Lords Sitting of 8 February 1977

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

LONDON AIRPORTS: FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH
The Earl of KINNOULL: 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 plans are being made for London airports to meet the future growth of air traffic.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the British Airports Authority are currently consulting local authorities about plans for a new passenger terminal at Heathrow. For the longer term, consultations on the Government document Airport Strategy for Great Britain are nearing completion. A Statement on future airports policy will then be made.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply. Can he say when it is estimated that, on the present forecasts, the maximum capacity of Heathrow will be reached? Secondly, assuming that the third London airport problem has not disappeared but has receded, how soon do the Government now estimate that a third London airport will be required?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, on the first point raised by the noble Earl, I cannot give an exact estimate, but it is recognised that a fourth terminal is a requirement for the near future. The question of a third London airport is of course part of the general consideration arising out of the document, and although I would not say that a new airport is entirely ruled out, it is certainly not the kind of undertaking that we can be considering in present circumstances.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord suggest to those designing the building that it should be in a most flexible manner, because no building has yet been put up in almost any airport of the world that has not had to be changed within a few years of completion? The operational requirement changes all the time, and perhaps this could be borne in mind by those who are designing the fourth building.
Lord ORAM: I am sure that it will be, my Lords. The number of organisations and individuals who have been invited to submit comments is very large indeed, and it would surprise me if they do not include a number who would have the noble Lord's point very much in mind.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when the Government are considering this question will they be advised to keep their hands off Stansted, because other wise there will be a terrible row, in which I shall heartily join?
Lord ORAM: I am sure that the Government will take note of that warning, my Lords. Of course the consultations are giving full opportunity for all local interests to be represented.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord has said about terminal capacity, but can he give an indication of when the runway capacity of the main London airports, particularly Gatwick, will be absorbed?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I recognise that that is an important question. I am not briefed to answer it. I would hope that the noble Lord might put down a Question, or perhaps we could engage in correspondence on the matter.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as well as the capacity of the airport and the runways, there is also the consideration of the additional employment required in order to operate the airports, and that the rapid growth of development, both at Heathrow and at Gatwick, and possibly at Stansted in the future, is causing very serious problems on the ground for the planning authorities? Will the noble Lord and his right honourable friend take this matter into account

1029
very carefully in making their plans for the future?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, those are most important considerations which will be raised, and I will specifically call the observations of the noble Lord to the attention of those concerned.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the rail link to Heathrow will be opened?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords. That is actively proceeding, but I should not like to put a date on its completion.

TUC AND OPPOSITION LEADERSHIP MEETING
2.40 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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, as the terms of the Social Contract were agreed between the Government and the TUC, they have been made aware of any likely amendment arising from the recent meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and some of her colleagues with trade union leaders.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, meetings between TUC leaders and members of the Opposition are a matter for the parties concerned, which I would not have thought had any implications for the Social Contract.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer falls far short of his usual intelligent replies? Is he aware that this was a gathering of supreme importance, of remarkable significance? When there is so much talk of and demands for open government, is it not about time that we were informed by the Opposition about the secrets which are in their possession? What took place at this gathering? Were the Government never informed? Have they never inquired? Did my noble friend's right honourable friend the Prime Minister not
1030
seek to meet the Leader of the Opposition to find out what happened?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords; so far as I understand it, this is, as I have said, a matter for the parties concerned, upon which the Government would not need or would not wish to comment. Mr. Len Murray has indicated to some extent what took place. So far as I know, Her Majesty's Opposition have kept a stony silence. Mr. Len Murray indicated that the trade union side said that they saw no need for an early Election and that they would not vote for Mrs. Thatcher if one took place. If it was that kind of meeting, then I think that it was possibly a useful one.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, will the noble Lord place a copy of the Social Contract in the Library for the convenience of noble Lords?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have a copy here. It is a published document, and I am sure that there is a copy in the Library. I refer to the publication The Next Three Years and the Problem of Priorities, which was issued last year.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does not my noble friend's reference to "stony silence" denote something in the nature of a conspiracy between Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Jack Jones and company, and ought we not to be fully informed about these matters? How can my noble friend indulge in complacency about a conspiracy against my noble friend's Government?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, by "stony silence" I did not mean that there was anything in the way of a conspiracy. Mr. Len Murray, whom I have already quoted, indicated that there had been no weakening of the Social Contract as a result of those talks; and, though I am not privy to these consultations, I have seen no signs at all of anything approaching a conspiracy between the TUC leaders and Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in the interests of accumulating greater knowledge about the original negotiations leading to that Social Contract, would it not be advisable,

1031
before passing any final judgment upon it, to await the publication of an authoritative account of those events by Mr. Joe Haines, since this might also help to increase the historical accuracy of those events?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, more important than the historical origins of this is the way in which the Social Contract has been working. Despite the economic difficulties that this country is in, they would have been far worse if there had not been this agreement called the Social Contract.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a copy of the Social Contract in the Library ever since it was agreed upon, and is it not quite astonishing that a leading member of the Opposition Front Bench should be ignorant of that fact?

URUGUAYAN REFUGEES
2.45 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: 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 how many names of Uruguayan refugees have been submitted to them by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in Buenos Aires since the appeal by the High Commissioner in June 1976, and how many of these have been accepted.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Home Office has records of 66 applications in respect of Uruguayan refugees having been submitted by the representative in Buenos Aires of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In 44 cases the applicant has gone elsewhere. Six have been granted clearance, but three of these fall within the 44 to which I have referred.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I know of only one case out of the 66 applications from persons of Uruguayan origin who has been accepted? Further, does he know that,
1032
since the coup, 70 refugees from Uruguay and Argentina have been abducted; that 10 of them have been subsequently murdered, including the distinguished Parliamentarians Hextor Gutierres Ruiz and Michelini; and that another 10 of them have been illegally repatriated to Uruguay, where they are at present incarcerated? In view of these facts, does the noble Lord not think that the Home Office should give particular attention to the Uruguayan refugees and should speed up their processing, as the Home Secretary promised to do when he saw a deputation on this matter on 30th November last—to which he promised to reply in writing, but which reply is still awaited?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the figures I have given indicate the true situation. So far as the second point made by the noble Lord is concerned, the situation is that some of the people who applied to enter this country also applied to enter a number of other countries, and have indeed entered them. On the noble Lord's last point, the Home Secretary and his predecessor have both indicated that there must be a personal acceptability test for people applying to enter this country. That was the position then, and it remains the position today.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have great sympathy with the Home Office on this question? I have just spent a month in Uruguay, which is full of refugees from the Argentine and from Chile, and to distinguish between one lot of refugees and another must be extraordinarily difficult. The Minister has my full sympathy.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the position is that we wish to be as helpful as possible in this matter. The Government responded within a month to the appeal made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. But I must emphasise that there must be a personal acceptability test, and that remains the situation.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, in spite of what the Minister said, will he make

1033
sure that none of the Uruguayan refugees accepted here is a former member of the Tupamaro movement, who might very well add to our terrorist problem?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have already indicated on two occasions, but I am glad to do so for a third, that there is in fact a personal acceptability test in the case of applications of this sort, and there is obviously a need for such a test.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware, in contrast to what the noble Baroness has said, that Senator Church has said that Uruguay is the biggest torture chamber in Latin America? Is it not the case that anyone can be sentenced to ten years' imprisonment or exile for a political opinion, and therefore should not Her Majesty's Government give the fullest possible opportunity to refugees from this military dictatorship to come to this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have indicated that we recognise that in South America at the moment there are a number of refugees who are anxious to enter this country. We are anxious to be as helpful as possible in this matter, subject to the qualification I have already made.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, terrorists are not acceptable and, therefore, prima facie, none of the 66 names submitted to him could have been a Tupamaro? While I do not dispute the right of the Government to apply a test of personal acceptability, does not the fact that 44 of these refugees have been accepted elsewhere indicate that the processing of other countries is a great deal swifter than that of the Home Office?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords; I think we have absolutely nothing to apologise for in this matter. The Government responded with speed to the appeal made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—within a month.
Lord AVEBURY: No, my Lords.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord may say "No"; I am saying "Yes". The situation is that the British Government have a responsibility to ensure that people entering this country do in fact meet the personal acceptability test which has been laid down by the Home Secretary. That is a responsibility which he has to Parliament, and it is one he proposes to honour.

AIRSHIPS AND FISHERY PROTECTION
2.50 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the study of the possible use of airships for fishing patrol work has been concluded.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, potential military applications for unconventional craft, such as airships, are kept continually under review. However, existing designs of airships are not thought to be suitable for fishery protection tasks around the United Kingdom.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not true that while one of the arguments put against airships for fishery protection is that they are not very good in inclement weather, during the 1914–1918 War the weather must have been just as bad but they were used by both sides? Why are things different now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is digging back into history. We are talking about operating in the exceptionally harsh conditions of the north North Sea; and it is the view of the Navy that this is not a suitable vehicle for the purposes described.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any effort has been made to try a pilot scheme in this connection? Is he aware that to judge the airships of today by those of 1918 is merely defamatory of our excellent aeronautical engineering; and a little encouragement in this direction may be of

1035
benefit to the economy of Britain? May I therefore suggest he asks his noble friend whether a pilot scheme could be tried on the efficicy of these airships over the North Sea?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to Aerospace Developments Limited, who have an airship on the stocks, a preliminary meeting with the firm has taken place and the firm was advised that further technical data would be required before a naval assessment could be made.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether through our satellites we are in a position to watch these areas in the North Sea, and to plot the positions of ships from satellite information?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question; but the Nimrod is performing excellently in this role.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is encouragement there; but that I am thinking of the broader issue of the possibility of using British aeronautical engineering progress?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are talking about a survey of the fishing patrols.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one begins to wonder how it comes about that we do not seem to be able to get out of our system these types of obsolete creations which many of us—and we already have been reminded of this today—operated during the 1914–1918 war? They are obsolete; they belong to the past. Why go back to the past instead of looking to the future?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the First Great War there was, 30 miles North of Aberdeen, a base for airships; and that they operated there for quite a period of time?
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these aircraft which, in their First World War form, were known as "blimps", were extremely successful as anti-submarine and patrol vessels because of their very high speed and ability to keep in the air despite engine failure (which normal aircraft cannot do) and because of their ability to stop their engines for fuel economy, which normal aircraft cannot do? Despite the use of modern material in gas containers, which are far better now than then, and despite structural engineering with modern equipment, also far better now than then, can it be true that these machines are not worth testing now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, they are being studied but the preliminary studies are not very encouraging.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1949 so as to provide for the direct election thereunder of the United Kingdom Members of the Parliament of the European Communities; to provide that such direct election shall, wherever practicable, be by single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies; to provide for such constituencies as aforesaid; and for purposes connected with those matters. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Banks.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill gives effect to the Eighth Joint Report of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission on Statute Law Revision. It proposes the repeal of 222 whole Acts of Parliament and one

