactory, since it is the sort of Answer one would have expected from a Minister in the outgoing Government? Is he further aware that while the people in the North of England are less skilful and noisy in their opposition than the people of Wales, where the proposal to set up a Rural Development Board has now been quashed, and that whereas there is some support in the North of England for this Board, there is also a great deal of opposition; and will he look at this again?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend is in strong opposition, but certainly it has not been drawn to my attention that there is any widespread opposition. If he would like to give me proof of that, I should be delighted to look at it.

DOCKS STRIKE
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
"Whether they have a statement to make about the docks strike?"
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will answer this Question by making a Statement quite shortly.

PRIVATE BUSINESS STANDING ORDERS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTCWEL): My Lords, as the Greater London Council (Money) Bill has not yet been received from another place, I do not propose to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is as follows. Standing Order No. 147 provides that Private Bills as amended in Committee should be deposited at Government Departments concerned not less than three clear days before they are given a Third Reading. Owing to the Dissolution of

731
Parliament, the prescribed period of three days has to be shortened if a number of Bills are to receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. I hope your Lord-ships will agree that to meet this exceptional contingency it is reasonable to suspend the Standing Order until the Summer Recess. I therefore ask the House to agree to this Motion, which I beg to move.
Moved, That until the House rises for the Summer Recess Standing Order No. 147 (Bill as amended in Committee to be deposited at Public Departments) be suspended.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a (Standing Order No. 147 having been suspended), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in respect of the Barry Corporation Bill and the Brighton Corporation Bill there are procedural reasons why I should not move their Third Readings until after the passing of the Motion, standing in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, to suspend Standing Orders 35 and 41 until the Summer Recess. I propose, therefore, to move these two Third Readings at that stage.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TOR BAY HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a (Standing Order No. 147 having been suspended), with the Amend-
732
ments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the attachment of earnings as a means of enforcing the discharge of monetary obligations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the guardianship and custody of minors. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, until the House rises for the Summer Recess, Standing Orders No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended, and that Government business to have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other business during the same period.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. 41 and 147 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order No. 65, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any tour Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

L. Privy Seal (E. Jellicoe.)

M. Salisbury,

E. Dundee,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Conesford,

L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

L. Airedale,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

734

L. Derwent,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 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; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (OLD PERSONS' AND WIDOWS' PEN- SIONS AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES 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.

SCOTTISH ECONOMY AND "OCEANSPAN" REPORT
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH rose to draw attention to Scottish economic development with special reference to the recent Report, Oceanspan, of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and its importance for the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my first duty, and it is a very pleasurable one, is to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, to this House, where she joins her husband. I do not know whether it is in order to congratulate her on the honour

735
done to her, but if it is I certainly do so. Furthermore, with, I am sure, many others, I am delighted that from the start she should be a Minister on Scottish affairs in this House. My second duty is in a sense less pleasurable, in that it is to express regret that one cannot have one's cake and eat it by having at the same time two Ministers of State—one on each side of the House—because the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has served us very well on Scottish affairs. It has always been a puzzle to me that he was not promoted to Ministerial rank a great deal earlier. All noble Lords will know how well he served us, how often he carried the burden with hardly anybody else on his Benches able to speak on Scottish affairs, how he conducted Bills through the House not only with skill but with charm and a readiness to listen to Amendments which showed that his real interest was that of Scotland. I know that he is going to prove very valuable in Opposition.
I take great comfort and pleasure from the fact that this debate on Scottish affairs takes place so early in the new Government's programme. I hope and trust that this means that they recognise the real importance of Scotland and of Scottish affairs in relation to the country as a whole. If I may say so, they are right to do so, because the record of the Labour Government in Scottish affairs was, I think, one of fair progress. If proof is needed of that, it is to be found in the fact that in the Election the swing to the Conservatives was considerably less in Scotland than in the rest of the country. That shows that on the whole people were relatively satisfied—I will not go further than that—with what was being done for them.
I also feel that all Parties should heed the relative success of the Scottish Nationalists. It shows that if either Party, Labour or Conservative, in Government pays too much attention to what goes on in Whitehall and not enough to the voice of Scotland, we may very well find that the Scottish Nationalists will gain great strength. I, for one, do not want to see them in a position where they can plead the cause of independence too strongly, because I do not believe it is a good thing in itself, although I understand the reasons which
736
dictate their feelings—that they want to be more on their own; that they do not want the whole of Scottish affairs to be directed from the South and from Whitehall. Noble Lords will find in the Report, Oceanspan (which I will come to shortly), that there is another direction, not only to London but from East to West, to which we ought to pay attention.
Before I touch on Oceanspan I think it is worth while to look briefly at the history of the Scottish economy over the last ten years. I think two things stand out. One is that the unemployment figures, relative to the rest of the country, are better than they used to be. To-day the rate is about one-and-a-half times that of the country as a whole, whereas ten years ago the rate was twice as great. I think that that is satisfactory progress—although it is not good enough, it is progress—particularly when one realises that the economy at the present time is stagnant and that during such times the effect on unemployment in Scotland is usually much worse than in the rest of the country. Now this is less true than it used to be; which shows that the new industries which we have got going, electronics and light engineering in place of the heavy industries, have a growth momentum of their own. Despite the nonsense of S.E.T. in the Highlands we are managing to do better than before.
The second point that I should like to make in these broad observations is that the trend of emigration from Scotland is on the decline. I think it is true to say that this year the emigration figure will be about balanced by the figure for natural increase in population. It is fair to hope that if things go on as they are going we shall see an increase, the first for many years, in the population of Scotland; and that we may expect an inflow as opposed to an outflow. Accepting that this is going to happen, I think that one of the things which we need to do is to pay special attention to the housing situation, because if we are to have an increase in the population we must get our housing right. I say "get our housing right" because I think that our housing has been too cheap and that, as a result, local authority rates have had to subsidise housing to the discouragement of industry generally and to the discouragement of the private builder. One wants the private builder to play his part in housing in Scotland.
The other point on housing that I would make is that the local authorities should not go on building these high buildings. I do not believe anybody likes them. All the reports of high buildings that I hear show that they are not proving satisfactory. I do not believe that they are necessary. I recall a conversation with the eminent architect, Sir Leslie Martin, a short time ago, in which he said that the same density can be obtained n an area by a system which is really based on the London square, as opposed to building up high. I ask the Government and the local authorities to follow the teaching of Sir Leslie Martin and try to build at a lower height which would provide the same density but would be much more attractive for those who are going to live there.
Another point which I wanted to touch upon is the location of houses. Access from housing to leisure is a matter of very great importance, and Scotland can do much in that way. We all know about the beautiful scenery, but there are many other advantages which ought to be kept in mind when we are considering new housing. I do not need to detail them all—fishing, golf, hiking, boating, winter sports and many other such things. It is possible so to site new towns or housing estates that access to all of these is easy for those who are going to live in those areas. I am not entirely sure that we are right in concentrating on new towns; I believe that there is much to be said for enlarging some of the older towns which are well placed from every point of view.
In that respect I recall the recent programme which has the shorthand title of "Tayside". I should declare an interest here. The point I am trying to make is that the programme set out in "Tayside" is for the provision of a large number of smaller housing groups and smaller industries in the older towns round that area. I believe that that is the right idea. In saying that, I know that I am going against the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who was inclined to decry the "Tayside" programme, but I do not think that he took sufficiently into account the probability that we are going to see an increasing population, with all that that implies. In other words, we have to be forward-looking in our planning, and that
738
is what your Lordships will find in the Report, Oceanspan.
As you know, my Lords, Oceanspan is the product of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and I should be wrong if before getting down to the Report I did not pay particular tribute to the Scottish Council. It is a body which is unique in the United Kingdom. It has forward-looking ideas and also it acts. It goes abroad, to America, or to Canada, or elsewhere, and persuades industry to come to Scotland. It "brings back the haggis", if I may put it in that way. That must be, and is, of the greatest value. The Council is always forward-looking, and I think it is a compliment to St. Andrew's House and the Scottish Office that they arc apt to listen to the voice of the Council and follow what it says. The voice of the Council runs counter to the voice and the clamour from London and Whitehall, and long may it continue!
I should like to say particularly how grateful we in Scotland are for the work which has been done by the Council. Saying that, brings me also to say how grateful we ought to be for the work done by the editors of Oceanspan, which is a remarkable Report. The editors and all who have helped in its compiling deserve our very real thanks. Oceanspan is a good title for the idea that in Scotland the area from Glasgow to Edinburgh should be a brideghead from the Pacific or the Atlantic through to the seas of Europe and to Europe itself. The need for this bridgehead is brought out clearly in the Report: it is, quite simply, the great growth in the size of ships which may be bringing in oil, or iron ore, or even at times container traffic, to Europe.
To-day ships of 200,000 tons for conveying oil are commonplace and the same is becoming true of vessels carrying iron ore. There are few places in the United Kingdom or Europe which can easily take vessels of 200,000 tons. The North Sea is pretty shallow and the Channel and the Dover Straits become very congested. Perhaps the main cost in running these very big ships is that of insurance. The Report shows that it is as much as 50 per cent. of the total cost. Ships which have to face the hazards of a shallow sea or congested traffic lanes naturally have to bear high insurance rates; but if a deep harbour

739
can be found for them where they can easily unload, the situation is altered and the insurance costs are less. If we, in the United Kingdom, are fortunate enough to have such deep harbours, surely it is for us to exploit them as much as we can.
My Lords, I believe that the Clyde is probably the only area which is easily capable of this exploitation at the present time. Milford Haven is pretty well full up. Places like the Tees or the Humber can take 100,000 tonners only with great difficulty, and it is very expensive to start with because of the dredging involved; and that dredging has to be continued afterwards. In the Clyde none of that is necessary; the facilities are all there. I have been talking about vessels of 200,000 tons, but 500,000 tonners or 1-million tonners are on the drawing board and I think that we shall see them very soon. I recall that in 1938 a company of which I am a director, United Molasses, owned the biggest tanker in the world and that was of 18,000 tons, so your Lordships will see what can happen.
Apart from the need for deep water, what is required is a flat coastline, and again the Clyde can offer it. So clearly we ought to aim at deciding where we are going to put these deep water berths, and develop the area around them. I am not going to pretend that I have any knowledge of where this should be—that is a difficult and important question, and amenity has to be taken into account—but I think it is a Government and a local authority responsibility rather than that of a private company. Your Lordships may recall that the Murphy Oil Company sought to base a refinery in a certain area and for two years or more an inquiry was conducted. For three years the company tried to get a decision on whether the area it chose was the right one. In the end the answer was, "No"; and I suspect that that answer was the right one, because the smell emanating from the refinery might have spread over a population of 300,000. We do not want that. On the other hand, at this moment there are two other applicants for the use of this deep water; namely, the Chevron Oil Company, for a refinery, and the British Steel Corporation, for an iron ore unloading port. I believe that it is
740
of great importance that a decision should be come to, and quickly, as to where these centres should be located, especially in relation to the B.S.C. proposal.
The rest of Europe are not going to wait on these things. If we do not move, they will do something else. I saw in the paper only the other day a report of how France plans to make an artificial island two or three miles out from Le Havre. There we are. If we do not make up our minds, we shall find that it will be too late, and the imaginative idea of a bridgehead able to serve Europe will have been missed.
I attach particular importance to the B.S.C. project, because I think that it would be the beginning of something bigger. In the olden days the great steel works were placed near iron ore or coal. These supplies of raw material dictated their location. It is all different to-day. What matters is deep water, easily available power, and a good surrounding area which can be used for the appropriate purpose. For example, we have only to look at what the Japanese are doing. They are the movers not only in building big ships but also in putting up steel complexes on the coast, and very efficient and cheap they are. I believe that we also have to do this, or lose out in what is, after all, the survival of the fittest by the cheapest methods. So I hope very much that the Government will consider, and consider quickly, the question of the location for this deep-water harbour.
We must not always think in terms of North and South. One of the values of this Report and the imaginative idea of a bridgehead from Glasgow to the Forth, is that after unloading and processing, or not processing, as the case may be, commodities can go by road, rail or what you will, to places like Grangemouth and Leith and then pass on to the Continent, providing just what is wanted for the Continent from the oceans of the world. I am sure that it is right that we must think in these terms. We must not always think of London. I, for one, was glad to read that the Government had decided that Birmingham should remain as a centre rather than give way to London. London is not the only place to be considered.
We have heard to-day questions about Edinburgh Airport, which is an outstanding disgrace; and so is the fact that there is now talk about planning permission, after this argument has been pressed by so many people for so long. And what about Prestwick, the most fog-free airport in the whole of Europe? There it languishes, when the opportunity is great, particularly in conjunction with Oceanspan.
Many other noble Lords are to speak, and we look forward to two maiden speeches. Finally, I should like to press two things on the Government. The first is that, given the increases in population which I confidently expect we are going to see, they will make a special effort and drive in relation to housing, along the lines I have indicated; and the second—and I do not know which is the more important—that they should accept the principle of Oceanspan and decide now where they are going to put the necessary deep-water industrial complex and make the necessary communications between West and East—or East and West: it comes to the same thing. If they do that, I feel sure that the prospect for Scotland for the next 50 years is set fair. If that is so, it would be of benefit not only to the United Kingdom but of advantage to Europe as well. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

NATIONAL DOCKS STRIKE
4.7 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. As the procedure here is a little complicated, perhaps I should explain that I am going to repeat that Statement and then communicate to your Lordships a Statement from Her Majesty the Queen after which I shall repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place.
This is the Statement made by Mr. Carr:
"With permission I wish to make a further Statement about the national docks dispute.
742
"In the resumed discussions between the parties under my chairmanship last Monday, the port employers tabled a revised offer. This included the previous offer to increase guaranteed payments to £4 a day, £20 a week minimum for every registered dock worker. In addition, they proposed that the £2 modernisation supplement should be increased to £3 per week in those ports where it had not already been merged into the time rate or where interim additional payments had not already been made. They reiterated that they could not agree to any increase in the national basic time rate.
"The unions decided to report this offer to a national docks delegate conference on Wednesday, 15th July. They meanwhile asked their members to continue normal working. Most ports were, however, slopped on Tuesday and Wednesday.
"The outcome of the delegate conference was reported to me yesterday afternoon by the union representatives. I was informed by Mr. Jones that a recommendation that the employers' offer should be accepted as a basis for further negotiations had been rejected by 43 votes to 39 and that it had been decided to conduct an official strike 'until the claim for a higher basic rate is achieved'.
"The port employers then informed the union representatives in my presence, that they were prepared to hold further talks only if the strike was withdrawn; and that, for the reasons which had been discussed at length in the talks under my chairmanship last weekend, they could not agree any increase in the existing basic tune rate.
"I subsequently had separate meetings with representatives of the T.U.C. and of the C.B.I.
"From all these discussions it became clear that the unions were not prepared to resume talks on the basis of an increase in the modernisation payment which had been under discussion last weekend. For their part, the employers were not prepared to take part in talks on the existing basic rates, nor while the strike was still on.