1037
Church Assembly Measure—the earliest of which has been part of our law for a little less than 500 years—on the ground that they are no longer of practical utility. It will also repeal parts of 210 other Acts and four Church Assembly Measures. A glance at Schedule 1 to the Bill gives some indication of the massive work which has gone into preparing it. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the two Law Commissions for their valuable, continuing and indeed increasing work in this field, which, if this Bill is enacted, will have resulted in clearing no fewer than 723 obsolete Acts from the Statute Book.
The Bill is an historical treasure trove. No fewer than 437 enactments are proposed for repeal in whole or in part. They include the Act of Attainder of 1605 entitled:
"An Acte for the Attaindors of divers Offendors in the late moste barbarous monstrous detestable and damnable Treasons."
Your Lordships may think that the language of this Title is somewhat intemperate even by modern standards. But the treason in question was the Gunpowder Plot, which, had it been successful, would have effected a more radical alteration in the constitution of your Lordships' House than any which is proposed today. But, as your Lordships will know, Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators were executed on 31st January 1606 on a spot close to where your Lordships' House now stands. Since then, this Act has been of historical interest but not of practical utility, and it is for this reason that its repeal is proposed.
I am also glad to say that the Act of Attainder of 1534 concerning one of my most illustrious predecessors, Sir Thomas More, is also proposed for repeal; although, to redress the balance a little in favour of Henry VIII, I should perhaps mention that the Bill contains three Acts showing his short-lived generosity to his wives. The Acts of 1533 and 1536 "concernyng the Quenes Joynture" conferred property rights on Anne Boleyn, and Jane Seymour respectively; but, alas! they did not live long to enjoy them. The "Acte for the lady Dowager" of 1533 provided that Katherine of Aragon was to be known as the Princess Dowager and gave her a life interest in certain property. The Bill mentions a number of
1038
Victorian Royal Personages, too, and the Act for the Naturalisation of His Serene Highness Prince Albert in 1840 is amongst those which can now be safely repealed.
The historian may also find it interesting to note the Act of 1777 which established a nightly watch, of watchmen and night constables, within the Hamlet of Mile-end Old Town, a fore-runner of the modern police system. The Act required the watchmen, under the supervision of the night constables:
"in their several turns or courses of watching [to] use their best endeavours to prevent fires, murders, burglaries, robberies and other outrages and disorders; and to that end…arrest and apprehend all night-walkers, malefactors, rogues, vagabonds and all disorderly persons".
In view of your Lordships' very proper concern with the maintenance of law and order, I think it only right that I should point out that this Act became obsolete following the formation of the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, it will of course be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way.
3 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, one small point when repealing these essential Acts of Attainder. I do not know what care has been taken, but I presume that great care has been taken. On many occasions these changes re-create old rights and sometimes indeed old titles and if the Attainder is repealed they then come back into existence. This can cause great embarrassment. One case I know in my own family. When the Act of Attainder against Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was repealed—quite rightly—it re-created the Plantagenet Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury. Presumably, if we ever cared to claim them (which, thank God! we do not) they would probably lie somewhere between my noble relative Lady Loudoun and myself. There are also ancient property rights which may reappear if these Acts of Attainder are repealed. Is this taken into account?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot promise that every detail of the ancestry of the noble Viscount has been taken fully into account. It will no doubt present a fascinating study to those who are that way inclined. I can assure

1039
him that, so far as I am credibly informed, any relevant Act of Attainder no longer has any practical utility.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 3 [Notice of intention to marry]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved manuscript Amendment No. 1A:
Page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must make it clear that this manuscript Amendment was tabled by me last week, and I had no intention of its being considered as a manuscript Amendment. By some mishap—I understand at the printers—it does not appear on the Marshalled List. I noticed this at 11 o'clock this morning. The first action I could take was to get made available for your Lordships duplicated copies of the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 3. Its purpose is to question the effect of the subsection and ask the Government to explain it. When I tabled the Amendment last week I was able to inform the Scottish Office that I had done so, and therefore the Minister had reasonable notice of the Amendment.
Since the Committee stage doubts have been raised among legal minds in Scotland about the effects of this subsection, and that is why clarification is required. When this Bill was being drafted one of the matters very much in the minds of those concerned was the question of runaway marriages, the romances at Gretna Green and elsewhere in Scotland. These caused some embarrassment in Scotland because the law was really for domestic application within Scotland. The law also enabled young people, after a very short period of residence, against their parents' wishes, to marry in Scotland. In almost every case they could not have married in their own countries, including England, because they did not have their parents' consent and they were under the age of 21.
There was concern expressed also South of the Border, especially in the area now known as Cumbria—a concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, among others, because of some instances where young people had crossed the Border and married at very short notice. This was one of the matters into which the Committee chaired with distinction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon (who I am glad to see here this afternoon), were asked to look. When they reported in 1969 on any reforms needed to the Scottish marriage laws they knew that their recommendations were being sought on this subject.
But in the meantime the situation has completely changed. The romance of an elopement to Gretna Green has now virtually disappeared. The blacksmith's impromptu "kirk" and his anvil are there for visitors and tourists to see; but it is most unlikely that any couple wishing to marry would now avail themselves of his services. This has not been killed by any decree or legislation; it has happened because of the reduction in the age of majority in the United Kingdom as well as in other countries. One must add, realistically, that probably there are couples nowadays who feel that they can run away without the benefit of the blacksmith.
This Bill seeks the complete reform of the marriage laws in Scotland, and the question of domicile is dealt with somewhat perfunctorily in this subsection. Where a party to a prospective marriage is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, a certificate is required indicating that he or she is free to marry. Such a person is exempted if for two years or more he has been ordinarily resident, as it is described in the clause. That is an ambiguous term, and I understand that it has led to anomalies. The term "ordinarily resident" is not defined in this Bill. For example, there have been cases of students who have been living in the United Kingdom and in Scotland without interruption for as long as five years, yet they have not met the interpretation of having been ordinarily resident because of their particular circumstances.
It has been suggested that instead of domicile, this subsection should be based on nationality, and that that would lead

1041
to less in the way of difficulties. For example, passports would be brought in. There are differences in personal law in other countries and these are catered for in paragraph (i) in the subsection. There, another kind of certificate can be produced in the circumstances described, so there is a category of person who will be dealt with in another way.
Will the Government tell us what is the intention in subsection (5)? Secondly, will they look again at the subsection in the light of what I have said and the material that I have sent to the noble Lord, which was compiled by legal minds? I accept that this is a complicated subject. If the noble Lord cannot give us more than a short answer today, I will understand that; but I hope that the matter will be pursued when the Bill goes to another place. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to runaway marriages involving people from foreign countries. We both referred to this at Second Reading. As the noble Lord rightly said, the main reason for the changed situation, the substantial reduction in these occurrences, is that the age of majority in several European countries has been reduced from 21 to 18 years of age. For example, in 1967 there were 104 marriages in Scotland where both parties came from foreign countries and both were under 21 years of age. In 1975 there were only six corresponding marriages, and in only one of those were both parties under the age of 18. Other runaway marriages may occur where only one of the parties is under the age at which parental consent ceases to be necessary. In 1975 there were 25 such marriages, in which one or other of the two persons from abroad was under the age of 18. Although there has been this welcome reduction, these cases still occur, and I think I should draw to your Lordships' attention that it is the youngest people—those aged 16 and 17—who are now likely to be involved.
Clause 3 (5) is included in the Bill to meet that situation and to do something to reduce still further the incidence of such marriages. I must say to your
1042
Lordships quite frankly that that subsection is introduced largely as a deterrent. It is, as it were, an additional hurdle that we are erecting in the way of runaway youngsters from abroad seeking to get married in Scotland. In addition to the normal Scottish preliminaries of giving notice in Scotland, they will be expected to produce the kind of certificate that is commonly in use in their own countries. Our expectation is that when they learn of this requirement and realise that the absence of parental consent to their marriage means that they will not be able to fulfil it, they will be deterred from pursuing their application for facilities to marry in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also raised the condition of ordinary residence in the United Kingdom for a period of two or more years. The requirement is independent of the question of domicile in the United Kingdom. The dispensation that has been referred to applies only to persons domiciled in an overseas country but who have been resident in the United Kingdom for two or more years immediately before application is made for facilities to marry. That is in accord with the recommendations set out in paragraph 69 of the Kilbrandon Committee's Report that:
"A person should be deemed to have his usual residence in Scotland if he has resided in Scotland for two years or more immediately before the date on which he makes his application to marry."
I am further advised that this matter is complicated, as indeed was the other proposition posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in that in some cases there will be a difference between the personal laws of Scotland and of the other State regarding a person's domicile. I am advised that only in the most exceptional case is there difficulty in determining the personal law of an individual.
It has to be kept in mind that the purpose of the requirement to produce a certificate is served if it deters people who suffer from some impediment under their own laws from applying to marry in Scotland. That is the greatest benefit which the Government see as flowing from the requirement to produce a certificate. However, I am willing to look at the difficulties involved. I do not think I will be able to be constructive in your Lordships' House at a later stage

1043
of the Bill, but I am prepared to give this matter further consideration, and perhaps it may be possible to look further at this in the other place, in the light of remarks made here this afternoon.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given us a general reply to the points that I have raised and also for saying, as I hoped he would, that the Government will continue to examine this matter—it certainly is complicated—and that, if they think it suitable, they may suggest changes when the Bill passes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the manuscript Amendment.
Manuscript Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [The marriage notice hook]:
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should not be on this Amendment. I am raising this point because I could not understand exactly what the proviso in Clause 4 was meant to convey. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I now understand its purpose, but I still wonder whether it could not be achieved in a very much more simple manner. It says here:
"On receipt of a marriage notice or approved certificate…the registrar shall…enter such particulars…together with the date of receipt…".
Then the proviso says that in the case of an approved certificate he should date it 14 days earlier.
That is statutory authority for making a false statement in the marriage notice book. Is that really necessary? I understand the reason is that if the approved certificate is fully in order the Marriage Schedule can be issued forthwith; but is it not a much easier way of achieving the same result simply to say that on the receipt of a marriage approved certificate the Marriage Schedule can be issued forthwith, instead of instructing the Registrar General to put an incorrect
1044
statement in the marriage notice book? I put forward that suggestion because I think it would be easier to understand and the Bill would be marginally improved thereby. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, let me say at once that I agree with the first comment made by the noble Earl. I did not intend that my name should appear jointly with his on the face of this Amendment—though, of course, I say that not in any spirit of animosity.
I should explain that the reason for this predating of the approved certificate as in the proviso to Clause 4(1) was that the certificate results from completing the necessary preliminaries to marriage elsewhere in the United Kingdom. During these preliminaries the person concerned has already had to wait for 21 days before the certificate is issuable by the superintendent registrar in England. Since the registrar in Scotland is in effect accepting the English superintendent registrar's certificate as satisfying the Scottish preliminaries, there is no need to require the party from England to wait for a further period after submitting his certificate here, and to do so could cause hardship in individual cases. The pre-dating avoided any such requirement.
In the light of the criticisms made at the Committee stage about this "deemed" date of receipt, which has given the impression of conflicting with the 14-days period referred to in Clause 6 during which the registrar could not issue the Marriage Schedule, I have looked at the matter again. I agree that this proviso to Clause 4(1) can be omitted, thus removing the pre-dating, so long as a further Amendment (which I shall be making) is made to Clause 6, making it clear that the period of 14 days applies only to marriage notices. Where a notice is submitted by each of the parties (as will be normal) the 14–day period will reckon from the date of receipt of the latter. Therefore I am able to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("be").
Page 3, line 26, at beginning insert ("be").
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("kept and made") and insert ("remain").
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("the date of the last entry in the said book") and insert ("it has been filled").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it would be for the convenience of the House, as I believe it to be, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. These are drafting Amendments which will remove two slight ambiguities in the present wording. The reference to "the last entry in the book" could be taken to mean:
"the entry last made in the marriage notice book".
instead of:
"the entry in the last space in the marriage notice book",
which is what is meant. Furthermore, sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), read together, may be taken to mean that the period during which the marriage notice book is available for inspection is of only six months' duration and does not start until the book is filled. The Amendments made it clear that the six months' period runs from the date of the final entry in the marriage notice book and does not come into operation, may be because in a district with few marriages there might be a gap of six months or more between them. They also make it clear that the marriage notice book will be available for inspection throughout the period of its use, and also for six months thereafter. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should just like to say, when we are considering the first Government Amendment, that speaking for myself, and I think for my noble friends, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the number of Amendments which he has tabled today for our Report stage, in which he is clearly trying to meet matters which we raised at the Committee stage, particularly in clarifying the Bill. It will never be too soon, in the passage of a Bill through both Houses, for the Government to have second thoughts on matters like these and we certainly would not complain
1046
about the number of Amendments, because they are all aimed at improving this Bill even at this early stage before it has been to the other place. For my part, I agree that these Amendments improve the Bill and I hope that this House will accept them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Objections to marriage]:
3.21 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 en bloc:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("Provided that where the objection is on the ground mentioned in subsection (4A) (d) below, it shall be accompanied by a supporting certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner.")
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("on a ground to which this subsection applies").
Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) in any case where he is satisfied that the objection relates to no more than a mis-description or inaccuracy in the marriage notice or approved certificate, notify the parties to the marriage of the nature of the objection and make such enquiries into the matter mentioned in it as he thinks fit; and thereafter he shall subject to the approval of the Registrar General, make any necessary correction to any document relating to the marriage;
( ) in any other case—").
Page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, if your Lordships' House finds it convenient, as I believe it may, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 en bloc and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 14. At the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, drew my attention to a number of problems connected with this clause. The noble Lord, criticised, in particular, the undue discretion given to the district registrar by subsection (3)(e) which, in any event, seemed to the noble Lord to be too widely drawn, and he expressed his opinion that the clause imported a degree of confusion between objections and legal impediments. I acknowledged that subsection (3)(e) might be too widely drawn, and gave the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, an undertaking to give the matter some further thought. This I have done and the result is the fairly substantial changes which will be made if your Lordships' House sustains these Amendments. I hope that the substance of these Amendments will answer the misgivings which

1047
your Lordships expressed at the Committee stage.
The effects of the Amendments are, first, to make it clear that the district registrar will himself deal only with minor objections of form where, for example, the parties have given a wrong name or description. By this, I mean matters which would not by themselves affect the validity of the marriage and where the defect can be easily rectified by the registrar. But even in these cases he will not make a change in the documents relating to the marriage without the approval of the Registrar General. Secondly, the Amendments recognise that there is a difference between objections—which, of course, could be lodged on virtually any ground and which must, in consequence, be submitted to the Registrar General—and the more limited legal impediments, which would render any resulting marriage void ab initio. The impediments in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relate to matters which in most cases can be readily checked by the Registrar General, whose office contains all the births, deaths and marriage records for Scotland back to the year 1855. And, as is brought out in the Amendment to subsection (1), any objection on the ground of the impediment in paragraph (d) must be supported by a medical certificate.
Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage I said that we did not intend to extend the legal impediments to marriage. But in considering the best way to remove any conflict or confusion that there might be between, on the one hand, "fundamental objection" and, on the other, "legal impediment"—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, drew particular attention—I have come to the conclusion that it would be best to specify precisely what are the grounds of objection which, if substantiated, would constitute legal impediments and so would result in facilities for marriage being refused. This alteration of method has introduced paragraphs (e) and (f), which spell out more directly what was intended by the former paragraph (e).
In practice—and I am bound to say this—it is doubtful whether a reference to the legal impediment in paragraph (e), that both parties are of the same sex, will appear in any of the text-books, but
1048
it is, nevertheless, an impediment which needs to be mentioned because the Registrar General has told me that he has already received a request for facilities to marry from two persons of the same sex. The impediment in the new paragraph (f) applies to the case where foreigners come to Scotland to marry in order to evade restrictions under their own law. If the resultant marriage would be valid, even though it may be voidable under the laws of the person's own country, that is not a legal impediment, but if the marriage would be void ab initio then a legal impediment is constituted, and the parties should not be allowed to marry.
I must emphasise to your Lordships that the provisions of Clause 5 are likely to be used only on rare occasions, because very few objections to marriage are lodged by members of the public. Nevertheless, it seems useful to set out the legal impediments in the way that the Amendments have done, because, irrespective of whether or not he receives an objection to the marriage, the registrar has a duty to satisfy himself that the parties are free to marry before he prepares the necessary Marriage Schedule. I apologise for the somewhat lengthy explanation, but I thought it right to explain as fully as I could the reasoning behind these Government Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I put down Amendment No. 10 in case the Government were not going to put down any Amendments to this clause, so that we could hear from the Government their reasons for not doing so. But I need not have worried, because, as your Lordships will see, the Government have virtually redrafted the clause at considerable length with a whole number of Amendments, and, certainly to me, the clause appears much clearer as a result of the work behind the scenes. I should like to thank the Minister for clearly having taken so much trouble with his officials in the time since the Committee stage.
The point which I raised at the earlier stage was that four paragraphs purported

1049
to set out all the legal impediments to marriage. The Government said that they had no intention of adding any further legal impediment, but there was then another paragraph which referred to any other grounds where there might be a fundamental objection. That is where the gap occurred, because we wondered what that paragraph meant, if it was not adding an impediment and if nothing could be done if anybody raised a fundamental objection; because, of course, a legal impediment is quite different from a fundamental objection, and the Minister had made it clear that the Registrar General could take action to stop a marriage only where there was a legal impediment. The noble Lord has made it clear that it is not the Government's intention that this Bill should have the effect of stopping any marriage when it is enacted, unless one of the legal impediments is determined. This means that the whole question of objections that may be raised—and I gave the example of serious hereditary mental illness—will not prevent a marriage taking place when the Bill is enacted.
I reminded your Lordships at Committee stage that in their evidence to the Kilbrandon Committee, in Appendix 4, the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council had said that they regarded that ground as a barrier to marriage. They used the word "barrier". So we are still left with a number of sociological problems, which will no doubt arise and have to be dealt with if objections are raised. We hope that rarely will they be raised, but if they are there are still all those medical problems to be dealt with because the Bill does not tackle them.
It was not clear that paragraph (e)—the fifth paragraph—did not cover this field. As redrafted and as the noble Lord has confirmed, an additional legal impediment is spelled out—that is, if both parties are of the same sex. Then what was the last long-stop paragraph has been converted into a paragraph where the marriage would be void under the law of the country from which one of the parties came. Therefore the Bill makes clear to us now the kind of case which is not covered by the earlier paragraphs.
I will not go into the controversy of whether further legal impediments should
1050
be added. I recognise that the Government are not intending to add them and that that is the purpose of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord's Committee on marriage—I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, is with us—went into the whole question of medical grounds and heard evidence on the subject, but it is clear that the Bill is not attempting to deal with that question.
I recommend your Lordships to accept the Government Amendments, which will mean that my Amendment No. 10 falls. However, as I said, it was put down at the Report stage merely to enable the Government to state what the position was in case they themselves were not tabling Amendments.
Lord KILBRANDON: My Lords, may I say one or two words about what is, I hope, not too technical a matter. I am a little uneasy at the suggestion that a proposed contract between persons of the same sex should be an objection to marriage. I do not think that I could agree with that suggestion. I hope that as a lawyer I am not being too technical, but one might compare it with a proposed contract between brother and sister. That would be an unlawful marriage. However, a proposed contract between a man and his brother is not a marriage at all. Throughout the Bill the word "marriage" is used. I should have thought that the common law of Scotland was strong enough to demonstrate that wherever the word "marriage" is used it refers to a contract between persons of the opposite sex. It can mean nothing else. From the legal point of view I am a little uneasy about this question, and perhaps it might be looked at again. I should not have thought that it was necessary to put this in. Indeed, I should have thought that it was undesirable.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am not competent to make a valid comment on the remarks which the noble and learned Lord has just made, but certainly I can say to your Lordships' House that this is the kind of Bill that the Government must continue to assess and evaluate as it proceeds through its various stages not only in your Lordships' House but in the other place. I will draw specifically to the attention of my legal advisers the remarks which the noble and learned Lord has made.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, speaking purely as a layman my reaction is rather similar to that of the noble and learned Lord. How can you make illegal something that cannot happen? There cannot be a marriage under any meaning of the word "marriage" if people are of the same sex. To try to write into a Bill that something is illegal, with all the power of the Statute behind it, if it is something which could not happen in any case, seems to be stretching the words that we use in Parliament to a point which may make them look rather ridiculous when they are examined at a later stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by leave of the House all that I can say is that whereas I am sure that the definition of marriage stands time-honoured, the areas of physical involvement seem these days constantly to be changing in ever different ways.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, has it not happened in the past that there has been some doubt as to which sex a person was? If that is so, is it right that this question should be decided by the Registrar General?
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) above and section 6 of this Act, there is a legal impediment to a marriage where—

(a) that marriage would be void by virtue of section 2(1) of this Act;

(b) one of the parties is, or both are, already married;

(c) one or both of the parties will be under the age of 16 on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage;

(d) one or both of the parties is or are incapable of understanding the nature of a marriage ceremony or of consenting to marriage;

(e) both parties are of the same sex; or

(f) one or both of the parties is, or are, not domiciled in Scotland and, on a ground other than one mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) above, a marriage in Scotland between the parties would be void ab initio according to the law of the domicile of the party or parties as the case may be.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move formally Amendment No. 11. We
1052
discussed this Amendment while I spoke to the previous block of Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("to the district registrar").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("on a ground to which subsection (2) above applies") and insert ("in accordance with subsection (1) above").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 45, leave out from ("withdrawal") to end of line 46.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [The Marriage Schedule]:
3.36 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("Where") to ("is") in line 4 and insert ("the district registrar has received a marriage notice or approved certificate in respect of each of the parties to a marriage intended to be solemnised in Scotland and is satisfied that there is no legal impediment to the marriage or, as the case may be,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I should also like to make reference, because I think it is for the convenience of your Lordships' House, to Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. They are largely a matter of drafting consequent upon the removal of the provision for the entering of a fictional date of receipt of approved certificates in the marriage notice book. This is the result of our discussion of Amendment No. 1, standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The Amendment to Clause 6(1) will make it clear that the registrar cannot issue a Marriage Schedule until he has received a marriage notice or an approved certificate in respect of each of the parties to a marriage; and the Amendments to Clause 6(4) provide that before such issue he must normally allow a minimum of 14 days to elapse from the date of receipt of a marriage notice.