743
"In view of the very grave consequences for the nation of the deadlock resulting from the positions taken by the two sides I have decided to appoint immediately a Court of Inquiry. I will announce the terms of reference and membership as soon as possible.
"This will involve a full and independent investigation and assessment to be made of the merits of the unions' claim and of the employers' offer. In view of this, and the very serious effects of the strike for the nation, as well as for the future prosperity of the industry and of the dockers themselves, I would urge the unions to consider suspending their industrial action."
My Lords, that terminates my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating that Statement. I am quite certain that at the beginning of the week we all hoped that we should be able to congratulate both sides in this dispute on a satisfactory outcome, and therefore our regret that this has not been reached is that much the greater. It is easy to point fingers of complaint or criticism. I think at the present moment this would be wrong. On the other hand, I feel that we must recognise that this claim has been in being for some 18 months, and it is one that we had hoped would be settled before now.
I am quite certain that, in the position which the Government face, a Court of Inquiry is right. But if it is to prove acceptable, the question of the chairmanship and membership of the Court will be of great importance. Clearly, the Chairman will need to be a man of sufficient standing and knowledge of the docks industry to command respect from both sides. I hope that the noble Earl, perhaps next week, will be able to give us the names of the Chairman and the members.
The terms of reference are also important. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to consult with, and perhaps obtain the agreement of, the two sides on the terms of reference, because they are of equal importance to the impartiality and wisdom of the Chairman. On the question of speed, we all know that the docks present an intricate and
744
difficult problem, but perhaps the noble Earl can say whether it would be possible for an Interim Report to be produced, if this would meet the wishes of the two sides.
There is just one further thing that I should like to mention. My understanding, from reading the newspapers, is that, apart from some commodities, there are ample stocks in this country. I have heard already that prices are moving up quite sharply in respect of articles which cannot possibly have been affected by this strike. I hope that the Government will regard this not as what one might call one of the forces of the market, but as something quite intolerable. I hope they will take what steps they can take, perhaps by publicity on television and in the Press, to make clear what is to be regarded during this period as a fair price, so that the consumer will know and will be able to judge the price that he may be asked to pay during the next few days—because I hope that it will be only a few days. I think it would be quite intolerable if there should be some who think that they can make a "quick kill" as a consequence of our national emergency.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement, and to endorse the plea which his right honourable friend has made for a return to work. In the circumstances, we accept the need for a Court of Inquiry, but I would express the hope that this does not mean abandoning the efforts to get the two sides talking again. As we understand it, the problem is that there is at present no basis for negotiation; but I hope that the Minister and Mr. Feather will at least try to get the two sides talking in an effort to find a basis for getting down to negotiation.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to express my sincere gratitude to both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for the studious moderation and responsibility of their statements, and also for their welcome, in principle, of the proposal by my right honourable friend of a Court of Inquiry. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would only say that, while my right honourable friend's judgment

745
at the present time is that the best way of making progress is through a Court of Inquiry, he will of course be very willing to listen to any approach which may be made to him.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I would express agreement with him on the importance of the choice of Chairman for the Court of Inquiry, and on its composition; and indeed on the terms of reference. It is certainly my belief that it would be possible for the Court to make an Interim Report if that were judged to be a sensible course of action.
At this stage, I shall purposely confine myself to as few words as possible in this serious situation, but I have taken note of what the noble Lord has said about prices. I would confirm that, as I understand it, the stock position in the country as a whole at the present time is what could be described as generally satisfactory.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, if the worst comes to the worst and troops have to go to work in the docks, presumably their pay will be made up to what the dockers are earning: the surplus will be sent to, I suppose, the Ministry of Defence, and the troops will receive their normal pay. Would he not agree that it would be a great encouragement for them if they could receive the full pay without the payment to the Government?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that I am evading this question, but I should prefer to take any questions on this aspect when I have repeated, as I shall do shortly, the Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I accept that answer.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: STATE OF EMERGENCY
4.18 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to deliver to your Lordships a Message respecting the Declaration of a
746
State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a State of Emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a State of Emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 16th day of July, 1970, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a State of Emergency exists."

STATE OF EMERGENCY
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should now like to repeat, with the permission of your Lordships, a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Faced with a nation-wide stoppage in the docks, the Government must take steps to discharge its responsibility to maintain essential services and to minimise disruption which could have a serious effect on the life of the community. It has therefore thought it right to advise the Proclamation of an Emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended, followed by the making of Regulations under Section 2. Where a situation arises which carries with it a serious threat to the essentials of life to the community, it is the clear duty of the Government of the day to make use of the machinery provided by Parliament for such a contingency. The regulations under Section 2 were made this afternoon, and copies will be available to-morrow. They are on the same lines as those made in 1966 and

747
confer enabling powers on Ministers which they will only use if and when the necessity arises."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement. Perhaps I may inform your Lordships that, following consultations through the usual channels, it has been agreed that we shall consider the gracious Message on Tuesday next, July 21, and that on the same day the House will also be invited to approve a Motion to continue the regulations in force in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, again I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. This is one of the dilemmas that we are faced with in this country. When one passes Emergency Regulations—and I think it is right and proper that there should be correct procedures, and that they are not entered into easily—one cannot help but feeling that a crisis is upon us. Clearly, it would be wrong for us at this present stage to consider that a crisis situation exists. The Government are right to take the powers that are necessary. I am not going to make any comment on what particular powers they intend to take until we see them and have an opportunity to debate them, if necessary, next week. I hope that the noble Earl will be in a position to make a Statement before we consider these Emergency Regulations next week. He may not have much to tell us, but if there is anything the House should be made aware of the situation before it is asked to approve these regulations.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the action which the Government have taken, although, equally, we hope that the use of these powers will be minimal. Could the noble Earl tell us when he will be in a position to announce such steps as may be necessary for supporting, for instance, areas like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are more dependent on the docks than any other part of the country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again, I should like to express my gratitude to both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement. I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about the desirability of pursuing this
748
matter on Tuesday, if we have to do so, against the background of further information. I will do my best to comply with his request in that respect.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the question of the maintenance of essential supplies to the "outlying islands", if I may so term them (and this applies very much in the areas of concern to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir), is very much in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers, and indeed in the minds of the trade unions themselves.

SCOTTISH ECONOMY AND "OCEANSPAN" REPORT
4.23 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my first words will be to express appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the kind and exaggerated words in which he referred to my own work in your Lordships' House. They are, none the less, acceptable for being, in my opinion, over-generous. I should also like to thank him for the equally kind, but certainly not too generous, way in which he praised certain aspects of the success which has attended the work of the previous Government. I am tempted, with so long a list of speakers, to leave certain subjects in the way in which he has spoken of them, because anything that I might say would not necessarily be couched in any stronger terms than he has used.
I, too, should like to join the noble Earl in his congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. I would not wish your Lordships to believe for one moment that I vacated the office of Minister of State of my own free will, but it having so happened that way. and the Office having to pass into the hands of one in another Party, I can think of no one whom I would rather see in the job than the noble Baroness. I never had the opportunity of debating with her in what we describe as "another place"; but I have debated with her in other places, particularly on television. I wish to inform your Lordships that I have frequently disagreed with the noble Baroness, but I have never quarrelled with her, and I do not intend to quarrel with her to-day.

749
My Lords, the Scottish Ministers in the last Administration set themselves certain objectives in the economic field: That there should be the maximum creation of new jobs in Scotland; that wage rates, by comparison with English wage rates, should improve; that housing conditions should be made better; so that if these things were done properly, emigration from Scotland would fall. I am quite certain that to none of these objectives would any Scottish Minister of any Government object. They should not, therefore, be the subject of any political disagreement. Where there may be disagreement is as to the methods adopted to achieve these objectives; and if there is to be praise or criticism, to-day will not be the occasion for either praise or criticisms of the present Government, because time has not permitted either to be possible. When there is to be praise or criticism, it ought to be on the results which the methods bring about.
The noble Earl said certain things about what had happened in some of these directions. The first one to which I would direct your Lordships' attention is the somewhat misplaced view (but understandable at a General Election) that what we ought to look at is the net position on jobs. The previous. Government issued a White Paper, The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970. In that Paper there was an objective to seek to have created approximately 130,000 new jobs in Scotland in five years. It was anticipated that during that time there would be a run-down in the older industries which might mean the loss of some 70,000 or 75,000 of the existing jobs. Unfortunately, because of the usual desire to oversimplify, the criticism was made that there was a net loss of jobs, and an inference drawn that the incentives and regional policies if the last Government were, therefore, not as successful as they might be.
The first point I should like to draw to your Lordships' notice is that the creation of new jobs and the loss of old ones are entirely different matters. It may not be desirable in certain cases to prevent old jobs from disappearing. I doubt whether it could be argued that it was in the interests of Scotland that pits that were completely uneconomic and would never again, in any of the years which remained to them, produce coal at a price
750
which was other than heavily subsidised, were an advantage to Scotland. When the number of jobs lost turned out to be twice as great as was foreseen, this merely brought the necessary correction into an earlier and more concentrated period than otherwise would have been the case. The jobs would have gone in any event. Instead of going over five or six years, the 153,000 jobs have gone in three or four years. The incentive side, the giving of assistance to attract industry, the making of the whole of Scotland—other than Edinburgh and Leith—a development area, has achieved a remarkable degree of success. Because of the obscuring of it by locking at net figures, I do not think it is appreciated even in Scotland itself that the growth of jobs during the period between 1965 and 1970 was at a greater rate than ever known in our history.
I re-read the other day an article in the Scotsman by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Gordon Campbell, in which he referred to the number of jobs created during the period 1960–64, when a job creation of some 40,000 jobs a year resulted in a plus at the end of some 35,000 jobs. The creation of jobs under the last Government's policy resulted in a figure in excess of 40,000 jobs per year—at a quick calculation I think the rate was about 43,000 jobs—but there was a net deficiency because of this accelerated loss. So if the new Government accept that one of their prime responsibilities is to keep on with this business of attracting industry to Scotland, particularly the industries which are going to be important at the end of this century, rather than to try to preserve the industries which were important at the end of the last century, they must be certain that any changes which they make in seeking to attract industry are related to this question of bringing new jobs and are not complicated by any reference to net figures.
If changes are made, and they result in an improvement of the position in Scotland, I, for one, will not quarrel. I am not so much interested in methods as in results; and if other methods bring better results, then, whatever we may think as politicians, as Scots we shall not disagree. What I would urge upon Her Majesty's Government is that if they

751
are making changes they should remember that they are Conservatives and should not change just for the sake of being different; they should not change just because something was done by the previous Government and they want to rush to do something different. One interesting figure I saw the other day referred to the period to mid-1969. I do not have all the details—as the noble Baroness appreciates, my access to information is not now so ready as it once was—but I understand that last year, for the first time for a number of years, there was in fact a reversal of this trend and the new jobs created exceeded the new jobs lost. So we may well be at the end of this pattern of accelerated job loss. I certainly hope so.
The second point which we thought was important was the rate of wages that could be earned by men and women working in Scotland. Everybody knows that wages for a given type of job tend to be higher South of the Border than they are North of the Border. In 1964 the gap between Scottish and English wage rates was 7·3 per cent. It fell progressively through the years and in 1969 the gap was only 2·48 per cent. I certainly hope that the new Government will be successful in continuing this trend to a point where most people in Scotland will earn as high a rate of wages for doing a given job as they would South of the Border. We certainly have left the Government a very much narrower gap to be bridged.
Thirdly, there is the question of housing. I do not necessarily subscribe to the view, which in part is true, that housing in Scotland is the worst in Europe. It is perhaps true that some of the houses we have in Scotland are the worst in Europe, but the general pattern of housing in Scotland does not fall into that category—although a great deal remains to be done. I would remind your Lordships that, whatever the position may have been in the United Kingdom as a whole, the position in Scotland was relatively satisfactory. I say "relatively satisfactory" because I do not think it is possible to achieve the very high target which the Government set for themselves in Scotland of 50,000 houses this year; although I believe that a fourth new record for housing in Scotland
752
is still possible this year. It was in 1967 that we first managed to beat the figures obtained I think during the period at the Scottish Office of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when we topped the 40,000 mark for the first time. In 1968 the figure was higher still; and in 1969 we were just a few houses short of 42,000. I think that in due course the noble Baroness will be able to inform your Lordships that 1970 is an even better year. Certainly from 1972 the noble Baroness will be working on the figures for which her Government must accept full responsibility. Following a change of Government there is an inevitable time lag when blame or praise is apportioned with some doubt.
Policies will not succeed if there is any slipping back in the total number of houses provided. While in Scotland for a very long time the emphasis must remain predominantly on providing houses to let, we certainly wish that every success will attend the effort to increase the number of houses provided for sale. In this field also we had a measure of success. The 1968 and 1969 figures were the highest attained in Scotland, but very far short of what they might have been, and certainly very far short of what they ought to have been. So there is tremendous opportunity for improvement in this field.
It was the success or otherwise that attended these efforts which would determine whether or not migration from Scotland was to continue at a very high level. The Government believed that if migration figures could be brought down, that could rightly be taken as a measure of their success. In the year to June, 1969, for the first time since 1959, the figures were down to a net migration of 25,000. They fell progressively from the peak year of 1965, when they reached the all-time high of 47.000. In the second half of 1969—that is, the first half of the current emigration year—the figures have fallen to about 9,000. So the likelihood is that the figures for the year to June, 1970, will have fallen below 20,000. These are not necessarily satisfactory figures in themselves, but by comparison with those of the past they are going the right way.
I do not believe that we shall ever have a situation in which Scots will not wish to go to other parts of the United

753
Kingdom or to other parts of the world; and I should not wish to stop them from doing so. What I certainly wish to stop, and what I am certain Her Majesty's present Government wish to stop, is that Scots should go away not because they want to but because they feel they have to, to get a job, to get a decent wage or to get a decent house. If the Government can continue to build on the foundations which we have handed over to them, then I think the migration figures will continue to fall.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with a lot of statistics, but I referred to the regional policies, and it is very important that we ought not to abandon the idea that all growth in Scotland cannot be contained in the central belt. If I see any danger in the concept of Oceanspan, it is that there might be a temptation to regard this as a substitute for doing things over Scotland as a whole. I thought that in a way the biggest compliment that was paid to the previous Government's regional policies was when the Conservative Party in Opposition clamoured for the inclusion of Edinburgh as a development area, because Edinburgh was one place which had never suffered in the past, and yet when incentives were brought in for the rest of Scotland it was found that industries were leaving the Edinburgh area when they needed to expand. It was not just as a whim, but when expansion was necessary they found it better to go a dozen miles or so to one of the smaller towns in the Lothians.
I wish to draw to the attention of your Lordships, and in particular to the attention of Scottish Ministers, how difficult it must have been in the years before 1964 for the outlying areas of Scotland to get industry when they had to compete with the selective growth points without any of the incentives which are now available o them, I believe that one set of figures will be sufficient to show how this change has come about. There are three areas in which there are economic planning consultative groups: Tees-side, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred; the Borders in the South-West, and the North-East of Scotland. In order to simplify the figures I will quote them as percentages. In Teesside the amount of industrial building approved in the period 1965–69 was 233 per cent.
754
of the amount approved in the period 1960–64; in the Borders and South-West the amount approved was 170 per cent. of the previous period, and in the North-East the amount approved was 224 per cent. of the earlier period. These figures could not possibly have been accomplished if we had not spread the benefits of development incentives over a much wider area than formerly had been the case.
There is one other aspect in which, because of the importance of infrastructure, the new Government must not relax, and that is in the spending of money on roads. So much of the new development that will take place in the periphery must depend on the importance of roads. All I would say in this connection is that in 1964–65 the total Government expenditure on the construction and improvement of roads in Scotland was £17 million. The Vote provision for the current financial year is £38·9 million—well in excess of double the 1964–65 figures; and even making allowance for the fall in the value of money it reflects a considerable expansion in the mileage of roads being undertaken.
I do not put these figures forward in any sense of complacency, because there was one thing of which I was conscious during my tenure of the Scottish Department, and that was that whether we doubled, trebled, quadrupled or multiplied by ten the amount of money which was being spent on roads in Scotland, there would still be people and areas who would feel that they had genuine grievances that nothing was being done in relation to the roads in their area. But there must be priorities, because there cannot be unlimited amounts of money available for even such vital things as roads. I hope the present Scottish Office will follow the pattern we laid down in seeking to make the best use of our roads programme and furthering the expansion of our industrial opportunities, and I would not exclude from that the helping of tourism in particular parts of the country.
My Lords, I have nearly finished. However, I do not wish to conclude without a reference to Oceanspan. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, invited the Minister of State to endorse this imaginative project. I myself do not go so far as that, because I have a strong feeling that if

755
I were still sitting in the place the noble Baroness now occupies I should not be too willing to do so, not necessarily because I have any doubts about the value of the project—it is undoubtedly an imaginative scheme—but because in its repercussions in other directions we must be certain that in seeking to bring about something new we are not destroying something which exists and is working. I am not saying that this would happen, but it is a possibility. May I give an example?
At the present time there is a large and successful container terminal at Greenock. Goods go in there and then go by the freightliner trains to the South and in due course find their way to the Continent by way of Harwich and Felixstowe. It is well known that this is the biggest single success that has attended the efforts of British Rail in Scotland in seeking to bring the railways into the second half of the 20th century and to earn money instead of losing it, and we must not readily take a leap in the dark which might destroy that successful complex.
I have had only a brief look at Ocean-span. One of the figures which impressed me was that in the cost of transporting goods across the Atlantic—that is, general cargo—it was reckoned that 70 per cent. was the cost of handling at the ports and not of crossing the Atlantic. At the present time no container ship carries more than 2,000 containers, but Ocean-span looks forward—perhaps not necessarily too far forward—to the possibility of ships containing 10,000 containers. If those are to come into Scotland and are to be divided up and transported, whether by canal, by rail or by road, across Scotland, and then perhaps transferred from the 200,000-ton or the 500,000-ton, or the million ton cargo ships to which the noble Earl referred, to the 80,000-ton ship which would then move across to the Continent, there will be two other handlings, and we have to be quite sure in our own minds that we are not substituting a greater cost for a lesser one.
Having said that, I certainly would urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should, compatible with all reasonable precautions, give the fullest and quickest possible consideration to this scheme. We have had not too much of
756
this imaginative thinking in Scotland and it would be wrong for us to adopt any unnecessarily cautious attitude in looking at it. But in my view it would be even more dangerous, simply because we have had so little of it in the past, if we were to say, "Here is a wonderfully imaginative scheme" and were to go for it—if I may in the present majority attendance use the expression—"like a cock at a groser": the translation, for the uninitiated, being "like a cockerel at a gooseberry".
Those are the only views which I would express on Oceanspan, except to say in conclusion that I endorse what the noble Earl has said about the work done for Scotland by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I do not believe there is one man or woman in Scotland who has the slightest knowledge of the work done by this voluntary body and who is filled with other than admiration, not only for the work it has undertaken but for the remarkable degree of success which has attended its efforts.
I am not certain that the noble Baroness will make a record in the maiden speech on which she is about to embark, it being also her first speech as a Minister. I have a feeling that that has already been accomplished. What I am certain about is that no one will have accomplished what she will have done at the end of the day, by making her second speech on the same day as her maiden speech. I wish her well in both of them.
4.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I hope very much that your Lordships will grant me the same measure of indulgence for my maiden speech as I received when I first spoke in this Chamber 23 years ago. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that when during the last war the Chamber of another place was bombed this House offered its Members the shelter of these walls. So it came about that I worked here from 1946, when I was first elected M.P. for South Aberdeen, until 1950, when we returned to another place in the new Chamber rebuilt upon the original site. If in some ways these walls are familiar, I can assure your Lordships that somehow this Chamber is most unfamiliar, and particularly at this Box. I

757
feel that it is hardly fair to ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a maiden speech from the Front Bench, so I wonder whether it would be acceptable if I were to try to be uncontroversial now, and then, if I have leave from your Lordships to speak again, I can be as controversial as your Lordships would no doubt wish.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, very much for his most generous welcome, and also the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity of saying that I have had a wonderful welcome from all your Lordships. I feel very much, like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that, because we are both Scots, although no doubt we may argue about methods, there will be a great many occasions when we might well make common cause.
I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to your Lordships for having found time at so early a stage in this Parliament's life to discuss the pressing problems of our Scottish economy. It is fitting that we should do so associated with the Report, Oceanspan, because it has as its main theme the economy of Central Scotland, and in particular our transport system and its relation to the great estuaries of the Clyde and Forth.
It is discouraging, but not disheartening, that this debate on the Scottish economy should be overhung by a national docks strike. The Government are of course very concerned about the possible effects of the strike on essential supplies to the Scottish Islands, but your Lordships may be assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is keeping himself closely in touch and has done and will do everything necessary to deal with this difficult situation.
It is certainly well that we should take stock of our position, although your Lordships would not expect me, after only three weeks, to lay before you detailed plans for the economy. Indeed, you would be properly disturbed if I attempted to do so. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are more concerned to get our decisions right than to impress by the speed with which we reach them. Your Lordships can be sure that what is said
758
here to-day will be listened to with great care. I listened in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because all of us in Scotland certainly recognise the long hard work that he has done for us over a period of five years. I am very conscious, too, of the time and effort that many of your Lordships on both sides of the House have given to our problems and I can only wish that you will continue to give us your counsel, for I feel that I myself have much to learn.
I should like to pay tribute also, as both noble Lords who have spoken have done, to the Scottish Council in presenting the Report, Oceanspan. It is of very great interest to me. It reminds us that one of the greatest of our assets in Scotland is the deep water of the Clyde. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, it can accommodate even the largest ships now under construction anywhere; it can afford them, without dredging, safe, deep anchorages right into the lee of the shore. We have an asset of such scarcity that it is increasing in value daily.
Oceanspan also forces us to take a hard look at our West—East links across the central belt of Scotland. Whether we enter the Common Market or not, we need modern communications across Scotland, just as we must improve them to our large markets in the South. As far back as 1963, during the last Conservative Government, we published a plan for Central Scotland and laid down a pattern of public investment in roads. ports, airports and other services which recognised these key facts of geography. That plan provided for an expanding programme of investment which has governed the development of Central Scotland ever since. The key elements in this programme are now on the way to completion, although it is certainly true that faster progress might have been made. But we cannot, I suggest, afford to ignore the critical importance of our communications to the South, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, three out of the four cities already have freight-liner terminals and efficient road haulage services.
The importance of the Clyde as a base for ocean container movements is self-evident. As many noble Lords will know, the Clyde Port Authority already have a flourishing container terminal at Greenock, to which the noble Earl, Lord

759
Perth, referred; and, as my right honourable friend announced in another place on Tuesday of this week, he has decided to approve the Authority's proposals to extend the berth and to provide extra handling facilities. Noble Lords may know that, for the last four years I have been a director of the shipping company, Cunard, and part of our operations lie in a consortium known as the Atlantic Container Line, or A.C.L. I may say that to us Greenock, in terms of efficiency—that is, speed of operation and little damage to equipment—is rated highly. The labour relations in Greenock are as good, in our view, as anywhere in the United Kingdom, and a high degree of flexibility enables a good throughput rate to be maintained.
On the other hand, so far as the Ocean-span idea of a land bridge between the two estuaries of Clyde and Forth is concerned, we have some practical reservations. This is really because our first calculations suggest that the costs of trans-shipment, and even more of cutting a new canal, as the Report suggests, would be very heavy. But we do feel that there is a great deal in the idea of the Clyde as a reception area for raw materials, Central Scotland providing the conversion economy, and the Forth the outlets to Europe. To give your Lord-ships one example, if I may, from my own experience in Cunard, if containers were to be discharged at Greenock with an overland move to Grangemouth before proceeding by North Sea ferry, this would incur, at present rates per 40-foot container, a discharge cost of £10 8s. 0d., with a road haulage cost of £27 10s. 0d. The North Sea ferry charge, presently being at 7s. 0d. per sq. foot, would increase the cost to approximately £150 per 40-foot container. For commodities not suited to containerisation there exist many additional problems which require a good deal of technological development before this type of operation could be looked upon as feasible.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to Hunterston. Your Lordships will be familiar with the various schemes that have been put forward for potential development on the Clyde, particularly here. They include a possible iron-ore discharging and trans-shipment terminal, a major oil refinery project, and possibly
760
an entirely new steelworks on the North side of the Hunterston peninsula. These schemes would have a fundamental effect on the Scottish economy for many years to come. The British Steel Corporation explained that a possible ultimate capacity of steel production of about 8 to 10 million tons a year could be achieved from the Scottish steel industry, in comparison with to-day's production of about 3 million tons. I am afraid that I cannot comment further this afternoon, because the Report is not yet ready, but it should be available within a month. It is clear, however, that schemes of this order of magnitude would have very considerable implications in terms of employment, housing and other essential facilities and services, as well as on the amenity and character of the area.
We accept the importance placed by Oceanspan on the need to strike a proper balance between development and amenity. We are determined to welcome development, if only because we realise that, as the old crofter said, "Ye canna live off the view". Nowadays this does not mean destroying either the beauty or the recreational value of an area. I am personally keenly aware that good industrial design can bring a striking asset to new commercial ventures. The most advanced companies who employ distinguished architects and designers can improve an area to an extent which attracts men and women not only to work, but to live. I am glad to inform your Lord-ships that the Scottish Office have already held useful discussions with the Scottish Council on the Oceanspan Report. We shall certainly take part in the further studies which will be given to it by the Council and many other interests, notably of course the Clyde and Forth Port Authorities.
All last week we discussed the state of the United Kingdom economy. To-day, as we debate the Scottish economy, it is set, as always, in the context of the wider whole of which we are a part. So your Lordships will expect me at least to outline the major facts, both good and bad, that will affect our judgments in the months to come.
I always like to take the problems first, and, as we are only too well aware, we have cost inflation and low growth. Over the last five years prices rose by an

761
average of 3·7 per cent. a year. The average growth rate over the same period is just over 2 per cent. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, called the economy "stagnant". Our short and medium term debts total £1,461 million. The pound has been devalued. Unemployment in the United Kingdom is the worst since 1940. Scotland has 3·9 per cent., or 84,000 men and women, out of work. In the Glasgow area alone the unemployment rate for men is 6·7 per cent., which means 19,440 men without a job. I accept a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that much of this is clue to the nature of our second industrial revolution in the run-down of traditional industries and, happily, in some areas higher productivity and also lower emigration. But in the last three years alone there has been a net loss of 52,000 jobs in Scotland, and there are more to come. These are figures which must guide us when we discuss the economy here to-day.
Let us turn to the encouraging facts. It appeared at first that the surplus on the balance of payments was reasonably strong, but now I must temper this by saying that the latest trade figures are disappointing. However, in Scotland there has been an increase in new industry, built over the years on the strong base that was given by such industries as the steel strip mill To give but one example, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be happy with the latest results of his efforts and those of the Ministry of Technology and the Scottish Office in the attraction of Michelin to his home city of Dundee, just as I am indeed glad that they are coming to my own city of Aberdeen. But, of course, the foreign investor is no man's servant: he comes to us because we are ready with land, facilities, and an able working force and a stable society.
We have much to encourage us, my Lords, but set against our problems, both in Scotland and in the United Kingdom, the general scene is very difficult indeed. So how are we to set out about our task? At the root of our philosophy is the deceptively simple belief that people count. For example, it must be made worth while to work and to save. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, in the lifetime of this Parliament we will reduce the burden of
762
taxation, not in order that the Chancellor shall give away certain sums like some benefactor, but to be sure that people keep more of their own earnings. We shall abolish selective employment tax, which has borne so hardly on Scotland, because we believe that these measures will slow down the endless rise in prices and the wage demands that try to keep pace. In order that these things can be done, a searching review of public expenditure is being undertaken, as well as a careful probe into any proposed price increases in the public sector.
At the same time, we are looking at the effectiveness of the various regional incentives. We shall phase out the regional employment premium, taking into account our existing obligations and commitments. I hope that I shall reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when I say that we attach the greatest importance to an effective regional development policy, and intend to retain the present development area and incentive area boundaries unless and until the problems of any particular area are on the way to solution. Naturally we shall have a careful look at the position of Edinburgh.
The fascination of the Scottish Office is the vast range of its responsibilities. If I were to deal with all those that impinge directly on the economy I should greatly weary this House. But there is one which seems to me vital, and which has appeared vital to both the noble Lords who spoke before me; and that is the need for homes: not just because of the scandal of some of our housing, not just because men and women cannot change their jobs without adequate housing, but because to provide for one's family is one of the oldest driving forces in human nature. Therefore we have made a start.
We have told local authorities that if they apply to sell their houses we will approve their application in all but exceptional cases. We are about to meet the Glasgow Corporation to discuss how best we can, together, tackle their problems, which are probably worse than any other. We are sure that many more Scots would like, as the expression goes, "to own their own front door" We believe that the State should build for those who really need such help but can afford to set aside only a small part of their income for shelter. While there must

763
always be a large proportion of homes to let, we believe that all who can afford it should pay more reasonable rents than is the case now, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall give a very great deal of time and thought to this vast and difficult problem.
A modern industrial structure must be backed by strong regional and local government. We are now studying the enormous amount of evidence that has been submitted concerning the Wheatley Report. We shall of course continue consultations, and hope to publish a White Paper by the end of the year which will give our decisions on the main issues. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked me to conduct the negotiations, and I shall certainly try to get the largest possible measure of agreement.
Your Lordships will recall that it was a Conservative Government which first created the post of Minister of State for Scotland, the first holder of the office being the present Foreign Secretary. We felt at the time, and do so still, that the Minister of State, apart from being general deputy to the Secretary of State, should take on certain specific tasks from time to time. We also felt that the Minister of State should be a Member of this House, in order to give greater opportunities to be in Scotland, and I understand that for this reason your Lordships have always been most helpful to my predecessor in trying to secure that Scottish business is not taken every week. In any case, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton who has undertaken to deal with any Scottish matters if I have to be in Scotland. We have designated my honourable friend Mr. Younger as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Development. This was one of the recommendations of the Committee on "Scotland's Government" chaired by my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home, and on which Committee I had the honour to serve.
Your Lordships will have noticed the phrase in the gracious Speech which states:
"At a later stage plans will be laid before you for giving the Scottish people a greater say in their own affairs."
This will of course come after the publication of the White Paper on Local
764
Government Reform, and when the financial structure has been decided. It will be based on my right honourable friend's report on Scotland's Government—naturally taking into account any views that the Crowther Commission may have.
All those who worked upon the Report were convinced that the people of Scotland, of all political Parties or of none, felt that the central Government was remote and out of touch. Alas! this is not new. I well remember Mr. Walter Elliot, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland about thirty years ago, telling me a true story which he felt showed the sturdy independence of the Scots. Apparently, the Department had decided to give away a number of ploughs free to certain crofters to help produce modern cultivation. Soon afterwards, when the Secretary of State was touring the Highlands with a Gaelic interpreter, they came upon one of those ploughs lying in the open and obviously never used. Mr. Elliot asked, "Why does he not use his plough?". After a long discussion between the interpreter and the crofter, the reply came, "The man says he has no inclination to use it". So, my Lords, we must guard against St. Andrew's House itself being out of touch as well as Westminster.
There is much in the great variety of our interest on which I have not spoken up to now, but I shall listen carefully to all your Lordships say and, if I have leave, will reply as best I can. For it is in the nature of our democracy that men and methods should have their alternate chance. None of us can say that we have the answers to problems, some as old as time. But one thing I can pledge to this House to-night, that in the allotted span of our responsibility we will work, we will care, we will do our best.
5.13 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I ask for your indulgence for this my maiden speech. I find myself in a little difficulty, because normally there would have been an intervening speaker, and it would be sheer presumption on my part to seek to congratulate the noble Baroness on having delivered her speech before I have delivered my own. I am also slightly reticent, because this will be my second maiden speech in this House. I delivered

765
my first maiden speech from this very spot nearly 25 years ago, when this place was then another place. So as I return with the noble Baroness this afternoon, I feel that the surroundings are not really unfamiliar.
I was told when I came here that I might find the procedure a little different from another place, so I thought I should guard against getting into any difficulty and should seek to confine what I have to say to what I thought was the subject on the Order Paper, and should concentrate on Oceanspan and shipping and ports, rather than discuss housing, education and other matters. I should also like to express my thanks to Sir William Lithgow and his Committee, who prepared the Report for the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). This is not in any way to detract from the Scottish Council's work. Indeed, I should be the last to do so as the Director of that very distinguished Council was a constituent of mine for 25 years, and though I have left another place he still remains a resident of Leith.
I think we ought to understand that this is not a detailed plan that we are dealing with in Oceanspan. This was a study which was requested, and the Lithgow Committee who went into it made it perfectly clear that this was not a plan, it was not a rigid programme. It was the result of their findings and they thought it was something which was well worth discussing, not only in Scotland because of its Scottish benefit, but also because of the very large contribution it might make to the United Kingdom's economy as a whole. I think its whole purpose was admirably described in an article in The Accountant's Magazine of March this year, which reported on Oceanspan in this way:
"The basic Oceanspan strategy is, therefore, to develop an industrial corridor in Central Scotland, fed by an ocean terminal in the West and supplying Europe through a distribution terminal in the East. An excellent example of this integrated planning of port facilities can be seer in the Randstad in the Netherlands, which considers Amsterdam. Rotterdam. The Hague and Utrecht as an overall unit for development purposes."
That is what they had in mind when they were making this Report. Also, I would say to my noble friend Lord Hughes that they had not overlooked
766
the position of Greenock in this respect, because the following two lines state:
"This linear port development will link the ocean terminal at Hunterston and the Greenock container terminal to the Forth ports".
The last couple of lines quickly bring forth the obvious question, which is this. Hunterston is talked about as an ocean terminal which exists, and what we want to know, and what I am sure the noble Baroness will expect us to ask is: when are we likely to get the decision in this respect? Hunterston is extremely important not only for ocean-going traffic, not only as one end of a corridor between the West and the East, but possibly for the whole future of the steel industry in Scotland Obviously, therefore, Scotland will want to know what is Government thinking on this point, and as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate we shall wait to hear with tremendous interest.
But not only Hunterston is concerned in this respect. What we must consider is the organisation of ports as a whole. Obviously, even in the Clyde and Forth complex, one has to consider what is Government thinking on those areas. Are we thinking of them as two completely separate units, or are we thinking that in the days that lie ahead there will be a new ports authority which will see the unification of these two areas? It is argued that, if we are going to do ever-increasing business overseas, we shall have to unify these ports so that those inquiring about business and business transactions will be dealing with one port and one ports authority, rather than having to make inquiries of two or three which inevitably causes delay. I am certain your Lordships will agree that if we are in fact to make any contribution to restricting price increases in this or any other country, then it is of tremendous importance that our transport costs be kept at the very lowest level possible. So these are things that those inquiring will want to know.
The question of costs, as I have said, raises the future development of the whole of the ports industry overall, and in fact one cannot discuss this without discussing the financial problems which are involved. As we know, at the present time it is every port for itself—and I assure your Lordships that I indulged in this practice when I was the Member