1053
No such restriction is imposed in the case of an approved certificate, which will mean that, so far as that certificate is concerned, the registrar will not require to allow for any lapse of time between receipt of that certificate and the issue of the Schedule. This was the intention of the Bill as presently drafted. A person who produces an approved certificate will already have given notice of marriage elsewhere in the United Kingdom and, as I said earlier when we discussed Amendment No. 1, it would seem unreasonable to subject that person to a further waiting period in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. This is a very much more sensible arrangement, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 16 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 17, 18 or 19.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which is to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 6. May I say straight away that I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, but again I put it down in order to give the Minister, if he was not going to amend the Bill, the opportunity to reply to the points we made at Committee stage. In the case of my Amendments which are on the Marshalled List and the Amendments which we have already discussed, the Minister has gone some way towards making alterations to meet queries and suggestions which I raised at the Committee stage on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. I raised queries then about the relationship of certain clauses with each other and also their operation as intended by the Government, and I drew attention in particular to this subsection.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for writing to me in the meantime and informing me of the Government's views on some of the points. The noble Lord has tabled Amendments on some of these matters, but I should be grateful if he
1054
could make any further comment at this stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am attempting to surround the noble Lord's Amendment No. 16 with a warm cocoon of suitable Government Amendments, both before and after. But no doubt your Lordships will recall the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at the Committee stage when he suggested that there might be confusion between the deemed earlier date for the receipt of approved certificates under Clause 4 and the period of 14 days during which a Marriage Schedule should not be issued. Any possible confusion that might have arisen should however now be avoided as a result of the Government Amendments to Clauses 4 and 6. Taken together, these drop the provision for an earlier deemed date for receipt of an approved certificate—this is done by removing the proviso to Clause 4(1)—while the Amendment to Clause 6(4) makes it clear that the 14 days before a Marriage Schedule can be issued applies to receipt of marriage notices and not to approved certificates. So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will not press this Amendment. I think he will get almost all that he wishes if he allows the Government Amendments to flow.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for making that additional explanation. I realise that the Amendments, and particularly those we are about to come to, meet at least some of the points I made at Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 en bloc:
Page 5, line 20, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a")
Page 5,line 21, leave out ("on a date earlier than 14 days after") and insert ("within 14 days of")
Page 5,line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("unless") in line 24 and insert ("a marriage notice in respect of the marriage to which the Marriage Schedule relates,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 en bloc. I have already discussed these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7) below and section 13(3) of this Act, a religious marriage may be solemnised only on the date and at the place specified in the Marriage Schedule.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships to discuss Amendment No. 20 and, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 40, 41 and 42. It has been suggested—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the point at Committee stage—that as the Bill stands at present, a marriage would be void not only because it was solemnized in the absence of a Marriage Schedule but that it would be void—even although a Marriage Schedule for the marriage had been issued by the district registrar—if the marriage did not take place on the date or at the place specified in the Schedule. This was not the Government's intention, and the Amendments, taken all together, are designed to make it clear that only in a case where no Marriage Schedule has been issued for a marriage shall that marriage be void.
Under the Bill, the Marriage Schedule is the only document which will prove that the preliminaries to marriage have been fulfilled. It is a common provision in the laws of other countries that non-fulfilment of the preliminaries to marriage will render the marriage invalid. In England, for example, Sections 25 and 49 of the Marriage Act 1949 set out a whole series of situations which will lead to a void marriage, and these include marrying in any place other than the church or other building specified in the notice of marriage and certificate. At the present time in Scotland a civil marriage becomes valid only after it has been registered and, of course, it cannot be registered until all the preliminaries have been fulfilled and the Marriage Schedule signed.
A religious marriage is rather different because of the way in which religious marriages have developed over the centuries. It has not been clear whether a religious marriage which is solemnised without the statutory preliminaries is valid or not: what is clear is that no such marriage should be registered by the registrar, and in consequence no marriage certificate can be given to the parties.
1056
Since the preliminaries to marriage are being considerably modified by the provisions in the Bill and religious marriages will embrace religions whose marriage ceremonies are different from ours, it is essential to make it clear that no valid marriage can be solemnised without a Marriage Schedule being available. At the same time, however, the Government agree that it would be wrong to render a marriage void simply because a last minute change of plans made it impossible for the marriage to be solemnised at the place specified in the Schedule and there was no time to get the registrar's agreement to make the necessary alteration in the Schedule.
This Amendment and the other Amendments to which I referred are designed to ensure that marriages solemnised without a Schedule issued by the registrar will be void. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, with these Amendments the noble Lord has certainly removed the ambiguity which was drawn to his attention at the Committee stage, and although I have not had time to hear from the Law Society about this, which they were particularly concerned about, I think the Minister's explanation will mean that they prefer what the Government are now proposing in these Amendments to the existing text of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Persons who may solemnise marriage]:
3.47 p.m.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) a minister of the Established Church of Scotland; or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in accordance with the Marshalled List of Amendments I wish to amend Clause 8. As when I was speaking at the time of the Committee stage of this Bill, I have to declare an interest, which is that I happen to be a minister in the Church of Scotland. The essential purpose of this Amendment is to bring level the Established Church of Scotland with the Established Church of England in the matter of the State's relationship to the two Established

1057
Churches. The last comparable English legislation, which was the Act of 1949 in connection with the Church of England and marriage or the State and marriage, there are three categories of relationship. The first category is the relationship of the Established Church of England with the State represented by the registrar in the ultimate.
Secondly, there is the recognised second category referring to the nonconformist churches, as they might be the Roman Catholic or the Presbyterian or the Methodist, and so on. Then there is the third category: those societies such as may be recognised by the registrar as suitable for the conduct of worship. In the 1949 English Marriage Act under the first category of the relationship to the Church of England, ten pages are devoted to the special relationship, but in the present parallel Bill for Scotland, far from not getting ten pages it gets not one page, nor indeed any kind of reference to distinguish it from the second category; namely, the nonconformist churches.
Before shortly stating my case, that the Established Church of Scotland should be recognised equally with the Established Church of England as a separate category, I would put your Lordships' minds at ease lest there be misunderstanding as to my main reason. At the Committee stage last week, when I sought to present this Amendment, I was somewhat taken aback by the feeling of the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in his reply when he seemed to assume that my underlying reason for the Motion was to put in secondary places the other denominations, as if my Amendment before your Lordships was hardly ecumenical to fit the spirit of our times. Indeed, he went to far as to say:
"The spirit of ecumenism seems to be more apparent in Government Departments than perhaps among the churches themselves."—[Official Report, 25/1/77, col. 385.]
This is indeed to confuse the issue. If that idea lingers in the minds of those who may have to vote on this Amendment this afternoon, we have ill chance of carrying the Amendment, and I would understand so. But it is not so, and I feel that I must do a little more than merely deny it. To be more explicit, I fear that I must for a moment be personal. For nearly 40 years I have been associated with the
1058
religious order of clergy and laity known as the Iona Community, with personal firm commitments, economic and political and indeed ecumenical. Its main task in early years was to rebuild the Abbey of Iona, but the main purpose of that rebuilding was as an ecumenical gesture on the site, on that West Coast Island where at differing times the Celtic Church, that is, if you like, the Eastern Orthodox, then the Roman Church, then the Presbyterian Church, then the Episcopalian and finally, again the Presbyterian Church has constituted the Established Church of Scotland. Right from the start we had in the membership members of other denominations as full members of this Community, which springs from the Church of Scotland and indeed has to report for discipline every year to the Church of Scotland.
At varying times it has had in its full membership, both clerical and lay, Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians and members of the Roman Church itself. At the present time all these denominations are represented in the full and active membership of the Iona Community. Not only so; we have youth camps, living adjacent and daily worshipping with us. In the last recognised year, no fewer than 1,200 teenagers have come for at least a week each—again from all denominations. If I may for a moment specify, there is an associate minister, for we also have associates and not just full members, from a parish in Glasgow, in an area we need not name, save to say that it is a spillover from Belfast and carries in its streets many of the tensions of that Irish city; the parish minister happens to be an associate of the Iona Community, and rather than bemoan the tension he became a close friend of the Roman Catholic priest in the same Glasgow area. Together they conceived the idea of bringing a mixed group of teenagers from that parish to Iona for a week; upwards of 40 came, Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, to bathe together, to play football, to attend the village dance and the weekly concert, to discuss the issues of our time, and, of course, worship together daily, led by the Glasgow parish minister and by the Roman Catholic priest, who was also there throughout the week.
It is the custom each Sunday to have the sacrament according to the rites of the

1059
Church of Scotland, because the Abbey is the parish church, but on this particular occasion the Presbyterian warden decided to forgo his sacrament and to invite instead the Roman Catholic priest from the Glasgow parish to celebrate high mass in the parish church of the national Established Church. Not only did the Roman Catholic priest gladly accept the invitation, but he invited to partake of the sacrament all members of any branch of Christ's Church who were present at his high mass. Was I wrong last week to be somewhat taken aback when a representative of the Government said that the spirit of ecumenism seemed to be more apparent in Government Departments than perhaps among Churches themselves? I hope it is more apparent among Government Departments, but I should like to have some specific instances before we go on.
This Amendment is not to make the national Church superior, but simply by its size to make it of greater service to the whole of Scotland. It is for further ecumenicity that we ask, that the national Church of Scotland should receive the same separate category as the Church of England. We do not ask for 10 pages of recognition. We simply ask that the only denomination in Scotland that has a parish church in every corner of the land, with every street in every city demarcated into parishes, every little island off the coast set in its carefully arranged parish area, should have the right of registration without surveillance from the Secretary of State or by permission of any registrar.
The Church of Scotland is not a lingering relic of history. Last week I gave figures from Whitaker's regarding the sizes of various denominations; I shall not repeat them now; they are in Hansard. But I will repeat this one figure, the apparent proportion of full members of the Church of England and the apparent proportion of full members of the Church of Scotland compared with the total populations in England and in; Scotland. It would appear that one in 12 of the English population are registered members of the Church of England, while one in five of the population of Scotland are registered members of the Established Church there.
Finally, while the number of failed marriages in Scotland shows ominous
1060
increase it behoves us to do everything possible to deepen the solemnity of the occasion as widely as we can. Surely the pre-eminent possibility lies with the only denomination whose duty it is to have contiguous parishes across the length and breadth of Scotland and its islands, the Church which, moreover, provides full-time ministers in every one of those parishes, in order to be of service and not to be superior. The national Church also has the greater responsibility to further ecumenicity and so to give a lead in the whole area of mixed marriages. I confidently ask your Lordships to give the national Church of Scotland its proper place, and I so move.
3.56 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not want to discourage the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, from speaking now if he wishes to do so, but I am a little disturbed that he should not immediately get up and say that he accepts the Amendment, because though a small matter in itself this is really running contrary to the whole evolution of Scottish ecclesiastical history and I think is contrary to existing law. Before going into that, may I give your Lordships a quotation (which someone was kind enough to give me) from no less a person than Mr. Gladstone. He is writing on the relations of Church and State:
"It is not option or discretion but plighted faith which entails upon us the support of the Scottish Church".
At that time Mr. Gladstone did not have the Act of 1921; he was basing this on the terms on the Act of Union. The Act of Union makes it quite clear that the security of the Church of Scotland was an essential and fundamental condition for all time, that it should be sustained in security.
I am not very surprised that the Church of Scotland should have insisted, because your Lordships may remember that when the Reformation took place in Scotland, unlike England, it was a popular thing. There was no question of a referendum; the result was far too obvious. And, subsequent to that, on three successive occasions the establishment of the Church was undermined. So when it came to the time of the Union the Church said "Look here, we are not going to have any chance about this; we are going to

1061
have it affirmed and indeed reaffirmed". It was reaffirmed in a manner which almost shows that they did not have a great deal of confidence in Parliament, unless they said it all over again.
The exact force of the Union terms has been discussed, I think, only once in the courts, and that was in the well-known case of McCormack v The Advocate. There the Lord Advocate (afterwards Lord President Clyde) said that the Parliament of Great Britain could not repeal or alter such "fundamental and essential" conditions. If I may go further, this was quoted by Lord Cooper, who was then presiding. Quoting from Dicey's Thoughts on the Union, he said in regard to the Presbyterian Church government that it:
"represents a conviction of Parliament which passed the Act of Union that the Act for Securing the Church of Scotland ought to be morally and constitutionally unchangeable, even by the British Parliament".
Lord Cooper said this was a unique case, and he did not, however, think it was competent for the Court of Session to pronounce upon it. That was the position to which Mr. Gladstone was referring.
Far more specific than that is the Act of 1921. The purpose of that Act was to permit unions between Christian Churches in Scotland. One thing that had to be achieved was the eradication of any form of Erastianism, that is to say interference by State control. It took the form of a declarator by the Church which was formally recognised by the State. The authority of the Church did not come from the State and, indeed, it did not come from this world at all. It said:
"No civil authority may legislate on matters of doctrine, worship or government. In this field"—
that is, the spiritual field—
"the Church is free from interference by civil authority".
None the less, the Church and State owe mutual duties to each other.
My Lords, I think that that conflicts with this Act. The Act says that the Church has imposed on itself a duty to carry the ordinances of the Church to every parish in Scotland. In effect, that means that if a man's Marriage Schedule is completed and full the Church imposes an obligation on itself to marry those persons. That is the position as it stands today, and that is what the Church will do subject
1062
only to questions of previous divorce. This Bill takes away that duty. It may be a small matter but it is fundamental to the position which the Church takes at present.
I believe that the House must insist on this Amendment and I ask it to do so. I ask the Government to recognise that the Church has fallen in with their requirements. This Bill takes away the legal basis of banns and the Church has agreed that it will make a declarator at the next General Assembly falling in with the exact requirements of this Bill so that the Bill will work as best it can.
If the Government believe that they can tread loosely on the Church of Scotland, what will they do to other religions which do not have the standing of this religion? It is equally ill-omened for other religious bodies in Scotland if the Government think that they can march straight through the obligations which have solemnly been undertaken by Parliament here. The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, represents a history of ecumenical activity, probably unequalled by anyone in this House and possibly in Scotland. I hope that the Government will not force the House to divide on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, may make all the remonstrances he wishes according to the instructions which, no doubt, are before him, but I ask him not to divide the House on this matter. It is far better that we should reach a simple agreement on a fundamental issue of this character.
4.4 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I, at the very outset of my remarks, assure the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, that my comment at the Committee stage about ecumenicism was no more—nor was it intended to be more—than a passing aside, a jocular comment under pressure. If the remark was misunderstood, then of course I belatedly but in retrospection withdraw it absolutely.
The primary reason for this Amendment, as the noble Lord indicated this afternoon, and as indeed he indicated in Committee, is to give appropriate recognition to the Church of Scotland as the national, or Established, Church. Linked to this is the claim that as the Church of England figures prominently in the Marriage Act

1063
1949 applying to England and Wales, there ought to be some reference in the Scottish legislation to the Church of Scotland. It is argued that specific mention of the Church of Scotland is necessary to put beyond doubt its right to solemnise marriages and to ensure that that right does not depend on whether or not in the future a Secretary of State includes it in regulations.
There seem to be misunderstandings as to the position. I believe that they are broadly of two kinds. The first, which was advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, this afternoon is that several Churches, including particularly the Church of Scotland, are at present specifically named in Statute as authorised by law to solemnise religious marriages in Scotland, and that this specific authority is being removed. This is not so. As I explained in Committee (Hansard, col. 390), there is no such specific statutory authority naming the Church of Scotland, probably because its right as the national Church to solemnise marriages was taken for granted. Indeed, the curiosity is that it might be held that existing legislation is more specific about ministers of the Episcopal Church and about priests and ministers not of the Established Church of Scotland than it is about ministers of the Church of Scotland itself. So the Bill as drafted is not derogating from any existing statutory position or removing from the Church of Scotland any existing statutory authority to solemnise marriages.
The second main area of misunderstanding concerned the possible effects of the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. It is claimed that a Church's right to solemnise marriages would depend on its inclusion in the regulations and that it would be open to a Secretary of State in the future to take away that right from any Church—or all Churches—by not including the Church in the regulations, or not making regulations at all. I gave a full explanation during the Committee stage as to the much more limited purpose and effect of the regulations.
I touched upon a comparison which is being made between the position in England and that which might obtain in Scotland. I think it is fair to say that a specific reference is made about the
1064
Church of England and it would be unwise not to admit that before your Lordships this afternoon. However, the Church of England is an Established Church in a sense in which, despite the terms of the Amendment, the Church of Scotland is not. Furthermore, there are many differences between the marriage systems North and South of the Border. For example, there is in England the system of registered buildings, the system under which licences of marriage may be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or other ecclesiastical authority, and the system under which marriages solemnised according to the rites of the Church of England are registered, not by a registrar but by the clergyman himself. All of these, and other features, require specific reference to the Church of England but they do not form, nor have they formed, part of our Scottish system. Therefore, in the Government's view, there is no corresponding requirement.
It is unnecessary to repeat in detail why the Government do not find the Amendment acceptable. Very briefly, however, they see no practical need for the more detailed categorisation of religious bodies which it implies and no practical advantage resulting from it. Most certainly there is no intention whatever on the part of the Government to alter or in any way denigrate the status of the Church of Scotland now or in the future, and I give a clear assurance to this effect this afternoon. The Government do not see the Bill as making any alteration in the status of the Church either generally or in regard to its authority in marriage matters. The system of regulations has the strictly limited and practical purpose of exempting the Churches concerned from nominating their celebrants for registration. Clearly, such nomination is inappropriate in the circumstances of the Church of Scotland. I submit that the dire consequences which noble Lords have suggested would flow from the introduction of regulations will not in fact occur. The Amendment seems unnecessary, indeed undesirable, to the extent that it further categorises Churches in this day and age. The Government will therefore be resisting the Amendment.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would explain to me why, in my earlier days

1065
and in his earlier days, we had a lot of Presbyterian Churches in Scotland and the principal one was the Established Church of Scotland. There was the Free Church, the United Free Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Church of Scotland, the established Church of Scotland; that was the Church which I think was known as the "Old Church". Why does the noble Lord say that the Church was never established in that way? I would say that the noble Lord is giving the biggest boost to the Scottish nationalists that they have ever had by the speech he has made this afternoon.
4.11 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I am astonished at the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, putting up these two arguments. His argument about a misunderstanding is certainly correct. The misunderstanding lies in the Bill. The Bill is foggy in certain areas and there is naturally misunderstanding. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, is an endeavour to clear up one of those misunderstandings. For that reason it should be most strongly supported.
The second point that the noble Lord made that astonished me more than even his first point has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that the Church of Scotland was not established. I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to tell me when the Church of Scotland was disestablished and by what Act. I do not think he will be able to answer that question.
I am the son of a minister of the Free Church of Scotland. I can remember quite vividly as a young man the arguments which led to the Church of Scotland Act 1921 with its Declaratory Articles. To take you a little further back in history before I was born, there was a famous case called the Auchterarder case, which happened when a congregation of the Church of Scotland assumed that it had absolute spiritual freedom. The case went to the Court of Session, and the Court of Session went against the freedom of the congregation and maintained that the State was supreme in matters ecclesiastic.
The result of that was what was called the "Disruption", when more than half
1066
the ministers of the existing Church of Scotland came out. They came out: they left their manses. They had to find other shelter. It was more than half the church that came out then. The feelings were very deep at that time, and they were still deep at the end of that century when we were beginning to look for reunion with the other Churches, especially the reunion with the Free Churches. Those reunions were gradual and were to culminate with the reunion of the United Free Church with the Established Church.
That was accomplished in the Act of 1921. In leading up to that Act, there were the most delicate negotiations to avoid treading on the other Churches' toes the whole way through; but they were completed in complete harmony. Although there was a certain section—a minority of the United Free Church—who would not agree, the Declaratory Articles of the Act of 1921 met the case.
The Declaratory Articles state that the right and power of the Church, subject to no civil authority, is to legislate and to adjudicate finally in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church. Since marriages are, from the point of view of the Church, acts of worship the form of a marriage ceremony is a matter for the Church alone to determine. Any attempt to impose the points made by the Kilbrandon Committee, and which have led up to this Bill, on the Church of Scotland is therefore contrary to the constitution of the Church as set forth in these Declaratory Articles and recognised by the 1921 Act.
I will not give more than a little of all that I could say, but I should like in conclusion to emphasise my point by quoting from two archbishops. Archbishop Garbett said:
"The Church of Scotland is the outstanding example of a Church which is established and yet is free."
More recently Archbishop Ramsey, in an essay on Church and State in England, wrote:
"The history of the Church of Scotland shows that there has been no inherent impossibility in an established Church possessing autonomy in the ordering of its worship and in much else besides."
It may therefore be said that the Church of Scotland has a unique establishment; and it may be pointed out that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there