767
for Leith. One thing you did without thinking of all the other ports was to go for a plan which would suit your particular port. Indeed, we had a very long battle with the noble Baroness's Government before we got permission to go ahead with the deep water development in Leith itself. It is true that the decision came very late in the day (we were grateful for it), but it is also true to say that it was the Government of which my noble friend Lord Hughes was a member which had to provide the cash to pay for it. In any case, I know that we take this view, and as a good Parliamentary representative it is one's job to look after one's constituency. On the other hand, if we want to take the broad view and the one which quite possibly is the correct view, we have to consider what is in fact economically best for the industry and for the country as a whole.
The National Ports Council realised their limitation in this respect. They could consider the value of a proposal or of a proposed project only in relation to its value to a particular port; and I have no doubt at all that it was with this in mind that they stated in their Annual Report in 1969:
"…the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context be wholly satisfactory on a long-term basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation. It is all to the good that the setting up of a National Ports Authority will do much to remove the anomalies and unsatisfactory limitations within which the Council have had to operate without executive powers or responsibilities".
Your Lordships will know, of course, that the new Government have decided that the N.P.A. must go. But what they must do, I think, in fairness, is to say what they propose in substitution, because I think noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that the National Ports Council has more knowledge than perhaps any other single section of that industry. The words I have quoted from their Annual Report set out what they say should be done if we are to make a success of our reorganisation.
There is one other thing. If we are to have these tremendous developments, let us face up to the fact that they are going to be very costly—very costly indeed. So it is more essential than ever that the monies which are spent
768
are spent to the greatest advantage of the country, and it will require an overall look at the whole position to see how and where investment can best be made in the interests of the national economy.
My Lords, I did not intend to say much more, but I should like to add one word about manpower within the industry, because the National Ports Council also felt that if this problem was to be tackled, and tackled successfully, it had to be tackled on a national basis. The Report says:
"The Council are not equipped with powers to plan manpower recruitment, selection and development for the industry but they are nevertheless aware that this is one of the most intransigent problem areas … Indeed, with some 25 per cent. of the industry's managers, 30 per cent. of its foremen and supervisors and nearly 30 per cent. of its dock workers over the age of 55 … it is apparent that it will be necessary to establish planned recruitment and management development policies if the industry is to develop a well-balanced labour force in the next quarter-century … The lack of a recognised career structure throughout the docks … is a constant handicap to mutual understanding."
My Lords, these are serious words, but I think they are correct because, if we take these two things together, what the Council were saying was that if we are to have a real future, if we are going to equip the docks of this country to compete with our competitors overseas, then this is the way in which they recommend it ought to be done. They are saying at the same time that if we expect men to go in and take over these jobs, then they have not to be taken over in a piecemeal fashion but that the men ought to be able to plan their careers, as in other walks of life. Surely that is not asking too much in an industry which is so vital to our economy. If the Government reply to-night that they cannot accept these proposals, I hope that your Lord-ships will hear what they propose to put in their place.
5.28 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I have two very pleasant duties to perform—one might describe them as a "double first". First, I have to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, on her maiden speech in this House and on her Ministerial appointment. Her work in another place was recognised, and her great knowledge of affairs in Scotland will be of

769
inestimable value in this House. I congratulate her on her appointment and wish her well in the arduous tasks which confront her. The second of the "firsts" is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—and again I am in the pleasant position of congratulating a fellow Scot. In another place he represented Leith for many years, was interested in the Ministry of Agriculture, and was a spokesman for the other side in another place. I am sure we welcome him here in this House, and we also welcome him as another noble Lord who has knowledge of Scottish affairs who will be able to speak from the Benches on the other side.
My Lords, it was felt that my part in this debate this afternoon might best be played by trying to outline some of the background and some of the realities of the survey which was carried out on behalf of the Scottish Council and now goes under the title of Oceanspan. As the Chairman of the Scottish Council, I must declare an interest and at the same time express thanks for the kind remarks made by noble Lords on both sides of the House this afternoon on the activities and work of the Scottish Council. I also declare an interest in this survey; and I do so happily because it has gone further and to a greater depth, and with, I think, a broader vision than was expected when such an exploratory work was commissioned a relatively short time—some eighteen months—ago.
As to the background, one might take the enormous change in the Scottish economy since the war and perhaps one might describe the scene as a group of people climbing up a steep slope who have reached a platform or plateau from which they can get a better view of the land that lies ahead. To continue the analogy, it seemed that now was an appropriate time to send up a scout or scouts to try to probe the way still further ahead. The scout chosen to undertake this task, instead of confining himself to the short view from the ground, rather took off in a helicopter and took a view much further ahead, trying to explore some of the routes that we might take in Scotland leading further ahead towards the year 2000.
The changing pattern of world trade, and particularly the exploitation of these giant ships in this process, seemed to open up new and great opportunities for
770
Scotland, and indeed for the United Kingdom as a whole, in the wider context of a European and international trading community. It was through a recognition of the rate at which ships, and particularly the enormous tankers, were growing so rapidly in size and presenting a unique opportunity for those areas capable of handling them. It was perhaps more than this. The Clyde could and does obviously meet the requirements of any ship presently in existence; indeed, it could handle ships two or three times the size, including the million-ton tankers now being spoken of and actually on the drawing boards. The Clyde, however, has something else to offer as well. It is linked to the Forth by this narrow waist of land which has a strong industrial tradition.
The remit given to this group, to examine the situation, asked them to take account of the unique geographical situation, with, on the West coast, this deep water, the flat land in between and the industrial belt, all in close proximity to the East Coast ports; and it asked them to try to develop a strategy which could exploit these advantages for a maritime-based industry. The authors of the document, Oceanspan, chose to carry out the task by looking towards the end of the century and to look outwards from Scotland to the sources of supply and raw materials and, in the other direction, to look at Europe as a growing market. This was the scale of thinking necessary if we were to recognise and choose some of the opportunities opening up for us. At the same time, they were conscious that people's aspirations were themselves subject to change and that the choices made had to take account of the overall need to improve the quality of life in Scotland. If I may quote two or three lines from the documents, it says:
"The whole purpose of economic progress is social betterment."
Or, to put this into sharper focus:
"It is no longer acceptable to create financial prosperity among environmental squalor."
My Lords, I believe that in Oceanspan we have a strategy which, if firmly grasped, could bring great benefits to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and at the same time could open up areas of opportunity for creating an environment of which in the future we could all be proud. Your

771
Lordships may have gathered that I am enthusiastic about this concept—and I mention this now because enthusiasm is probably one of the main ingredients that will be needed for its success. Having said that, I would hasten to add that this is not all just a pipe-dream, a concept which, to be translated into reality, would cost vast sums of additional Government expenditure. Much of what is described in this strategy already exists or is programmed to happen. For example, as has been mentioned this afternoon, the container terminal on the Clyde is in existence. There is an inland container depot about 10 miles further inland. These exist. The ports at Grangemouth and Leith do a substantial and growing trade with the Continent. There is a steadily developing road system across Central Scotland linking the main industrial areas with the new towns.
Oceanspan offers a chance to restructure the economy but also points, I think, to the need, first, to restructure the thinking about the complementary role which the different elements can play. At the same time we need a new and positive attitude to planning, so that opportunities can be seized quickly to realise the maximum benefit. In recent years perhaps we have tended to forget that in the past it was our ports on which we depended so much and which helped to make Britain great. It is tragic that we are to-day in this situation of a national strike. But, that apart, I believe that the Oceanspan concept can help us to rediscover some of our maritime advantages—and I mean this in a United Kingdom sense and not only in Scottish terms. In fact, I would go further and claim that the benefits could well extend to the Continent.
The West of Scotland could be a focal point for the import of bulk raw materials from all over the world. This is what the country depends on and it is happening to some extent already. The processing of these could be carried out in or near the central belt and then transported to the other side of the country, to the Forth ports, whence they could be transshipped to the Continent. Some of the bulk materials could be dealt with on the Clyde for trans-shipment by the huge bulk-carrying ships or by smaller ships
772
or barges around the coast of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may dwell for a moment on what has been done to try to develop this strategy further. I have suggested that there is a need to restructure our thinking if we are to grasp the full implications and the opportunities which this strategy opens for us. We shall need enthusiasm, vision and, perhaps most of all, a lot of hard work by many different organisations, by Government and by individuals, if we are going to refine this strategy and take it nearer a plan. There is work in hand already, and this fact may help illustrate that this concept is not all just a pipe-dream.
The group under the chairman whom we asked to take on this task and to formulate steps to try to identify the major industrial opportunities which might be opened up in the years ahead, have undertaken to look not only at the industrial but also at the social and environmental implications. In the exercise of this document it is not intended to look just to Scotland, or indeed to Britain, but to the European concept as a whole. This has begun already. In the last six weeks there have been many visits paid to the Continent, one might say on a staff level, for discussions with port authorities, with Government agencies and with industrial concerns. Without exception, these visits have met with a great degree of co-operation in relation to information furnished or promised, and this was far in excess of the original expectations of the authors of this strategy. From such visits, and the programme which is in train, information on port development plans, markets and transportation links, is being collected in order to select the most likely projects; and at the same time an assessment is being made of the factors affecting the local decisions of the main industries and their methods of handling bulk raw materials.
In conclusion may I say that I have endeavoured to sketch for your Lord-ships something of the background to the concept of Oceanspan; to identify some of the positive factors already in existence, or in the course of being created; and, finally, to outline the work which is already going on to make this concept nearer to a reality. In normal circumstances this would have been a more or

773
less impossible task for a body such as the Scottish Council, with its limited resources, to carry out; but I believe that the circumstances are not normal in that many different bodies on the Continent are already co-operating and collaborating wholeheartedly. They do not see Oceanspan as representing competition, but rather as a means of bringing benefits by increased trade to them as well. At the same time, the Scottish Council has the full support of the port authorities in Scotland and of the many companies and organisations with whom they have been in touch. I should like to finish by reminding your Lordships that the sub-title of the Oceanspan Report is that it is:
"a maritime based development strategy for a European Scotland."
If this strategy can be successfully turned into a reality—and I believe that it can—we may look forward to the year 2000 with a degree of optimism regarding benefits which will spread much wider than just to the boundaries of Scotland.
5.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on his maiden speech. I remember him when he and I were on the Edinburgh Town Council; and he, as I do, may rejoice in to-day's events in Edinburgh. I hope that they will be a very great success—I am sure they will be. The common sense and knowledge with which the noble Lord addressed the House will always be acceptable, and I hope that he will speak to us on many occasions.
My Lords, I should like to add my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, not only on her appointment but also on the manner in which she spoke. If I may say so, it was a first-class speech, delivered with fine diction and a deep understanding of the problems to which she had to speak. We are grateful to her and happy that she has come here as Minister of State. It took us some years to persuade the late Government to make the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a Minister of State, but I think that the noble Lord will recognise that we did try very hard for quite a number of years; and we were grateful to be successful in the end.
774
I hope that this is a tradition which will be followed.
I must warn the noble Baroness that she has a very difficult task. The Scottish Office covers many things and frequently she will be asked questions which will be well outside the purview of the Scottish Office, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will agree. Indeed, it is difficult to discuss the Scottish economy without going quite a long way outside it. Oceanspan deals with much more than simply a Scottish problem. It contains all kinds of other problems. I would add to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the assiduous way in which he attended to Scottish affairs during: the last four years. We did not always agree with him, but we were impressed not only with the trouble he took but also with the ingenuity with which he answered the questions we put to him. We are very much in his debt.
The noble Lord said, and I think it is important, that as a result of what was said by Scottish Peers in this House some things were actually done in the Scottish Office. That is, of course, immensely encouraging, though perhaps it will persuade their Lordships to speak at excessive length. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that he had taken only a brief look at Oceanspan. This was referred to twelve months ago in the discussion which we had at that time. It is, of course, important, because the only channel for action we have is through the representative of the Scottish Office in this House.
As was indicated in the report made by the noble Baroness, with others of her Party, on the constitutional issues, Scottish affairs are not well understood here. I know that this is something about which the Scottish Council has done a great deal but the image which continues to exist is not as good as it should be. It is a sort of mixed-up image of—what shall I say?—grouse moors, unemployment and irrascible trade union leaders. That is the sort of picture which people very frequently draw. Of course there are irrascible trade union leaders, but there are many others in an entirely different category. There are grouse moors which everyone may walk over. They are among the finest scenery in

775
Scotland and they are immensely popular with the tourists. Of course there is unemployment, to which we have referred and to which I shall refer again, but it is worth remembering that something like a revolution has taken place in the last twenty years.
I readily concede to the Labour Government that they have kept the impetus going—there is no doubt about that—and to-day productivity in Scotland is rising more rapidly than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Certainly we have more than our fair share of the American companies, who have settled in Scotland successfully and, I believe, to their great satisfaction. I was glad to hear from both Front Benches a recognition of what the Scottish Council have done. Here I should declare an interest, for I have been associated with it and its predecessors for, I suppose, 35 years. Much of what has been achieved has come about through the leadership, the hard work and the ingenuity of that Council. It has been full of ideas and dedicated to its task. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that, relatively, the Scottish Office has done better in housing than has its English colleagues; but I am disturbed at what might be called the deterioration of housing and its general maintenance. I am sure that in the long run the answer to this is home ownership; the only people who maintain their houses properly are people who own them. In Scotland, where we are lagging behind England, the importance of that is considerable.
I was disturbed when one of the noble Lord's colleagues passed off the problem of unemployment by saying that it was only a regional problem. That was perhaps a regrettable phrase, because it does not matter very much where the unemployment is, the hardship that inures is everywhere the same, and it makes it no lighter if the unemployment is spread in different places. Our population over ten years has remained roughly static. As has been said, there is no reason why migration should not go on—I see no reason why it should not. It will certainly go on. What is disturbing is that it is now recognised—we made this point twelve months ago—that there is something like 50,000 fewer
776
jobs available in Scotland. That is a serious falling away, and the position would be very much worse if migration had not taken place. As the noble Lord said, the standard of revenue income in Scotland is still lower than in England.
My Lords, I want to get away from the principle of looking at Scotland on the basis of the jobs available; I want to go rather deeper than that. I wish to refer to the point which I made last year. I believe that difficulties will continue to exist as long as the centres of decision are outside Scotland. I would make two points which I think are of real importance in trying to get over this difficulty, which has been with us for some time but is becoming cumulatively more difficult. We want a framework in which science-based industries can prosper, so that modern technology can be most easily employed. I wonder whether the five universities in the central belt of Scotland are being adequately used. There are few countries, perhaps, where there are five universities reasonably close to each other so that their facilities may be used in common to make a joint contribution to industry. Yesterday we heard fine words of praise from the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, of the quality of the Scottish universities. He might have been speaking partly as Chancellor of the University of Stirling, but I do not think so. Without disturbing what I will describe as the general breadth of university education, are there not angles of specialised training which could be dovetailed together so that there could be co-operation in these special fields?
Last year I brought up the question of a business school which we were anxious to establish. I am given to understand that it has been spread among two or three universities. I wonder whether that is the right course and whether it would not be better to have, instead of two or three modest schools, one first-class business school at one university. I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is organising this. Is it the Economic Council, the Scottish Planning Board or the Scottish delegate to the University Grants Committee? Is it important that we should have some idea of what is happening.
May I turn to the question of research? Is adequate research being carried on