1067
is not one established Church but there are two established Churches recognised by the State. If the State, in marriage law, mentions the Church of England specifically it should be prepared also to mention the Church of Scotland specifically.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add only a few words to this, because I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord opposite had to say and I think it was one of the feeblest and least convincing speeches I have heard him make, and he has made a great many convincing ones. I can add very little to what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said. However, what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is saying is that the recognition of the Established Church of Scotland is not a fact of history, and it is. However much you may leave it out of an Act of Parliament, you are doing something which is already in history. If you want to have an Act you have to have one which respects what is historically true. This Bill does not respect something which is historically true.
My second point has not been mentioned, but is known to everybody. When the Monarch takes on the Crown and becomes the Head of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all the rest of it, the second oath that the Monarch takes is to preserve the Church of Scotland during his or her reign. This is the fact. It has been done by every Monarch ever since the union of the Churches. To say that this does not exist is to deny something that every person knows. I find it extraordinary that we should be listening to a Bill put through in the year 1977 which pretends—because that is all it can do—that what exists does not exist. Well, it does exist, and it is most important that it should continue to be written into whatever Act of Parliament is passed by the present Government.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend when replying, if not for the interest of the House then for mine, to describe the disadvantages that would accrue from accepting the Amendment?
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I had not intended to speak because, like my noble
1068
friend Lord Selkirk, I never imagined that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, would reject the Amendment. Not only for that reason am I on my feet; I was much moved by what the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, said about the ecumenical movement in the Church of Scotland and I was only sorry that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was not in his place when he was speaking, because he would have spoken in support much better than I about the ecumenical movement on my side of Scotland where, as an Elder of the Parish of Whitekirk and Tyninghame, I am only too well acquainted with the annual pilgrimage which, for a number of years, has taken place when representatives of all the Churches come to worship together in our church under the leadership of the noble Earl.
I was an Elder of the Church in Bombay and I well remember in 1926 when the Church was eventually unified; the United Free Church came together and the two Churches of Scotland in Bombay united and our old church there is now known as the Scots Kirk. I remember Dr. White who, in 1926, was Moderator of the great Assembly of that year and I was a close school friend of the son of the Law Lord, Lord Sands, who was the great architect of the whole thing being brought together into what is truly a national Church. I feel very much for the Amendment and, if Lord MacLeod presses it, I shall go into the Lobby with him.
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here when the Amendment was moved. I was in fact meeting the ecumenical gathering of clergy in Glasgow this morning—Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic and Episcopalian—to discuss the very matter of the pilgrimage to which my noble friend has just referred. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says the Church of Scotland is not established. If not, why does the Monarch preside over its Annual General Assembly? In addition, why is her Lord High Commissioner, who presides in her absence, appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I am sure that Lord Kirkhill has an answer, because he always has an answer to everything, but I hope it is the right answer this time.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, perhaps I might with your Lordships' permission intervene at this point to give hint of a personal note of background. I was brought up on the fundamentalist wing of the Church and so I am not really in a personal way familiar with the fine point of detail of Church constitution. That being so, my use of the word "established" was obviously inappropriate in the context in which I used it. I was attempting to make a distinction between the marriage practice which obtains within the Church of England and the quite different practice which obtains within the Church of Scotland. On reflection, to have used the word "established" was of course unnecessarily to have stirred up a religious hornets' nest in the corporate breast of your Lordships, and for that I apologise and withdraw the use of the word "established". On the other hand, I think I would rest on the distinctions which I was attempting to draw.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, has rightly raised this matter again; we discussed it in Committee, but on a manuscript Amendment when we did not have time to give it full consideration. However, we have had the opportunity since then, and in this brief debate today, to consider it. Lord MacLeod set out the reasons for his Amendment and several of my noble friends have supported him, pointing out that it would do no ill to the Bill to include it. The Government say the Amendment is unnecessary, but on the other hand it would not damage the Bill to add it.
The Church of Scotland is regarded as the Established Church of Scotland and it certainly has the responsibilities and duties of an Established Church in Scotland. It has a unique position, a primary position, in Scotland, and that does not derogate in any way from the situations of the other Churches in Scotland. The Church of Scotland also, as at least one noble Lord has reminded us, is in a special position because the State has no say in the Church's writ where spiritual matters are concerned. For its part, the Church of Scotland accepts the responsibility of serving in religious affairs anyone in any part of Scotland,
1070
whether or not a member of the Church. As Lord MacLeod pointed out, it is the only Church which does this and which has the facilities and resources for doing it all over Scotland. In particular, as we are dealing with the Bill in relation to marriage, the Kirk accepts and carries out duties in connection with marriage.
The Government's argument has been, to put it briefly, that to name the Church of Scotland in the Bill would produce a three-tier structure of Churches instead of a two-tier structure, which they accept. My contention is that there would be a three-tier structure in any case because the position of the Church of Scotland is unique. No other Church is in that position, so in practice there is to be a three-tier structure. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicate that the Government would resist the Amendment because it sounded as though he might even ask the House to divide against it, and, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk pointed out, this seems unnecessary.
This is not a matter in which the official Opposition would seek to influence Peers if there is to be a Division; that is, if the Government will not accept the Amendment without voting. But I should like to make my personal position clear and I must declare an interest as I am a member of the Church of Scotland. I certainly will support the Amendment and, as for noble Lords in whatever part of the House they may be who are not familiar with the Churches in Scotland and the position of the Church of Scotland, and are wondering whether to support the Amendment, I think I can tell them that they can safely support the Amendment without damaging the Bill in any way, and in the opinion of many of us we should be improving the Bill. Furthermore, in supporting the Amendment they would not be casting any reflection on the other Churches in Scotland. Therefore, I would hope that, although this is a matter for individuals to decide, your Lordships would accept the Amendment and I would also hope that the Government would not continue their resistance to it.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, with the leave of the House, to answer the question put to him by the

1071
noble Lord, Lord Brown, which would be helpful to those of us who do not know very much about this matter?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it was because the debate developed as it did that I was unable to answer my noble friend Lord Brown, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, almost answered for me. The Government consider that to make this distinction would divide religious bodies into three categories—the Church of Scotland, those specified in regulations and those not specified in regulations—whereas what the Government wish to do is to divide religious bodies into two categories; first, those exempt from registration and consequently exempt from rules about the Fcontent of marriage ceremonies, and, secondly, those not so exempt. That is the distinction.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord then tell us which are the religious denominations that the Secretary of State is intending to describe under the Bill? Can we have a list?—because this has now become very relevant in view of what he said.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not have the list in front of me, but the Secretary of State will, by regulation, give assent to the past and continuing practice which meantime obtains. The Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church—the main religious bodies about whose stature there can be no question and in relation to which there can be no failure to identify a celebrant are examples. It would be very difficult to identify each celebrant in the larger religious bodies, so that the continuing practice of the day is to obtain. However, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and give him a full list.
At the very last moment, and almost saved by the bell, I have received the list. It is: the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in Scotland and other Churches of the Anglican Communion, the Congregational Union of Scotland, the Baptist Union of Scotland, the United Free Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church in Scotland, the Salvation Army, the Hebrew Congregation, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland,
1072
the Scottish Unitarian Association and the Religious Society of Friends.
Lord BALERNO: Did the noble Lord read out the Free Church of Scotland?
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords, I did.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: My Lords, if this is the right moment, I believe that I have the right to a word. That word will be short because of the contributions that have been made. In the first place, I must willingly accept the kind and generous opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in regard to the intervention that he made upon which I based my remarks. I accept absolutely all that he has said. In my public life I have spent so much time in making too audible side comments which I have regretted for the rest of my life that I totally understand what happened. None the less, I did not base my speech on a passing remark, for what the noble Lord said in passing and has so generously withdrawn has been said by quite a number of people. Inevitably, when one asks for one denomination to be specified as against another, there are those who will say that this is a sign of superiority especially by reason of numbers quite apart from a sign of responsibility. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his aside, because it was an aside which represented a very serious statement which is being made. A great many people in Scotland are discussing this at the present time and there was a leading article in the Scotsman yesterday on precisely this subject.
My only other remark is that I am still mystified in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to the fact that we were still an Established Church, apart from a certain interpretation, and that is the whole issue that was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in regard to the contributions of the two Archbishops, who said that the Church of Scotland was both Established and Free. This could lead to a discussion that could go on for any length of time. But it is the Established Church, and, as such, has this great responsibility and this great opportunity in terms that I shall not repeat by reason of its extension over the whole country and by reason of the fact that there is a parish minister in each parish.

1073
This makes it quite different and places it at the service of the Church and not in superiority over the other Churches.
It is in these terms that I regret and am still a little mystified, in view of the fact that nothing is to change in whatever the understanding of the Established Church is according to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, himself, that the Government cannot see their way to giving the Established Church the kind of interpretation that two archbishops have given
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
to it. In view of the fact that, for some reason or another, the Government cannot accept it, I have no other course but to press my Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 121; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Norwich, V.

Balerno, L.

Exeter, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Banks, L.

George-Brown, L.

Piercy, L.

Belstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Platt, L.

Berkeley, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Porritt, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Granville of Eye, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Rochester, L.

Brown, L.

Hale, L.

Romney, E.

Byers, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hamilton and Brandon, D.

St. Davids, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seear, B.

Cawley, L.

Harvington, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Champion, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Chelwood, L.

Hayter, L.

Shepherd, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Slater, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilbrandon, L.

Sligo, M.

Clwyd, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Slim, V.

Coleraine, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Swaythling, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Dormer, L.

Vernon, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundonald, E.

Mancroft, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Dunleath, L.

Marley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Eccles, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Jacques, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Vaizey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Pannell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L.

4.48 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("such religious body as may be") and insert ("a religious body").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22 I should, with your Lordships' permission—and I think that it would be for your convenience—link with it Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. These Amendments remove the word "may", which has caused such offence to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in relation to the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. The use of the word "shall" is unacceptable because, I am advised, it would be a departure from normal drafting practice, and in the Government's view the intended effect should be achieved more acceptably by the purport of our Amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the Amendment; it goes some way towards what I have in mind. Secretaries of State always have the great principle of freedom for themselves and duty for others. I realise that that is why they object to the word "shall". None the less, I wish to thank the noble Lord for what he said.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not wish to raise again the kind of controversy we have just had, but before we depart from this Amendment I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that, since it is apparent that he knows the bodies that are going to be referred to in Clause 8(1)(i), it would be very much better if he put them into the Bill as a Schedule. I do not know what my colleagues on this side of the House think, but I rather think that I shall have with me at any rate my noble friend Lord Balerno who has very much the same kind of background as I have. But it being granted that the United Free Church split, and the majority joined the Church in Scotland and a minority continued, I cannot for the life of me see why the Secretary of State should have any power to prescribe in regulation what they should or should not do. I would feel strongly opposed to that. Certainly let them be put in the Bill (in a Schedule, if the noble Lord does not want to spell this out in the clause itself) but do not put them in regulations. There is a sensitivity here, and
1076
I rather suspect that the noble Lord will have some personal sympathy with this matter. I think that this is being handled with the most remarkable absence of tact that I have seen for a long time in dealing with a matter of this kind. I think the Government should have regard to this and should reconsider it before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is an alternative to No. 22. so we might take them both together.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 23. I have thanked the noble Lord for his Amendment, and will not move my Amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: But we can discuss them together.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I intervene with the leave of the House simply to say this. If we could avoid any spillover thought from our previous discussion, it is exactly because the Government are sensitive to these issues that they have decided that it would not be wise to identify and enumerate each denomination in a Schedule to the Bill. It is a question of judgment, but that is certainly the Government's feeling in an attempt to be as sensitive as is possible in these areas at this time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 10, after ("who") insert (", not being one of the foregoing,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration of nominated persons as celebrants]:
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("not being a") and insert ("other than the established Church of Scotland or a religious").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment consequential upon the Amendment to which we have agreed and which was moved by Lord MacLeod. The Government may not like the drafting, and I say straight away that if, between now and Third Reading, they would like to improve the drafting I should be quite happy. But some Amendment of this character is necessary. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I agree that, as a result of the decision in your Lordships' House relative to Amendment No. 21, this is a consequential Amendment and therefore at this stage I will accept it. I further confirm the noble Earl's remarks and I would not myself think that the drafting could be sustained. Whether or not I can do something about that before Third Reading (which is, after all, on Thursday) I am not sure, but from the Government's point of view we can look at it, if not here certainly in the other place.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Preliminaries to solemnisation of religious marriages]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("completed") and insert ("issued").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move Amendment No. 27. This was discussed earlier, with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a marriage
1078
solemnised by an approved celebrant shall not be void merely because the Marriage Schedule specified a different date or place from the date on which, or the place at which, the marriage was solemnised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move this Amendment in the same way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Marriage ceremony and registration of marriage]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 en bloc:
Page 13, line 35, leave out ("on a date earlier than 14 days after") and insert ("within 14 days of").
Page 13,line 36, leave out ("by him").
leave out from ("of") to ("unless") in line 38 and insert ("a marriage notice in respect of that marriage,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships' House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 en bloc. These are drafting Amendments. They are, indeed, substantially the same as Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18 and 19, to which your Lordships have already agreed, in respect of Clause 6. I do not think I need say more. I formally move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Second marriage ceremony]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 32 is alternative to Amendment No. 33.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 25, leave out ("undergone") and insert ("gone through").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32 I would wish to link my remarks with Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. These are drafting Amendments to meet a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, during the Committee stage. The noble Earl suggested that it was hardly appropriate to use the word "undergone" in reference to a marriage ceremony. His own Amendment suggested substituting the words "taken part in", but these might

1079
be held to apply just as much to the celebrant, the best man, the bridesmaid and the witnesses, as to the parties themselves. However, the Government accept the noble Earl's point, but propose the words in the Amendments as being more precise than "taken part in" and as being more neutral than "undergone". I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for this improvement. The word "undergone" almost always connotes something highly unpleasant, and it did not seem to me that it should be put into a Statute in reference to a marriage. I quite accept the Amendment that the noble Lord has proposed, and I am grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 en bloc:
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("undergone") and insert ("gone through").
Page 14,line 39, leave out ("undergone") and insert ("gone through").
Page 14,line 42, leave out ("underwent") and insert ("went through").
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("undergone") and insert ("gone through").
Page 15,line 13, leave out ("undergone") and insert ("gone through").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Registration of irregular marriages]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 25, after second ("and") insert ("where appropriate").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is something that was mentioned at Committee stage. It refers to the Scots marriage of habit and repute, which in a very limited number of cases is very valuable. In many cases this arises when a man and woman live together and there is some bar to marriage. In those cases it is not by any means difficult to give a date. The date would necessarily arise when the bar to marriage was removed. But that is not the only case. In certain cases—and, indeed, in the reported cases—it sometimes arises when the parties are dead or when one of the parties is
1080
dead. Then the question arises, "Were they or were they not married?" In fact, the majority of the reported cases are on those lines. There is no date that can be put to that, because it means that two people have lived together and after a time have come to regard themselves as husband and wife, and by the repute of their neighbours are married.
Now when does that situation arise? Quite clearly, no date can be put to it. I have no doubt that the Court of Session, in its infinite wisdom, could guess a date as well as anybody else. I should have thought that it gives more latitude if you say, "where appropriate" because, clearly, there are cases where no date can be placed there with any reliability. I am not pretending that this is a big point; but it seems to me that it makes this clause more accurate within the possibilities of what it intends to do. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is not entirely clear on the Government side, although the noble Earl has expressed himself with clarity in his recent remarks. In the Government's view, the effect of this Amendment, if implemented, will be that when the Court of Session grant a decree of declarator establishing an irregular marriage, the principal clerk in notifying the Registrar General of the details would not be required in all cases to notify the date on which the marriage was determined to be constituted but only "where appropriate". To say the least, that is a vague phrase. The purpose of mentioning the date in the clause is to confirm present practice under which a date is determined by the court in all cases and is notified in all cases to the Registrar General.
It is necessary that the court should determine the date from which the marriage is established so that a proper record of the marriage can be entered in the statutory register of marriages. In many of the cases where people present a petition to the court for a decree establishing a marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, the parties have lived together as man and wife for a period during which one or both of them was not free to marry. The date of the marriage can, therefore, only be established from the date on which they became free to marry

1081
by, for example, the death or divorce of an existing spouse. The Court of Session have accepted that a date should be determined in all cases and notified to the Registrar General. The clause merely establishes the present procedure and makes no change in it. The Amendment would throw the procedure into doubt and, for the reasons I have been explaining, the Government hope that the noble Earl might accept the contents of my remarks.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether the noble Lord would take account of what my noble friend has said now. He has said already that his advisers were not able to understand what was intended here. I would hope that the noble Lord would look at this again because I am quite certain that my noble friend is right in saying that it is somewhat absurd to ask a court to determine on what date a marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute started.
This may not be the appropriate place to make the Amendment. Nevertheless, I must say that I myself am a little confused by the Marshalled List. I was so busy looking for the words "and insert" in line 25 that perhaps I did not follow all that the noble Lord said. But I think that my noble friend is on a very good point here. This is a very old established part of the law in Scotland, and I should have thought that to establish the fact of cohabitation with habit and repute would be enough without attributing a date.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I state simply that the Government do not believe that there should be any attempt to guide the Court of Session on this point. Stated simply, that is the Government position.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, this is purely an administrative matter for the court. I am not particularly worried about it. The court has to ascertain a date which is, quite clearly, unascertainable. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I could suggest the words "where ascertainable". There are cases where, to my mind, the date would be a matter of pure guesswork. I leave that with the noble Lord. I shall not
1082
press the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Offences]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 en bloc:
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("valid").
Page 16,line 17, leave out ("completed") and insert ("issued").
leave out ("by a district registrar").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 en bloc. I can do so formally since we have already discussed them linked to Amendment No. 20.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

DIVORCE REFORM (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill does not do more than to seek parity of the law in Northern Ireland with that which has obtained in England since the passing of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 in England. There is just one technical variance and I would give your Lordships an assurance that it is no more than of a procedural nature. This is that we are planning in this Bill to continue the procedure that petitions be heard in the High Court; whereas in England they would be heard in the county court. There are arguments on both sides for maintaining or changing the situation, but it is generally known that the courts sytem is at present under review in Northern Ireland and may well be reorganised. Therefore, we thought it would be better not to make this particular change, which might possibly confuse the issue at this stage, but rather to await the outcome of the review of the courts system. But I say again that it is a procedural issue and in no way affects the principle or the rationale of the Bill.
The Bill, as I have mentioned, is based on the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. It could be argued that that Act could