777
by the universities? We were told yesterday that research is an essential element in any first-class university, but I am told that only something like 1 in 50 of aided research projects have been established in Scotland. Are the Government making enough effort to see that research institutions are established in Scotland? Because I think that this is essential if we are to establish that framework upon which modern industry can play its full part.
Another point is the question of transport. The noble Baroness has stressed the importance of communications, and I entirely agree. Scotland has good communications by air with North America but bad or non-existent air communications with the Continent of Europe and inadequate air communications with the rest of the United Kingdom. Much of this arises from the British Airports Authority's policy of making London the cross-roads of the whole country. There is not one single British direct service from Scotland to the Continent, though there are two or three foreign ones. I am sure that this is wrong, and here a contribution can be made which is essential for the proper development of responsible leadership in Scotland.
It is a compliment to the over-congested character in London that bigger developments should take place outside it, and into this field of communications comes the scheme which my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir so fully and ably described. I was interested to note the cautious ministerial attitude that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, took towards the suggestion. He saw difficulties in it. I wonder whether we are giving sufficient importance to the moment at which this requirement has become essential. The London docks have to be replaced. In any case the London docks would never do what could be done by Oceanspan. I have tried to make two suggestions, which I think are vital, for retaining the authority to decide in Scotland, without which the aid for regional development—payments which amount to subsidy—will go on. We should look forward to the time when subsidies will no longer be necessary because the natural strength of our economy itself will make them unnecessary.
5.55 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add my word of congratulation to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, on her maiden speech in this House and also on her appointment. It has given enormous pleasure to everyone, and I am sure, judging by the admirable speech she made to us to-day, she will be a most excellent Minister of State. May I also say that our noble friend, although sometimes our opponent, Lord Hughes, was also an admirable Minister of State. With him I often used to have arguments but never except on the most friendly terms, and I am grateful to him for his help during the years when he was Scottish Minister in this House.
This is a brilliant Report and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir, the Scottish Council, and in particular their Chairman, Sir William Lithgow, on the way in which it has been written and produced. It is beautifully produced and highly readable, as many reports are not, as those of us who have to read them know. I agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk that what we have to do in Scotland is to raise our sights, to think in terms of a new dimension and new types of work in the industrial area. This Report puts before us—certainly before me and I think I am typical of many people in Scotland—a new vision of what could be done in this new decade. The Report concentrates almost exclusively on the central belt, but although we have in this belt only 5 per cent. of the total land of Scotland, 95 per cert. of the population live there. This concentration of population shows that within the central belt there is an enormous potential for development.
If I speak a little about the land which is not described in this Report, some of the 95 per cent. of the rest of Scotland, I hope I shall not be boring your Lord-ships. I like the concept in the Report of Scotland being closely allied to Europe. Historically, Scotland has always been close to Europe. There was a period in our history, of some 300 years, when we fought the English pretty consistently and were closely linked with France and Europe. I can see no inconsistency in our looking to Europe. If we go, as I hope we shall, into the European

779
Economic Community, then Scotland is a natural place from which much of the trade of the United Kingdom could go into Europe.
I find the descriptions in the Report of these huge tankers and container ships fascinating. For these Scotland can provide admirable accommodation, if we think in terms of the deepwater harbours which are vital if we are going to meet this demand for enormous ships in the present age. I should like to say a word or two about the 95 per cent. of the land area—a small part of it, anyway—which I know well, and in which some of the rest of the population of Scotland live. I was glad to read in the Report, at Chapter 6, paragraph 47, these words:
"The countryside is not just open space for the town dweller to relax in, but the location of the farming industry, and still the country's largest industry. In the United Kingdom approximately 1,000 acres of farmland is lost to development every week."
As if to emphasise something of this, we have to-day received the Second Report of the Countryside Commission. This is an important document, because it is the second year of the life of this Commission, which is concerned with the preservation and development of the countryside in the proper context. I shall read this with great interest. I am sure that one of the things the Oceanspan Report will refer to is the fact that in development they are extremely anxious hat amenities should be studied; that development should not be just haphazard and, as very often it has been in the past, ugly and not concerned with preservation; that is to say, with the beauty of our country, as well as with its development.
Perhaps I may say just a word or two about one of the beautiful areas of Scotland, the Border area where I live. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the importance not only of industrial development, which we are anxious to carry out there, but also to agricultural development. Industrial development in the Borders is now really going ahead, with new factories which have been established in some of the Border towns. such as Hawick, Kelso, Selkirk and Galashiels. These are all important focal points of that area, and we are delighted that in the last year a considerable
780
amount of development has taken place. Although I do not think an increase in population has taken place, the drift away from the Borders has been halted. This is all to the good, and I hope that the Government will encourage these developments.
There is another plan which has been halted at the moment, and that is the development on a major scale at Tweed-bank, near Melrose. It has not yet started, and there are difficulties connected with it. I think we must look at this development very seriously. I am sure it is necessary to have an area where we can bring in a large number of people in order to have some new industries there; and I hope that the Government will consider this in the light of the development which has taken place in other parts of the Borders. I hope that, with all the industrial development, we shall not forget agriculture and the subsidiary industries which it engenders—agricultural engineering, and so forth.
This debate is not an agricultural debate, and I will touch on it only lightly. In the context of developing industry do not let us forget the development of agriculture. There is an enormous and serious shortage of agricultural labour. It is necessary to encourage young people to go into the farming industry, otherwise in ten to fifteen years' time we shall be in a very bad way through not having enough labour. It is not because of a shortage of housing. Many farms in the area which I know well have good houses, in excellent condition, to let or for use by agricultural workers; but there is this serious shortage of agricultural workers. Maybe we do not pay enough wages. We in the Borders pay a great deal more than the ordinary standard rate, but perhaps an even higher wage should be paid. Yet clearly it is not possible to pay higher wages in an industry where the end product is being sold in 1970 at the same price as it was sold in the 'fifties. This is something that the industry cannot take. It is not that we do not want to pay high wages, but simply that the industry is not in a position to do so. In thinking of the future of Scotland we should not forget that we have this large and extremely important agricultural industry, which must be considered as well as all other developments.

781
In the Borders, too, the contribution to the export trade is well known and is one that we encourage. The increased communications which are recommended in Oceanspan would, I am sure, be of help to us. I was distressed, as your Lordships know, when it was decided that the railway which passes through the Border had to be closed. We were promised that we should have compensating transport arrangements which would serve the Borders as well as the railway did. This has not happened. It is all very well for people to talk in terms of buses going backwards and forwards to other centres like Edinburgh or Carlisle, but these are most unsatisfactory. They are so unsatisfactory that they are hardly used because they are too slow and unattractive to travel in, and they take such a long time to get from the central Borders to Edinburgh, Carlisle, Newcastle or wherever it may be.
If development is to take place on a big scale in the central Borders something will have to be done about transport, because the present arrangements are not satisfactory, and new industry will not be attracted to the Borders if the roads are inadequate and the transport for people also is inadequate. I can honestly say that at the present time if you cannot travel in your own motor car you are very much handicapped. Many people have cars, but there are still a number who have not. I believe that a study of transport in the Borders is now vital if we are to see the development that we wish to see. Clearly, there is no intention to reopen the railway, but I think that a better means of transport could be provided than there is at the present time. Earlier in the afternoon we talked in terms of air transport. But air transport is, at best, 60 miles away from most of the Border towns: whether you go from Carlisle, Newcastle or Edinburgh you still have 50 to 60 miles to drive to get to these places.
To sum up my few remarks, I would say that I entirely endorse the plans in Oceanspan. They are imaginative and original, and would be of enormous help to Scotland. I am all for the close link with Europe. I think that our trade in many exports, including our agricultural exports, would increase—because I firmly believe that if we were to export beef and mutton to the Continent we
782
should do it as cheaply, or even more cheaply, than they sell it on the Continent at the present time. These things will be a great help to us. Transport is something that must be looked at seriously, because it is not satisfactory at the present time; and the needs of the agricultural industry, which is as efficient and as good as in any other part of the United Kingdom, or in any other country, must not be forgotten when planning for the future of Scotland.
We should also consider in the developments the beauty of our country-side. We have the Countryside Commission, and that should be supported. Our countryside, too, is one of the attractions for people coming to Scotland, because the scenery in so many parts is so varied and lovely. If we had better transport, and opportunities for inviting people and accommodating them in Scotland, they would appreciate it. I wish the Government the very best of good wishes in their policy upon which they are embarking, and from me they will have all the support that I can give them on the proposals that we are discussing this afternoon.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, not only for what she says, but because she is characteristically holding high the banner of raised sights and broadened vision. As she knows, I always seem to fancy when I listen to her that perhaps I hear overtones very dear to me of her late and valued husband.
Surely we should all begin by thanking Sir William Lithgow and his team. Naturally holes can be picked. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, "Beware of civil servants whom she must protect on the one hand, but whose job is often to pick holes on the other". There will be holes picked in this project, but we have an outline of a vision which is great, spendid and exciting. One wonders whether all of us are quite up to the effort required. How happy I was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, tell us that at any rate the Scottish Council are one jump ahead of the Government down here. They have not just

783
sat upon the Oceanspan report. They have set up what I choose to call—and I hope Whitehall hears this—a Scottish anticipation of the Peston Study long overdue down here, and promised in the South several months ago. They are setting to work—and we should hail this news with delight—to trace the freight desire lines, and other economic factors, which will turn Oceanspan into a reality so far as private enterprise can do so. This is a mark of what can be done by a public body almost wholly inspired by private enterprise, and it is a model which others could study with advantage —not least the inter-departmental study which has been in existence down here for a year or two looking at the parallel problems of MIDAS.
When I heard the noble Earl, Lord Perth, kindly referring to myself I was flattered. But I did have some difficulty believing my ears when he seemed to suggest that the emigration picture from Scotland was anything less than very grave indeed. In the past forty years, the 5 million people of Scotland have twice lost a net total of a quarter of a million—that is 10 per cent. During the four years ended last year, according to figures which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was so kind as to make available in the Hansard of February 3, column 531, the net emigration from Scotland was for the first time for a long while—if not for ever—greater than the natural increase. Although the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not at this moment in the Chamber (he was kind enough to warn me that he had to leave) I should like to join with others in saying how much we all appreciated his attention to Scottish affairs, and his friendliness towards all Scots as well as to others.
My delight that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, put down this subject for debate and secured a day for it is matched only by the pleasurable anticipation of maiden speeches by two persons whom I count as personal and old friends. When one thinks of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, one cannot help thinking of the inscription on the Apple o' Discord: "detur pulchriori"—Let it be given to the fairest. To participate to-day with a maiden speech on Oceanspan reminds one of that line from
784
Plautus: "Mare ditat rosa decorat"— the sea enriches; the rose adorns.
Of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, I cannot help but say that, despite his youthful appearance, there is a certain rugged-ness about him which reminds me of another Hoy, the Old Man of Hoy, a rock in the North. He is a rocky person, almost petrine. He has long been associated with the port of Leith and, indeed, as again it was said: "Mare quidem commune est omnibus"—the sea is surely common to us all. A man interested in the sea is a friend common to us all.
For a decade of urgency the Oceanspan issue is not a mean one.
"Others may use the ocean as their road,
Only the British make it their abode."
In simple terms it suggests that Britain can be an offshore platform for the trade of all Europe, and to tackle this could give Britain a critical cost advantage in export against all the rest of the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk (how rightly I thought), looked ahead to regional policy, leading finally to the abandonment of any need for regional economic subsidies. Any advanced industrial economy hinges upon steel, oil, chemicals and power. These are the things that set the parameters of any successful development policy. As to the British Steel Corporation, if Scotland needs a steel industry (as indeed it does) the steel industry surely needs Scotland. It needs Scotland's deepest water whence at least the steel industry, of Scotland, Cumberland and North Wales, could be supplied. This explains B.S.C.'s recognition of the need for a Clyde ore terminal.
As to the oil industry, out of a United Kingdom consumption of around 83 million tons a year, Scotland uses about 8 million, and Scottish consumption is going up even faster than the English—at about 12 per cent. a year. Little wonder then, that Murco and Chevron have cast their eyes upon the Clyde. This should indeed be welcome not simply because it is good to have a refinery, but also because a refinery generates other things. A deepwater refinery pumps good money into circulation. It gives the prospect of cheaper fuel from waterside power stations and, therefore, cheaper power. A refinery, through the sale of its middle

785
distillates, offers a spin off in petrochemicals. The petrochemicals industry of Western Europe is now expected no later than 1980 to exceed in scale, scope and value the steel industry itself. The Oceanspan idea has what one might call an "illegitimate cousin" down South in the shape of the MIDAS concept—the Maritime Industrial Development Area—which came from the National Ports Council in 1966. The two ideas are similar in that both think of deep water and both think of industry beside it. But whereas Oceanspan thinks of primary industry sited on relatively small amounts of flat land by deep water (and on the Clyde we do not have a great deal) then secondary industry straggling across the country in a kind of open weave lineal pattern, MIDAS pictures primary and secondary industry together, on larger areas of flat land, and perhaps even exporting from the same point.
But these are differences really without a fundamental distinction, though civil servants will make the most of them. What is important is that this is the kind of waterside development that Britain needs not only on the Clyde but in other places as well. Just to take an example: on Teesside, some 5,000 acres of land have been reclaimed at a cost of £1,000 an acre, re-sold to the chemical industry for £5,000 an acre, and the export tonnage of Tees-port in three years has risen from 11 million to 21 million tons. We do not have to look at Rotterdam to see what a MIDA can do; we can look nearer home. This is the kind of development which is needed all over Britain. The narrow neck of land between the Clyde and the Forth gives a special opportunity, and this is where we have to direct our minds to the possible means for bringing it about.
Our planning machinery is just not good enough. Failing advance warning to the local authorities by a farseeing, but I am glad to say out-gone, Government to identify suitable sites and zone them from industry—what do we find? Since none had been zoned in advance there were piecemeal planning applications. Two major industrial propositions, whose attraction to the Clyde was the zestful, energetic, resourceful enterprise of the Lower Clyde Industrial Development Group, we found submitted to the cost and the delay of a public inquiry and,
786
I think one can say in the case of Murco, even almost to the humiliation of being turned down: in the case Chevronof, they face long delay awaiting an answer.
Two things are clear. First, if we do not get these oil companies to the Clyde we shall lose critical economic generators. If we do not make provision, or make it possible for provision to be made, for an ore and coal terminal suited to the ships of to-morrow, then the Scottish steel industry will wither away in a decade or so. The second point is this: the projected developments at Hunterston are utterly irreconcilable with amenity. As I see it, we have some of the most beautiful coast line certainly in Europe, perhaps in the world, down to Ardrossan; and Ardrossan is really the frontier of the amenity consideration.
But there is deep water at Ardrossan. It is true that a pier—and it would need to be a harbour mole in that case and therefore more expensive—would need to go further out to the deep water, perhaps a quarter of a mile or so. It is true that back-up space, whether for oil refineries or for an ore stacking yard, blending and sintering yard, and production plant, would need to be inland and uphill. These things together might well increase the capital cost of a terminal something like 30 per cent. But in place of piecemeal planning applications to put one pier here and one there and a third somewhere else, surely a combined if more expensive terminal suited to the needs of oil companies and the British Steel Corporation together would make a great deal of economic as well as amenity sense.
Common user terminals are known to the oil industry, even indeed—and there is one at Immingham now—joint user refineries. It is in engineering terms, I am assured, technically possible to design a pier which would suit the needs both of oil companies and of the British Steel Corporation. Naturally, none of the three parties concerned is going now to go publicly on record that this is what they would like, because they would not prefer it; it would be for them second best—but it might very well be better for Scotland. What surely matters is that when the Secretary of State eventually receives the many millions of words—and I am told there are 40 volumes of evidence—that have arisen from the

787
Hunterston inquiry, and when he has the rapporteur's report, I beg him most seriously to consider the merits of Ardrossan, which needs industry and which has deep water, where a combined terminal might be the sensible answer.
Implementation of the Oceanspan land-bridge requires modern communications. We are not thinking only of a motorway. One is thinking of the overland barge possibility; of the capsule pipeline; of the conveyor belt, of the merry-go-round train between the two estuaries. It should also mean—and I beg the noble Baroness to ask her Department to look into this matter closely—upgrading the A 72/A 721 road to trunk status from Galashiels to Lanark and the Clyde, so that a West/East road transport system is available from the Clyde down to the developing Borders and indeed to the North-East of England.
The Scottish Development Department hitherto have argued that it would not be useful to carry out a cost benefit analysis of raising these roads to trunk standard, on the ground that it would not be "worth while". To say that a study is not worth while is, in this case, putting the cart before the horse. How do you know the result before you start? Indeed, the Scottish Development Department's reluctance to look at other West/ East links, apart from the Clyde/Forth neck, surely illustrates one of the major difficulties about bringing Oceanspan to life. None of the bodies interested at present is able to combine both the vision and the power. The Clyde Valley Planning Committee has no authority. The Clyde Estuary Development Group omitted Glasgow, and still omits the new town of Irvine. The Clyde Port Authority, though friendly with the Forth Ports Authority, can do no more under present conditions than to seek to liaise with it—and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, about a Scottish Ports Authority was very relevant. To accomplish Oceanspan, and to elicit both State and private investment in the infrastructure needed to realise this concept, we need a planning and entrepreneurial body embracing both Forth and Clyde, something alike in power and scope to a new town which might be a sort of central
788
Scotland Oceanspan development corporation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seemed to treat the Oceanspan Report as if it concerned Central Scotland only. But the mental approach of Oceanspan goes far wider. It is a fresh geo-political viewpoint, and it could be applied to the Great Glen and bring there the prospect of a new axis of Highland employment. Not many weeks ago a director of Norddeutscher Lloyd expressed the view. speaking of the container traffic of the future, that Europe's great container port of to-morrow has not even been identified. The simple box we call a container has thrown up a radical new pattern of distribution, of manufacture and, above all, of stock control. When one thinks of that one realises that second and third generations of container ships possibly carrying as many as 10,000 containers, instead of the 2,000 at present, will need deeper water.
Deep water exists at Fort William with, may I add, a double race tide for disposal of industrial effluent. The Caledonian Canal could be a West/East land-bridge in the Highlands to shorten and speed the passage of 500-ton container barges designed, having passed through the Canal, to traverse the North Sea and float away up the waterways of Europe into the heart of Eurasia. If Wiggins Teape at Corpach find it is cheaper now to send paper to Amsterdam than to London, something of the transport possibilities of the Great Glen deserve to be more closely examined. Although the Annual Report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, paragraph 33, page 94, published the other day shows little awareness of this, at any rate the British Waterways Board is quoted by the Oceanspan Report itself, at paragraph 230, as being very much alert to this possibility. If some kind of container handling facility (no doubt a simple one) were provided at Fort William, containers might be drawn there with loads of materials, either for machining or for assembly, put together there or given added value, before onward transmission, and export firms using containers might well find a new interest in Inverness. Thus might the Great Glen well become a new axis of Highland employment.

789
There are other Highland applications. The Highlands and Islands Development Board may have been slow to spot Oceanspan the day it was published. They were certainly not waiting to pounce on the first 20 copies off the press, as I and some others were, but they have raised a point implicit in Oceanspan in that they have done a careful study of some 14 deep water anchorages on the West and North coasts of Scotland. But at a time when we should be seeking to attract international investment and industry to our deep water anchorages, the Highlands and Islands Development Board appears to be keeping this information to itself. I plead with the Government to use their influence with that Board to publish its information on the Scottish sea lochs, many of which are very deep indeed, and also to see whether the National Ports Council cannot be persuaded to publish the parallel material assembled by the Halcrow Consultants into possible Scottish sites for maritime industrial development areas. These assemblages of information do not contain anything essentially secret in themselves. It is their assembly which is a costly and important business and is of interest to international investors. I can think of one group with great resources that would be interested to have all the information that is to hand.
The combination of the deep water and the latest land bridge technologies allied with indigenous power and its application to local raw materials and skills is surely the very heart of Oceanspan. So I am interested to see that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has shown interest in the quartzite deposits near Loch Eriboll, one of the anchorages that could be of great interest. At the present time Britain spends £8 million importing something like 300,000 tons of silicons and silicates every year—which are smelted from quartzite with cheap power. This is not a time when we should sneeze at saving £8 million worth of pressure on the balance of payments. So here is a case for pressing for power resources to be developed in the Northern Highlands, and particularly near the deep-water anchorages which have yet to be developed
790
There is thus, surely, a case for ensuring that, when the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay (due I believe to come on stream in 1972) is followed eventually by a commercial fast reactor of about 1300 megawatts, that should be sited on the North-West coast close to these anchorages where it would provide an attraction for industrial investment, whose product could be piped to the railhead at 1s. 6d. a ton or less and furnish a south-bound freight for railways subsidised at £1·6 million a year.
The point which has not been made as clearly as it might have been in the Oceanspan Report is that the Scottish Highlands offer the first European deep-water landfall on the great circle Arctic route which has been opened up by the S.S. "Manhattan" to the Alaska North Slope—and may I remind your Lordships that this is no further from Scotland than it is from the United States Eastern Seaboard.
No one could expect that Dounreay could continue to employ the same number of expert scientists now that the first job of proving the fast reactor principle is completed. It has become an establishment of applied technology and the prototype fast reactor goes on stream in 1972 and running it for the first five years will give a certain amount for the Dounreay expertise to "bite on". Surely the availability and the siting up there of the commercial fast reactor some time after 1974 ought to commend itself to the Government, also, nor. only on grounds of safety, as I believe is being argued by the Ministry of Technology's nuclear inspectorate, but on Oceanspan grounds as well. This opens up the further possibility that the present courses in chemistry, metallurgy, physics, mathematics and engineering for degree-level, sandwich and other students carried on at Dounreay could be so extended as to make it a college of advanced further education and thus sustain the kind of economic growth commonly associated with university development. I should like to ask the Government whether consideration is being given to the suggestion that Dounreay might well develop as a focus of higher education not unlike that of a university. Are the Government fully seized of this aspect of the case and will they exert pressure to that end?

791
Before leaving the subject of the Highlands, I should like to make one point in regard to Highland transport. I only regret that it was not brought to my attention early enough to raise it with regard to the Borders. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's predecessor, Mr. Michael Noble, became interested at one stage in the rail/bus dual-mode vehicle as something which would be more flexible and more profitable in the Highlands than the conventional train. Can the Government say—and if not will they find out—anything about this, and will they exert pressure on British Rail to order experimental vehicles of this kind, and which were suggested to them by Mr. Marples, akin to those in use in New South Wales and in the United States of America? Will the Government also refuse to allow further Highland railway closures before such vehicles have been fully tested?
Oceanspan is a theme for a maritime nation which has now become a great marine headland, thanks to the bounty of nature alone. As La Fontaine said:
"We forever take credit for the good and attribute the bad to ill-fortune."
Oceanspan indeed reverses Shakespeare's lines:
"When I have seen the hungry ocean gain
Advantage on the kingdom of the shore."
We shall have ourselves to blame, and only ourselves, my Lords, if we now neglect the chance that these sheltered deeps within our rugged and jagged coast confer upon those willing to see the ocean as the mighty harmonist she is.
History and contemporary experience alike warn us that under-used assets invite a sometimes brutal takeover. Should a wanton, lazy Britain bestride the deep water crossways of great power interest on Europe's Atlantic seaboard, the Eastern question of the last century will grow to be the Western question of this century, and the chroniclers would then re-echo Shelley:
"Sun-girt city, thou hast been
Ocean's child and then his queen
Now has come a darker day
And thou soon must be his prey."
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, in view of the importance of the tourist trade in Scotland, whether he has consulted the monster what he thinks about all this?
6.40 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to add my welcome to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie on her appearance on the Front Bench, and add my congratulations on her maiden speech, and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I wonder whether it is because we Scots people are so used to speaking to each other in a gale, but it seems to me that, added to the excellence of their material, the fact that they were clearly audible was another benefit which accrued from the fact of their being Scots. Talking of audibility, my mind turns to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I will not spare his blushes by adding my thanks to him for what he has done for Scotland in the last few years. I would also mention something which has not been mentioned: his quick wit and the many good laughs that he has given us.
It is not my intention to refer to the long-term basic strategy of the Oceanspan Report. One welcomes such a bold conception. It is clear, if only from the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that much deliberation lies ahead. Complexities like the Common Market have not even been mentioned. So, as others are much better equipped than I am to deal with the long-term strategy of the scheme, I propose to mention only briefly one or two factors in the Scottish economy which lie ready to hand. I propose to leave the strategy to others and speak on minor tactical matters. The problems I propose to touch on are to-day's problems, and one was mentioned by the noble Earl when he spoke of the roads A71 and A72.
My first point concerns East/West and West/East road communications, which of course are an integral part of the Oceanspan plan. Your Lordships will not be surprised that my subject is the bottleneck of city traffic on the free flow of long distance industrial traffic by road. Professor Buchanan, in his monumental report, Traffic in Towns, emphasised the importance of orbital highways, and Edinburgh is a classic example of the need for such. You have only to turn to page 1 of to-day's Glasgow Herald to see what is happening. With Edinburgh

793
thronged with people attending the Commonwealth Games, the industrial traffic superimposed upon the city streets is a matter of grave inconvenience. I do not refer to those there for the Games, but to the industrial traffic, the industry that we are now considering. The traffic situation there is a burden and an expense, and it is a danger, which could have been avoided.
When the Forth Road Bridge took shape, for reasons of false economy the southern bypass road which was an integral part of Abercrombie's original plan was neglected, and huge sums were spent on leading a dual carriageway into the heart of the city. The outline of the bypass is there. The requisite land has been sterilised for the purpose. And yet hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent in Edinburgh on controversial and abortive plans for inner ring roads, based on traffic estimates that I believe to be erroneous. This makes, to my mind, economic nonsense. I choose the word "erroneous" deliberately, because the original census of traffic was in my view misleading. I think it was taken in 1960. So, misleading or not, this traffic census is ten years old and was taken a number of years before the Forth Road Bridge was opened.
As it is, this orbital highway is scheduled for the 1980s, and I beg the Government to look into the matter again and to treat the southern Edinburgh bypass as an urgent necessity. Is it possible that a bypass would save massive expenditure in the centre of Edinburgh? Could not this be a contribution to meet the needs of many widespread areas where better roads are urgently required? As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, the need for roads is insatiable. It all sounds simple, but I understand that it is not easy, in view of the multiplicity of authorities concerned.
Look at the map in the summary of Oceanspan, and in the centre of this black patch over Edinburgh is a jewel which you do not see. Admittedly, it is in the centre of an industrial setting—and I dare say that other noble Lords will refer to the industrial setting of Edinburgh: but this jewel acts as the lodestone for one million visitors a year. I get this figure from to-day's supplement in The Times.
794
Surely, with the City of Edinburgh second only to London as a tourist attraction in the United Kingdom, this is an economic angle, from Scotland's point of view and from Britain's point of view, which is of great importance. But the brilliance of this jewel is being tarnished and its setting is impaired by the pressures of the traffic. I only mention the steady erosion of the beauty of the city in its economic sense. That brings me to Scotland's most important invisible export, which the noble Lord, Lord Strange, has just mentioned—the tourist trade. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood also spoke about it: which brings me to my next point, the railway services in Scotland.
I do not propose to go over again the ground we covered in the debate on my Unstarred Question on April 22, but, thinking over that debate, there are three matters which have crystallised in my mind. The first is that, within their narrow remit of making the railways pay, the railway authority in Scotland, technically speaking, run the railways well. But they fall short of Scotland's social needs, and that is not altogether their fault—though surely more could be done to smarten up a number of station premises, especially minor stations still in use. I think of Hugh Blantyre, for instance. Why must some railway buildings be apparently wastefully destroyed in and about stations which are now unmanned or likely to be deserted? Indeed, some of us are not satisfied with the standard of rolling stock, either passenger or freight, on some routes in Scotland. Is this because: Scotland is fobbed off with England's throw-aways? I got in a passenger coach the other day and found that there were: still maps of Sheffield on the walls.
The second factor that has crystallised in thinking over that debate in April is how do the Railway Board do their sums? It seems to me that this matter requires to be examined at the very highest level. Are the Government satisfied that the calculations of cost, especially of capital charges, are fairly applied when the Board are calculating profitability or otherwise of a railway? Talking of the Scottish Council—and may I add my praise to them for all the assistance they give—I have a letter

795
from their traffic expert, the last paragraph of which says:
"Finally, I am informed by the British Rail Board that the Ministry of Transport has laid down the costing rules. Therefore they "—
that is, the Scottish Railways Board—
"must conform. Maybe with a change of administration a re-examination may take place."
That is what I ask.
Thirdly, my sympathies are with the noble Baroness, as they were with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and with the Secretary of State in their relations, or absence of relations, with the Ministry of Transport. The situation is that the Scottish Office have not the power (I had written that they have not sufficient power, but I do not think that they have the power at all) to insist that the Railways Board in Scotland is able to fulfil Scotland's social and tourist requirements. To go off at a tangent, we had an instance to-day in regard to Turnhouse Airport. The wretched Scottish Office have also to worry with the Board of Trade, not to mention the Edinburgh City Council. I believe that this whole problem must be dealt with at really high power if we are going to get the transport system in Scotland perfectly organised. In regard to that matter, may I refer to concessional fares? In travelling from Carstairs to Glasgow I can purchase a one-day return at a reduced rate; but there are no reduced rates between Car-stairs and Edinburgh. This defeats me.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood mentioned the fact of the buses being empty. Of course they are empty. First of all, they run at unsuitable times. The bus passes my gate and twenty-five years ago it cost me 4d. to go the three miles to Biggar, and 7d. for a return ticket. It is now 1s. 8d. each way. The result is that people use their cars; they just do not travel by bus. Then the bus people say that there is no traffic. Cannot something be done to take some sort of overlord control over the question of fares, particularly of concessionary fares which include return fares?
Reverting to tourism, may I refer to the Dingwall—Kyle line, and then I have done. The Secretary of State will have to decide by next year upon the matter of grant for this line. Will he now insist on a critical analysis of the Railways
796
Board's sums? In the letter from which I have quoted, there appear at the beginning of the second paragraph these words:
"The real question appears to us"—
this is to the Scottish Council—
"to be, what will it cost British Rail over 'x' number of years if they do not include replacement costs in their calculations. The track, the stations, the signalling equipment, etc., all exists and should be regarded as a natural asset of the region. This asset should be exploited until it is used up, unless the cost of exploiting it is too high. The grant payable under the Transport Act 1968 is calculated on the basis of long-term costs and allows for the cost of replacement. The cost on which the grant is based is therefore not relevant to the Kyle case. Obviously, there is no case for not exploiting the existing asset simply because it will not be economical to replace it."
My Lords, is enough enterprise being shown to make this line pay? Why is the observation car at present touring the U.S.A. with the Flying Scotsman? Why has it not been replaced? Why should not there not be two of them? And why is there not another observation car on the Mallaig line, both with a refreshment car attached?
The noble Baroness does not need to be reminded that the massive grants made to bolster some of England's un-remunerative lines—such as, shall we say? the London commuter services or the Scarborough line—make Scotland's requirements appear utterly minuscule. I hope that the new Administration will be able to address themselves to this major problem of getting the Railways Board's sums down to something which is really practicable and apt in regard to the needs of Scotland to-day.
6.56 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Perth for initiating this discussion. I think that never before have I learned so much in so short a time about my native land as I have in this most extraordinary debate to-day. Before I add another, and different, aspect to the debate, may I join with others in my felicitations to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, for her maiden speech and the delightful way she got our debate moving. We look forward to her controversial winding up. The noble Baroness comes from the North-East of Scotland, and her family have some connection

797
there with the Gordon Highlanders. I would therefore remind your Lordships of the saying in those parts, that "the Gordons ha'e the guide of 't"—in other words, the Gordons have the guiding of it. Therefore we should be particularly happy that we have Lady Tweedsmuir as our Minister of State in the guidance of Scotland.
I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for all that he did when in office, particularly for his most patient attention to some of the problems with which we used to confront him and for his kindly consideration of them. But, even more, I admired the skill with which he could turn the flank. One did not realise that he had done it until at least five minutes later. I also welcome to this House an old friend and, I might say, an old adversary, in the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, whom I have known for a long time. I am only sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, is not here, because he is the President of the Boys' Brigade. Not only was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, connected with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on the Edinburgh City Council, but in the old days he also worked with him and with me in the Boys' Brigade. I therefore welcome this latest recruit of the "B.B." to your Lordships' House.
My Lords, for many years there has been a running sore in the East of Scotland by the quite arbitrary exclusion of Edinburgh and Leith from the rest of Scotland in relation to help for the development of industry. This was one of the most unfair decisions of the late Government. It has resulted, as the late Government possibly intended it to result, in an increase in unemployment in that area. For whatever other reason that decision was taken, I suppose the Government at that time did not appreciate the most extraordinary anomalies that they were thereby creating. Leith became the only major port in Scotland not to be backed by a full development area to its landward side. In consequence, there is a growing anxiety about the persistently high rate of unemployment there. Any port denied the opportunity to develop will inevitably waste away.
To me, as a citizen of the County of Midlothian, there is another, even worse, anomaly with equally serious consequences. It is the arbitrary inclusion
798
of parts of Midlothian within this apartheid area. At first sight this act seems quite incomprehensible—and the more incomprehensible when it is disclosed that the green fields of the county and the ancient mills of the Water of Leith just happen to be within the administrative area of the Edinburgh Labour Exchange. My Lords, the mills of the Water of Leith are grinding to a stop. The Water of Leith was once described as the busiest and most productive river in the whole of Europe. With enlightened management, hundreds of persons have enjoyed full employment, and there has been happiness and prosperity in hundreds of homes. I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I make a special plea for the village of Balerno. The enlightened management of the paper mills there have secured full employment during the years of depression—the early 'thirties especially. But a paper mill, like a port, unless it can develop will die. It is a matter of urgency regarding the Galloway's Mill in Balerno. Bureaucratic anomaly lays a dead hand on the valley of the Water of Leith.
This dead hand lies also on the young, emergent Heriot-Watt University, now moving out from the City of Edinburgh to the fresh fields of Midlothian, with room for development—for the development of those technologies without which all industry will die. Essential to a technological university is an adjacent industrial research park, where science-based industries can set up their research laboratories and plant in close association with their relevant science. In addition, there is art important "feed back" to the university scientists, which also helps them to keep their feet on the ground. Now this penniless university of Heriot-Watt is putting out over £100,000 that it has not got in venturing to establish such a research park, and it can recoup only when firms come up and use the sites which it is preparing for them. At the moment there is a positive disincentive for firms to come to the university.
I would ask the Government to treat this as a matter of some urgency. Alternatively, can the University get a development grant for what they are doing, for it is not within the scope of the University Grants Committee? The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked some

799
penetrating questions about the five universities in the central belt. Certainly they have not got all the facilities they need in order to provide all the services, initiative and inspiration for these new science-based industries that have, during the past thirty years, been established and are flourishing in Scotland, and which have indeed been the very salvation of the Scottish economy in these port-war years. I would assure the noble Earl (who unfortunately has had to go, but who will perhaps read it in Hansard to-morrow) that there is a certain collaboration between the universities so that they do not unduly overlap. I think this could be bettered. There are always certain professional jealousies, but I believe that on the whole we try to be complementary to each other in the fields of our endeavours.
There is, however, one point to which the noble Earl referred, and it is the establishment of the Scottish Business School and the decision to scatter it over the three universities of Strathclyde, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is a decision which has utterly astonished most people—to think that an advanced graduate business school can be effectively organised over three disparate universities, even though the mileage between them is not all that great. I submit that the Government should consider restricting this new business school to the one university, the university for which pressure was put on ten years ago when the Manchester Business School was set up. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on those Benches pressing hard for an additional business school to be set up in Scotland, and to be set up at the then emergent Strathclyde University.
My Lords, I put great faith in the noble Baroness. I feel it is not necessary at all for me to labour any of these additional points. I recall how efficiently and how understandingly she discharged her duties when she was last in office in charge of Scottish education.
7.6 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and also the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on their maiden speeches. I particularly
800
welcome the noble Baroness, for her reputation for hard work is well known. I think her speech was all that your Lordships would have expected from her, and I am sure that it holds forth much promise for the future. Several speakers have also mentioned their gratitude for the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should like to echo their words on a slightly more personal note. When I was standing trembling and stuttering on the other side, it was a nod or a smile from the Front Bench here which I found most helpful and reinforcing. In saying that, I must add that the retorts that sometimes came back in his winding-up speeches were not perhaps always as flattering as one had expected from the kind smiles he gave when one was actually speaking.
At this time, when the Government must be trying to sort out much of the mess that has been left for them, it is perhaps hard on the Minister to saddle her with additional problems. However, at a time when the Government are looking for economies, I hope that I may be able to offer some ideas. Furthermore, the expenditure of local authorities is of such public concern and such magnitude that it is only right that it should be fully ventilated. Indeed, local authority expenditure represents more than one-sixth of the total net public expenditure in the country. The method by which the average individual is hit is, of course, by steeply escalating rates. County councils within which there is a burgh are particularly badly hit; and your Lordships will all be aware of the manner in which your rates have risen sharply in recent years. I found it very difficult to get here to-day, but the presentation of our county budget last week shocked me so badly that I felt it essential that I should come to see whether I could help in any way to throw some light on matters.
Local authorities have been saddled—as indeed have all of us—with very heavy interest rates. The private individual has some control over borrowing but the local authorities have very heavy capital borrowings, dating back for periods of up to 60 years, so that they have only very small control over their interest charges. The Inverness County Council is having to pay over £200,000

801
per annum in selective employment tax (I am not sure what the total sum must be throughout the country, but it must be considerable), and even though much of this is recovered, there is all the administration attached to collection for payment, and then the recovery later on. There have been staggering wage rises mostly to meet the galloping inflation. Vehicle licence costs have rocketed. For instance, the cost of the licences for the vehicles of our County Roads Department has risen over the last two years by 125 per cent. Of course, this was largely for lorries, as opposed to cars, but it is a pretty staggering increase.
What did the last Government do? They said, "We are going to try to curb local authority expenditure by restricting the grant payable to them. County councils should curb their growth, and to do this we are going to pay grant on a sum which will permit growth of not more than 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per annum. If expenditure exceeds this, then it must be met from the rates." Any of your Lordships who has tried to deal with local authority finance knows how one is set in a straitjacket, with little room for more than a slight wriggle here and there. Take education, my Lords. The vast proportion of the expenditure is on teachers' salaries. Where can one cut—school equipment, or further education courses? We all know the howl that arises at such a suggestion. What then is left?—maintenance of school buildings. That is invariably the section which is cut. But can this be sound economy?
Then we have had legislation poured upon us. Dare we ignore the instructions involving increased expenditure brought about by extra social work, extra expenditure due to the Water Act and so on? The noble Baroness has forestalled me. I was going to ask what will happen on the reorganisation of local government, and I was pleased to hear that this matter is being considered in some detail. But I still wonder whether the situation will be the same as in the case of the; Water Act, where there has been a multiplication of officials and an increase in expenditure. It seems that we have discussed possible boundaries, but we have not examined the financial implications upon which the economy of the country as a whole is based. Rumour has it that there is a depart-
802
mental committee sitting on this subject, but I wonder whether that is the best method of dealing with the matter.
A circular letter from the Scottish Development Department in March last year stated:
"Since local authorities' estimates allow for a steady increase in loan charges, the estimates for the two years of the grant period imply a reduction in current highway and lighting expenditure of about 5 per cent. below the current year level in 1969–70, and a return to something still slightly below that level in 1970–71. While it is appreciated that to achieve savings of this order local authorities will have to cut back their normal maintenance programme severely in the next two years, it was agreed during discussions on the estimates that there was a higher degree of flexibility in this area of expenditure than in many others, and therefore more possibility of short-term economies."
Thus, eventually, when discussing the budget, the county treasurer turns round and says, "We must now cut unclassified roads expenditure." As chairman of the roads committee of the county council covering the largest land mass of any local authority, I say this with some feeling and leave the wisdom of this policy to the inspiration of your Lordships. I have said so before, and make no apologies for saying again, that roads are the key to Highlands development. Of course that applies to all the counties, but it applies in particular to the Highlands. We cannot afford to 1st up on the maintenance of our existing roads, nor can we afford to continue with the parsimonious expenditure on new roads and improvements. This does not mean that there is no room for economy. I believe that there is vast wastage of public money on road works. St. Andrew's House is told that there is so much available for road improvements, and instead of using this to the best advantage it is divided up into little packets for various types of road, and then little bits are dished out here and there to keep various councils happy, or as happy as possible.
To give an example of this, one can drive in stops and starts up the Fort William/Mallaig so-called trunk road, much of which is single track but is very heavily trafficked. One can then turn off at Inverailort for Glenuig, and proceed along a truly beautiful road—beautiful in all respects. It is scenically beautiful and it has been very well engineered. I travelled for twelve miles along that road the other evening and I saw only two cars

803
the whole time, yet that lovely road turns off from an awful track which is very heavily loaded. I know of one section of trunk road where a little bit has been nibbled off a corner almost annually over the last three years, and now the corner is almost more dangerous than it was in the first place.
All over the country one can see roadworks partly completed because there was insufficient money to complete the work in a current year. What private individual could afford to make such investment, and then leave it unused because of insufficient funds to complete the work? There is a section of the A.9 just South of Dunkeld where this is particularly noticeable. A great deal of money has been spent and yet it is lying unsurfaced and unused. During the last three years over £264,000 has been spent on the A.9 in Inverness-shire, and what is there to show for it?—a few earthworks here and a few yards of footpath there. Then last week we were asked to spend £24,500 on surveying all the bridges between Inverness itself and the Perth county boundary, even though many of those bridges will eventually be bypassed.
I wonder when we are going to get some of our badly needed realignments. Only yesterday I had the misfortune to traverse the Fort William/Mallaig road and found that in the height of the tourist season they are playing around with the road verges on the section of road which is single track. Another matter requiring attention is the manner in which the Post Office lays cable in our roadways, frequently involving substantial extra road expenditure. Apparently the Post Office has a statutory right to undertake this type of work, but I feel that there are grounds here for considerable economies.
In previous debates on Scotland, I have referred to the lack of planning of our future roads. This has been brought even more forcibly to my notice in recent weeks because in a number of cases in Inverness-shire development is being held up because it is not known where our so-called trunk roads are to run and plans of their routes are not available. Housing and other matters are being held up, and this is something which really should be looked at. Let us stop playing about
804
with bite of road here and there, and get on with reconstructing our road system and investing our financial resources to the best advantage.
Mention has been made of the railway, and I should like to ask whether the Perth/Inverness line is in jeopardy. I gather that the signalling has been doubled on the line from Perth to Aberdeen, and the only reason that can be given for doing this is that there will be increased traffic on that line. I wonder where the traffic is going to come from, if it is not to come from the Perth/Inverness line.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, they ought to do their sums again.
LORD BURTON: Finally, I should like to make one point about the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Strange. He referred to the creatures in Loch Ness as "the monster". But the laws of nature dictate that there is more than one, and therefore they should be referred to in the plural.
7.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, first of all I should like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. It is not often that we get both ability and glamour at the same time, and we welcome her very warmly. Also I should like to add many thanks to the late Minister—not late in life, but late in office—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. For a good many years we have had a very pleasant association. He has always been extremely helpful, both in your Lordships' House and outside when I have met him on county council work in various parts of Scotland. That does not mean that we have always entirely agreed with each other, but if we disagreed it was always a friendly battle.
I make no apology for omitting any reference to the project, Oceanspan. That has been dealt with at some length, and will continue to be dealt with by noble Lords better qualified than I am to cover that area of the Scottish economy. I propose to confine myself to a matter of extreme and immediate urgency in the Highlands. Oceanspan deals with an area where there are already too many people. I wish to say something about many thousands of square miles where there are too few and which are losing

805
far too many of their native sons and daughters. I refer to the Western Highlands and the Islands of Scotland.
My Lords, for many decades we have had with us the much-debated question of the absentee landlord, but we are now faced with perhaps the more serious issue of the absentee population. For the last few years, in the event of a croft house ceasing to be needed as the dwelling-house for the croft, perhaps because of an enlargement of the holding, or through some other cause, this house—and, indeed, many crofter township houses—has come on to the open market. Whatever the condition of the building may be, and however desperately a local person may want to purchase the place, he will not be able to do so: within a matter of hours the house will be snapped up by some person from the South, at many times its value, to be turned, alter further considerable expense, into a holiday cottage, which will be occupied by the purchaser for some two months in the year. Apart from these summer months, it will remain locked up and empty.
The seller of the property has every right to sell for the best price that he can get, while it is equally understandable that the purchaser longs for a change from the probably overcrowded and polluted regions from which he may originate. But, my Lords, is this to the benefit of the indigenous population, and is this the way to halt depopulation? The amount of money thus introduced into the region is negligible, and the eventual answer is that the native population will be replaced by strangers who remain in residence for a few summer months. Will the noble Baroness the Minister say whether the potential seriousness of this trend is appreciated, and whether she will consider the possibility of helping financially would-be local purchasers to buy this kind of property; and at the same time consider the possibility of imposing a special rate in certain areas on this type of property, used in this way?
A further blow to the Highland economy is the decline in public use of rural bus services. On the East side of my own county the nationalised concern, Highland Omnibuses, has of course taken over all the formerly privately owned bus services, so that there is presumably
806
an element of cross-subsidisation helping the less economic services. Nevertheless, the services in some outlying places are getting so infrequent that one must wonder whether they are not cutting their own throats. In certain areas which once were adequately served by private contractors there is now no service at all. My Lords, not everybody has a car, and this loss of services causes the maximum inconvenience and hardship in our remote Western areas, where the townships are far apart and, unfortunately, have populations consisting largely of older people.
Here again, Highland Omnibuses have taken over one or two services, though there are still several privately owned operations which carry little passenger traffic and survive by having other sources of income, such as Post Office mail contracts, parcels traffic, milk supply and the like. Recently, on the North side of Loch Torridon the service to an isolated community at Diabaig was withdrawn as being uneconomic and difficult to run. After something of a row, in which I had the honour to take part, it appeared that a composite service might be reintroduced by tie Post Office; but I fear that this is not now to continue.
There are many similar areas, and all this adds up to the fact that financially poor county councils will shortly have to try to subsidise the continuance of vital services under the 1968 Transport Act. This will be a complicated business, as undoubtedly the most satisfactory solution is to have a single service carrying both goods and passengers. In the past, the Post Office have virtually subsidised many such services, but they may not continue this; and if they do stop the results will be disastrous and will do much to speed the already tragic depopulation from the Western Highlands and Islands.
As at least some of your Lordships will realise, ferries can be of major importance, and I would refer to one which has recently been mentioned in the Press and which plies between the Kyle of Lochalsh and Toscaig, on the Applecross peninsula, now threatened with extinction. This ferry does not carry much traffic but is vital to the community it serves when bad weather closes the only route, which rises to 2,054 feet, into the

807
area. On May 7, the B.B.C. gave a Scottish broadcast on this problem. The first speaker, being a local county council member, made an excellent and, to my mind, irrefutable case. We then had a member of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, who said nothing very much except that probably money would eventually be forthcoming. Perhaps the idea is to wait until there is no longer a native population to serve but when, no doubt, newcomers from the South will have taken over, who will be well served by the numerous and costly tourist bodies which have blossomed of late in ever-growing numbers. How one wishes that some of the money spent on these Boards could be used for the desperately needed caravan parks and conveniences in the areas where the tourists congregate! The next to appear on the programme was the chairman of the Scottish Transport Group, to whom everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and the clamour was really a storm in a teacup. Needless to say, he spoke from a great city, and I doubt whether he had ever seen the communities affected in Applecross, let alone during a period when the only road was snowed up.
I wish, my Lords, that some of our urban-orientated controllers could gain some knowledge of what really happens when roads are blocked, and sick or very old people have to be evacuated to the Eastern mainland; and also of the difficulties and considerable danger to which our wonderful district nurses are subjected. Ferries and access roads so desperately needed to keep alive and save Western seaboard communities will cost money, but I submit that the amount will be very small when compared to the £200 million-plus spent and to be spent for the benefit of London Underground users. Again, the costs for this essential work would help to save the existence of people who are giving and have given great service to Scotland, and indeed Britain. It is far more worth while than any suggested road across the last genuine desert in the United Kingdom, the Moor of Rannoch, which would be solely for the benefit of the motorised tourist because there is no resident population for it to serve.
808
My Lords, I am asking my noble friend the Minister to press the Government for greater help to these areas by saving and improving communications and encouraging the introduction of suitable industries.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, both on her excellent maiden speech and on her appointment as Minister of State for Scotland. I hope that her tenure of the Office will be long, happy and prosperous. I want to make only a brief intervention on a subject which I think has not been raised this afternoon. We have heard a great deal about roads and the necessity of roads, with which I entirely agree, but I should like to say a very few words about the schemes we have for new trunk roads and for rerouting old ones, and to put in a plea on behalf of the people whose homes and livelihoods are affected by these operations, which we all agree are necessary. There is a danger that in the matter of trunk roads and in the other cases which have been discussed this afternoon—probably like Oceanspan if it came off—the interests and wishes of local people are brushed aside by the central Administration, and I would ask that more regard should be had for the very serious human problems that can arise, and that local opinion and sentiment should be given its due weight. I do not think that at present this is always done, and though I have found that the authorities are always prepared to listen, all too often that is all they are prepared to do.
I am very concerned at present with a particular case in my own district with which I will not bore your Lordships, but I have found, in dealing with these authorities, that while there is invariable courtesy, there is also a tendency to an undue rigidity of procedure and a confusing complication of procedure. I am thinking particularly of people who may be very good at their jobs—mechanics, farmers or other people—who are assets to the communities in which they live, and who find themselves, through no fault of their own, caught up in complicated negotiations with the powers that be. Whether justifiably or not, many of these good people often conclude that they are up against an inhuman Juggernaut. If

809
only they could be here to see the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir! Anything less like an inhuman Juggernaut would be hard to imagine. I am quite sure that she will bring all her humanity and understanding to these problems when she has to deal with them.
Finally, I would plead that the rules laid down for the construction of roads and other public works should be interpreted, and be seen to be interpreted, with regard to local opinion and needs and that the powers that be should be flexible in their approach. Otherwise, particularly in view of the increasing developments, I think there is a real danger that the advantages of these new roads and other developments will appear to be outweighed by the legacy of bitterness and frustration.
7.31 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, at this stage in what has been a very interesting debate my intervention will be, I hope, commendably brief, but may I at the outset join with those noble Lords who have already spoken in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, on her appointment as Minister of State—an office of great importance to our country and one which I hope still carries particular responsibilities for the welfare and economic development of the Highlands and Islands. I wish her, as other noble Lords have done, every success in that and in all other directions which come within the province of her office. I also wish to pay my tribute to the Scottish Council to which we owe so much, and to Sir William Lithgow and those who have worked with him in compiling this factual and farsighted Report, Oceanspan, which may well prove to be a turning point which will put Scotland once again on the road where high endeavour will lead to the greater prosperity and happiness of her people. I am happy to note that in his concern for the future of this country and the well-being of her people, Sir William is following in the footsteps of his father, Sir James Lithgow, and his uncle, the late Mr. Henry Lithgow, who did so much to help Clydeside and the West of Scotland through the dark days of the early 1930s.
Scotland has been favoured by nature, in that there are many places around our coasts where deep water is to be found
810
in sheltered situations which enable ships of the greatest size to berth close inshore. Indeed, at places such as Fiunart on Loch Long they can berth within a stone's throw of the shore. Many such places are also places of great natural beauty, and I am glad that the Report stresses the importance of ensuring that development in the name of economic advancement be reconciled with the aspirations of our people who look to economic advancement as enabling them to enjoy a fuller and happier life. The Report stresses the advantages of the Hunterston Peninsula as the key terminal on the Clyde. I happen to know that part of the coast very well. To me it is a place of beauty which the power station, built with great care for the amenities by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, has not spoiled. I had hoped, therefore, that a suitable site might be found in the vicinity of Ardrossan which, with its hinterland, is already industrialised. I hoped for that, although it would be much more open to the prevailing winds and not nearly so sheltered as Hunterston, and the deep water is considerably further off-shore.
Those who framed the Report must obviously have considered all the aspects of the matter and they have settled for Hunterston. My plea is: do let us avoid development along the coast; let us say that industry to be served by the terminal be situated inland except where there are insuperable obstacles to that course; and do not let us countenance industrial development all around the Clyde Estuary, such as the siting of an oil refinery adjacent to Toward Point. In that connection I was sorry that for one reason or another it has been decided to build a power station at Inverkip, presumably as a convenient point for supplies of oil to be delivered by tanker; but when oil is pumped all the way from Fionart and Loch Long to Grangemouth or further, surely there would be little difficulty in supplying a power station situated in a less conspicuous, less desirable and less visited place than Inverkip.
While not forgetting the vital need to provide suitable industries for that part of Scotland which lies North and West of a line joining roughly Dundee and Dumbarton, by following energetically the course set for our consideration in this most admirable Report—so far as the

811
Clyde, at any rate, is concerned—while avoiding the hideous destruction of amenity which we have inherited from the first Industrial Revolution great benefits can accrue to our country and people. Let us then hope that this project may be speedily and thoroughly examined and that decisions followed by action may not lag.
Before I conclude I wish to echo all that has been said in regard to the great service to Scotland and to this House rendered by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I would also wish to say a word of welcome to an old friend, Lord Hoy. I wish to welcome him to this House and to congratulate him most sincerely on his maiden speech.
7.37 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to speak again? I should like first to join with all those who have spoken before me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on a speech of great excellence and, if I may say so, a speech such as we became accustomed to in another place. The noble Lord never spoke unless he had something definite and concise to say and as I hope that we shall take part together in Scottish debates in the future, it is very good indeed to be able to welcome him here.
This has been a very fascinating and wide ranging debate. I tried to equip myself for it by reading an economic debate on Scottish affairs which took place about a year ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is my mentor in these matters, I noticed that he counted the number of subjects which had been dealt with on that day and totalled twenty-one. Well, when I got to thirty-eight, I gave up! I gave up in particular because at that point the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was speaking, and the range of his speech alone was something which I think I will have to study at leisure. I think also that it was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said that it was quite likely that the Minister of State might be asked all kinds of questions which did not affect her Department. Perhaps I may put the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in that category: how do the railways do their
812
sums? I beg to say that I do not know in detail the answer to that question. But as the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, and many other noble Lords have said, Oceanspan has great merit; and if I may say so I loved the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. I think that a little enthusiasm in Scotland is what we really need.
My Lords, I should like to say that we accept in principle the main ideas behind Oceanspan but with certain reservations which I made clear at the start. It will obviously take time in the economic climate of to-day to realise all the hopes contained in that Report, and just because technological change is so rapid there are bound to be changes in the application of the Report. But I think we can all agree that the need for better communications and adequate housing and the development of our natural resources must be a charge on any Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed concerned about the possible destruction of amenity, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that if the Hunterston Report found in favour of the proposed developments the preservation of amenity would be impossible; the beauty of Scotland would be destroyed. As I said in my earlier speech, I do not believe that to be inevitable nowadays, given first-class designers, and, particularly, a clear policy of pollution control. For the last two years, among other activities, I have been chairman of a pollution control commission under the British National Export Council, and I can assure all noble Lords who have expressed fears about amenities that I am very conscious of this. I know there is much to do, but I do not think that in Scotland we can afford always to refuse development, particularly if it is of a major basic character around which other smaller industries may very easily grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked me in particular what would happen now that the national ports authority, as envisaged under the Ports Bill, would no longer be created, since, of course, that Bill is no longer before us. I feel that the best way to reply to him is to say that we have always felt that the question of the ports is really a United Kingdom responsibility and should come under the Minister of

813
Transport. There is very close consultation with the Secretary of State. Perhaps the clearest indication that consultation does work is the announcement of the extension of the Greenock terminal, something which was begun—as of course it must have been—by the previous Government. Noble Lords have asked—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, also asked about this—whether it would not be wise to have an amalgamation of the Forth and Clyde authorities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is willing to listen to any arguments on these lines, but at the moment both he and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State welcome the fact that both authorities are working together very well and are having closer consultations, probably, than ever before. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, asked me about MIDAS. He will know of course that Professor Peston of Queen Mary College, London, is going to examine this question over the next year or two and will look at the costs and benefits of a project such as that in this country, and notably of course in Scotland.
It is probably true that a clear strategy for west central Scotland is overdue, and we shall consult the local planning authorities concerned. The previous Administration had reached an agreement with the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee whereby that Committee, which was recently reorganised, would act as the focus of this work; and central and local Government were to share equally the cost of preparing a plan. The Government will carry out these arrangements as quickly as possible by setting up, with the Clyde Valley Planning Committee, a steering committee to control the preparation of the plan; and they will appoint to the steering committee leading figures in the economic and industrial life in west central Scotland.
While we are on the problems of planning and transport may I deal with the question of the Edinburgh southern bypass, a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. The responsibility for taking and carrying out decisions on roads in and around Edinburgh clearly rests in the first instance with the City Corporation, and I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that it is only right that
814
the Secretary of State should await the outcome of their studies, which are taking place now, and their decision, before reaching any further conclusions about the by-pass. My noble friend, Lord Balerno, questioned the wisdom of excluding certain parts of Midlothian from the development area because, as he rightly said, they are included in the boundaries of the Edinburgh employment exchange area. The noble Lord will appreciate that lines, because they have to be drawn somewhere, were drawn by the previous Labour Government—and supported by ourselves when last in power—in what are the most practical and convenient means of defining areas which should receive assistance; and that, of course, is the employment area exchanges. But as I said earlier, we are examining the position of Edinburgh in the whole question of regional development areas.
Many noble Lords have spoken on our road transport system. I think it true to say that much of the basic motorway and trunk road network linking the main centres of population and industry in Central Scotland, and the English motorway system, is either open to traffic or nearing completion. The M74-A.74 Glasgow—Carlisle route to the South is open as far as Gretna. At the end of this year, with the opening of the final motorway section from Newbridge to Dechmont, the dual carriageway through the trunk route linking Edinburgh with Glasgow also will be fully operational. Taken with the major schemes which are also being carried out by the Glasgow Corporation and the continuation of the M.8.-A.8 Edinburgh to Glasgow motorway route to Port Glasgow and Greenock, the provision of a major through artery from East to West is, therefore, well under way.
Perhaps I should also remind your Lordships that the Minister of Transport affirmed in another place yesterday the promise made in the Conservative Election Manifesto that the quantity licensing provisions of the Transport Act 1968 would be repealed as soon as an opportunity occurred. Meanwhile, Sections 71 to 80 of the Act will remain inoperative. These sections, as your Lordships will know, provide that vehicles of more than 16 tons gross weight must be specially licensed to operate journeys of more

815
than 100 miles, and this of course removes the choice of transport from the consignor.
As my right honourable friend stated last week, we want very much to ensure that we strengthen the Borders as a whole. Here I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for her very interesting and, if I may say so, human description of the problem of the Borders. We have already started a review of current plans to see how we can, perhaps, improve them. She referred in particular to Tweedbank. I think she will know that the appeal was refused on technical grounds. She may rest assured that once discussions with the local authority are completed a statement will be made as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked why the proposed new business school in Scotland is to be split between the universities. The noble Earl sent me a note to say that he could not be here to-night owing to another engagement. The short answer is that the business school is not going to be split. The object of the University Grants Committee's discussions with the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Srathclyde has been to explore the possibility of combining the best elements and experience, and the separate disciplines, in the separate universities in order to provide a school and a programme of advanced business studies of the highest possible standard; and the universities are working together to this end.
My noble friend Lord Balerno asked about the Heriot-Watt research park at Riccarton. I am unable to give the noble Lord the answer which I am sure he would like to hear but, as he is aware, the Departments concerned have looked at the University proposals in considerable detail. So far as I am aware, there are no powers under which Government Departments could give direct assistance to the University for a development of this kind at Riccarton, but I hope that the absence of Government financial support will not make my noble friend feel that we are indifferent to the merits of the proposal.
My noble friend Lord Burton spoke about local authority finance. He was perfectly right in saying that there is a Departmental Committee examining the whole question of local government
816
finance in relation to local government reorganisation. We have not yet seen the result of these studies. Therefore I am not at this moment able to give him any clear statement of policy on this vast subject, which will have to come together with reorganisation on Wheatley lines as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton said that he hoped when we were considering any matters in the Scottish Office, we would try to bring as much true consultation and consideration as possible into any decision which was made. I can certainly give him that promise. We really do want to try to have a two-way system of ideas. We are open to suggestions from anyone. We may not always accept them, but we will certainly study them. We hope to make a reality of what I could call an open system of Government.
My noble friend Lord Cromartie spoke about the problems of ferries and particularly mentioned the Kyle-Toscaig ferry. The Scottish Transport Group have given notice under the procedure in Section 156 of the Transport Act 1968 to discontinue this service, as a means, I understand, of securing a full-scale review of it by the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Since this procedure is now started, I cannot comment on the matter in detail but I can say that in terms of the undertaking with MacBraynes, the service cannot be discontinued without the Secretary of State's approval, and that approval will not be given if any serious hardship will result to the people living in the Applecross peninsula.
Many noble Lords spoke of the problem of housing. It is clear that this is going to be one of the most difficult problems before the Government. At this moment the construction industry, which is the largest employer of men in Scotland, has an unemployment total of some 16,800 of whom over 5,000 are craftsmen. This recession is due to a reduction in demand in general construction because of the economic climate, including the high interest rates. The latest figures on housing are: houses completed, all sources, both private and local authority, in 1969, 42,629. We have under construction now 39,132 and the authorised starts are 20,621. So the figures speak for themselves. Private housing has lagged, but

817
we are hoping that with some easement in interest rates and more money becoming available from building societies, it will go ahead. We also intend to place a great deal of emphasis on home ownership for its own sake. The contribution which housing has made to the expansion of the economy is very great. That is why we will pay a great deal of attention to the replacement of slums and of sub-standard housing when we are speaking of industrial change.
One or two noble Lords spoke about the Common Market, and I think that this may be the moment to refer to the fact that in some quarters fears have been expressed that our regional measures will not be so effective if we join the Common Market. My Lords, we are confident that not only will they lit well into the European pattern but that our long experience in this field will be a real asset to a community which is increasingly conscious of the importance of effective regional development policy to the success of their own plans. for economic and monetary union. A factor greatly in Scotland's favour is that we should expect the success we have had throughout the years in attracting American and European investment to gain further ground: because we shall be able to offer to the Americans, for example, a base which will provide the advantages of operating within the Common Market without their finding the very considerable disadvantages associated with differences of language, customs and education in the labour force and the general environment.
I have spoken on some of the important matters raised in this debate. There have been a great number, as I said earlier, and I will certainly write to every noble Lord in detail on the specific suggestions they have raised in their speeches. I should like to thank all speakers for the welcome they have been good enough to give me at this Box, and I hope that, with experience, I shall learn to undertake the work better. I would only say that it has been a great privilege to take part in this debate and to have had the benefit of your Lordships' advice. There is a great deal to do, but I hope that at the end of this Parliament it can be said of us all that we had the courage and the industry to take
818
advantage of our opportunities and that we made the most of our time.
7.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this has been a very good debate, notable for two really remarkable maiden speeches and, if I am in order to add, a brilliant winding-up. For us old Scottish hands in this House, it is a great comfort to have two recruits such as we have here now, with the knowledge and the skill which they are going to bring to our debates.
The debate has ranged somewhat wider, I must confess, than I expected, from the Highlands to the Borders, not forgetting the monsters, but it has concentrated mainly, as I hoped it would, on Oceanspan. It has been a great comfort to me to find that almost all noble Lords have welcomed this Report as representing something which is of great importance for the future of Scotland. I know that all noble Lords share with me the satisfaction of hearing from the noble Baroness the position of the Government in relation to it—namely, that they accept it in principle. I do not think that at this stage one could ask more. I feel encouraged also by Lord Clydesmuir's Report. The Scottish Council have not waited for advice or for reactions but have gone ahead: they are already consulting potential customers (if that is the right expression) on the Continent, and have had encouraging responses. This is important. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would take back to the Scottish Council an account of all the tributes that have been paid to the Council by noble Lords taking part in the debate this afternoon.
I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I will not touch on the various points raised by noble Lords, because I know that the noble Baroness will make sure that the attention of the Scottish Office is drawn to what has been said; and that is the best thing that could happen, I want to finish by repeating my gratitude to the Government for hiving a debate on Scottish affairs so early in this Parliament, and I hope and believe that this augurs well for the future. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  REPATRIATION OF STRANDED BRITISH CITIZENS
  REPATRIATION OF STRANDED BRITISH CITIZENS
  BRITISH SUBJECTS AND IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  BRITISH SUBJECTS AND IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  DRUGS OFFENCES AND CONVICTIONS
  DRUGS OFFENCES AND CONVICTIONS