1083
perhaps be improved; it could be said that it does not fulfil all the recommendations of the report made by the then Archbishop of Canterbury; but we felt that the eight years of experience in seeing the 1969 Act in operation was such as to justify the view that it has been reasonably satisfactory. More important, we felt it would be better, to take a fairly modest step at this stage rather than to introduce new and possibly controversial provisions which might also involve legal complications.
But, my Lords, I am afraid that in our researches into this matter over the last nine or ten months, the Bill in its present form has turned out to be much more complicated than we had originally envisaged. This is because of the variances in the existing law between England and Northern Ireland. I apologise, therefore, that the Bill is not quite as simple and straightforward as I had originally anticipated that it should be. However, on this occasion I shall not weary your Lordships by going into the legal intricacies and details of it although I accept that drafting Amendments may be necessary. Not only will I be glad to consider favourably any such Amendments that noble Lords may suggest, but indeed I will be very grateful for such suggestions.
Rather than reiterate the arguments put forward for and against the 1969 Act, because I know that they were fully debated both in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of that Bill, I will merely summarise as follows. In the ideal circumstances, divorce ought not to be necessary; but I am afraid that it is a fact of life that human relationships do break down. What I am aiming at is that divorce in itself should no longer be considered to be an offence or a sin. There can be offences and sins attached to divorce: cruelty, whether it be physical or mental, is certainly a sin and an offence. It could be argued that adultery is a sin and an offence. Certainly desertion by a husband leaving a wife with a young family in destitute circumstances is a sin and an offence. What I am saying is that divorce itself is not an offence. It is regrettable; it is perhaps even deplorable; but, rather like someone who has a serious illness, it is something that you pity them for rather than censure them for it. It is something
1084
you try to get them over and, if they are a friend, you try to rehabilitate them and get them back to a normal way of living again as soon as possible.
The purpose of the Bill, like the 1969 Act, is not to make divorce cheaper—and I do not speak financially; I speak in terms of significance—nor to make it of less consequence. May I summarise the points. First, one of the purposes is to provide every opportunity for reconciliation to take place. Your Lordships will note in the Bill that the solicitor acting for a petitioner will be called upon to certify in court that he has fully discussed with the parties concerned the possibilities of reconciliation and has put them in touch with any marriage guidance counsellorship that may be available. Also there is a clause to enable parties to come together again for a trial period of six months in order to give the marriage every chance of being restored and recovered if this is at all possible. Secondly, one of the most important aspects of it is to try to cut out from the regrettable procedures of divorce the accusations and acrimony—and perhaps even snooping by private detectives—with all the consequent distress that this has on the parties themselves and any children that there may be of the marriage.
I am extremely lucky; I am highly privileged in so far as I grew up in a home in which my parents remained happily married until death did they part. It was a domestic climate of stability and security. I know that it is something which is unfashionable to say nowadays, but I had such a respect for my parents that I did all sorts of ridiculous things that I did not want to do in order not to disappoint them, such as riding horses, shooting at birds and playing cricket. But I respected my parents to that extent, and if their marriage had broken up in acrimony with accusations being tossed one to another, I honestly think that the bottom would have fallen out of my life. I know it is the case that not everyone enjoys the privilege of having that secure family background, but I did and I am deeply grateful for it. I merely quote this because I know what I would have felt like if my parents' marriage had split up in the circumstances that I have described.
Moving on to a more sordid aspect, the third purpose behind the Bill is to try to reduce the risk of physical violence

1085
which can take place when a marriage has broken but cannot be dissolved. This, as your Lordships know, is much more likely to happen among the lower income brackets where they live in a small house. They cannot get away from each other and there is not the finance available for one to move out and for them to separate without maintenance and provision of that sort. Since the passing of the 1969 Act, society has perhaps become even more aware of the problem of battered wives. This is a problem which I am sure has always existed. But, human nature being what it is, and people being quite rightly and properly proud and loyal, if a woman appears out shopping with a black eye she is not going to say, "My husband thumped me last night". She is going to say, "I fell downstairs", or "I walked into a cupboard door in the dark", or something like that. This is a problem that we are only just beginning to appreciate; but from what I have been told it is a very substantial problem indeed. Anything one can do to help to obviate it would be extremely desirable.
Then there is the regrettable situation in the Northern Ireland legislation as it stands at the moment, as it was in England prior to 1969, that when two parties are intent upon getting a divorce and they cannot provide proof for it, they are tempted to "stage manage" a marital offence. This is one of the most sordid and unchristian things one can think of, but it is a resort to which many have had to turn. In addressing myself to this Bill, I gave careful study to the Scriptures, and I am convinced that it would be more in keeping with the law of God that such cruelty and suffering should be avoided than that the present man-made law should be adhered to. When a marriage breaks down irretrievably—this is what it is all about, it is not about offences—the partners should be able to bid farewell to each other with dignity and charity. I use the word in the same sense as St. Paul used it.
Then there is the question of releasing those who have been deserted by their partner. Perhaps they have not seen him or her for many years but cannot prove any offence whereby they can get a divorce. Surely it is an act of Christianity and charity that they should be released from a long dead marriage and enabled to resume a meaningful family life. Finally, there is the matter of trying to secure, for
1086
a wife in particular, a more satisfactory financial provision than is often the case at the moment.
I have been asked how one can quantify the public demand for a measure of this sort. I can only say that since some publicity was accorded to the First Reading of this Bill, I have been astonished at the number of letters and telephone calls I have received, all saying: "Good luck! I hope this goes through. Thank heavens someone is trying at last to do something about this situation!" There has been only one adverse voice. It came from a politician who felt, I am sure, that it was expected of him to express the opinion that he did. Many of the letters I have received have been most moving. One woman rang up and said: "I have not seen my husband for 18 years and I cannot get a divorce. How soon will this Bill go through?" I am convinced—
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why the lady could not get a divorce, since the husband had apparently deserted her?
Lord DUNLEATH: Because, my Lords, the wife had completely lost contact with the husband.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, that certainly does not prevent one getting a divorce on the ground of desertion.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is very much better qualified than I to comment on this matter. I received information to that effect and I have not investigated this particular case in detail; but I should be more than glad to write to the noble and learned Lord when I have received more information about the matter. Indeed, perhaps his advice would be extremely valuable in assisting this unfortunate woman to solve her problem, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention.
How then can this be quantified? I know that at the moment the Standing Commission on Human Rights is working on a wide range of social problems; and I learned recently that they hope to have a report available fairly soon, perhaps in early spring. I can quite understand that Her Majesty's Government may want to delay any final decision

1087
on this Bill until that report has been received. Another report which I think will be very interesting is to come from the Faculty of Law at Queen's University in Belfast. Research is being done, I understand, into all the petitions which were submitted in 1975. That report should be of extreme interest to all those who ask how the demand for the Bill is to be quantified.
In view of this, I would appeal to your Lordships' House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am not so unrealistic as to think that if and when the Bill reaches another place the Government will throw their hats in the air and say: "Marvellous! This is just what we have been waiting for." I realise that there is very little time available in which to deal with additional legislation; but I would appeal to your Lordships not to kill the Bill at this stage, but to keep it alive in the hope that the two reports to which I have referred will be available shortly and will then enable us to hammer out the Bill and turn it into something which is very meaningful. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunleath.)
5.25 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, may I say straight away how much I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in introducing this Bill. It comes at a time when I and my colleagues have very much in mind the question of divorce law reform in Northern Ireland. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on introducing such a well-drafted Bill. While I am advised that some minor drafting Amendments might be needed, I am glad to say that I do not have to stand here at the Dispatch Box and draw your Lordships' attention to any major errors in or omissions from the Bill. May I also say at the outset that I have the greatest personal sympathy with what the noble Lord's Bill seeks to achieve.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships long, but I should like to outline briefly the Government's current views on the possibility of changing the law on divorce in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. The law on social and personal
1088
matters was, of course, a matter for the Stormont Parliament, and the existing law in Northern Ireland, the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland) 1939, was an act of that Parliament. There has been a tradition in Northern Ireland over the last half-century of introducing there most of the changes in the law which had been introduced in England. The Northern Irish authorities appear to have often allowed a short time to elapse before introducing legislation which followed English legislation—time to evaluate the English Act and the way in which it worked in practice. The 1939 Act, to which I have just referred, provides a good example since it followed closely the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937. However, there has been no corresponding legislation to follow the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which introduced the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole grounds for divorce in England and Wales.
One important factor explaining why Northern Ireland has not so far followed the rest of Great Britain so far as divorce is concerned was no doubt that from 1968 onwards the Northern Ireland Parliament was preoccupied with more fundamental issues, issues which tended to push personal and family matters to one side. And, since 1972, there has, of course, been no regional legislature. The result, so far as the law on divorce is concerned, is that there is a widespread and growing feeling in Northern Ireland that the law has become outdated, and that much needless human suffering is being caused. In these circumstances, the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not look closely at the need for legislation in fields which we have previously thought appropriate to leave to a devolved Administration or, in Great Britain, to Private Members' Bills.
It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained in another place on 2nd July last year that the Government would now consider whether to legislate to bring Northern Ireland law in this area more into harmony with laws in other parts of the country. My right honourable friend made clear the Government's readiness to consider new legislation in this area. But he also stressed the need to avoid precipitate

1089
action, and the importance of there being full consultation with the people of Northern Ireland before the Government themselves introduced any such legislation.
So far as the reform of the law on divorce and homosexuality is concerned, this consultation is being carried out on the Government's behalf by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State formally requested the Commission on 30th July last year that they:
"should now consider the desirability of amending the law on homosexuality and the law on divorce with a view to bringing the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with the current law in England and Wales".
My right honourable friend went on to remind the Commission that both subjects are sensitive matters, and that the Government would not wish to propose fresh legislation on them without first being satisfied about the extent to which such changes would be supported or accepted within Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, the report of the Commission on both subjects is now expected to come at some time during the spring. In reply to a Question in another place on 23rd December last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he would urgently consider legislation in the light of the Commission's views.
While the Government are now awaiting the Standing Advisory Commission's views, we do not oppose the principle of this Bill or underestimate its value. The Government welcome the Bill, not least for the opportunity its passage through your Lordships' House will provide for us to hear the views of all concerned, both in this House and in Northern Ireland, on the reform that it proposes of the divorce law.
5.31 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I feel that it requires some apology for an English judge to intervene in your Lordships' House on a Northern Irish measure. But I was for many years president of the Divorce division in this country, and I feel it is only right that I should give my personal view that this Bill, like its predecessor in 1969
1090
and the Scottish Act which followed it, is the very embodiment of humbug and injustice.
It is humbug in a number of ways. The noble Lord, in a speech introducing this Bill, put it far more attractively than the English Act was put forward and he did not say—although the noble Lord, Lord Lord Melchett, did say—that it introduces the breakdown of marriage as the sole ground. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. What it does is to recapitulate a number of old grounds, and add to them the right of a man to repudiate his wife, because she has ceased to find favour in his eyes, after he has deserted her for five years, and that is deemed to be a breakdown of marriage unless it is shown that the marriage has not broken down. In other words, the pretence that this substitutes breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce is the merest pretence. The Bill is claiming to be doing something that it does not do at all.
The second respect in which I am bound to say that I think the Bill is the very embodiment of humbug is that it has in its Long Title, as this kind of Bill always has, that it is to facilitate reconciliation and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, dwelt particularly on that matter. But all my information is that similar provisions in the Divorce Reform Act 1969, and its re-enactments, have proved to be a completely dead letter, and I am bound to say that it seems to me extraordinary, after eight years of a provision having proved a dead letter, that it is now seriously put forward in a Bill and indeed in the Long Title of the Bill, and that that is claimed as one of the merits of the Bill.
The third respect in which the Bill is humbug is that Clause 4 claims, on the face of it, to be a safeguard of a wife, who has been divorced on the ground that she and her husband have lived apart for five years, against her being caused grave financial or other hardship. Again, a similar provision is in the English Act and yet not once has it been successfully invoked. Even when a wife has been able to satisfy the court that she would suffer grave hardship, nevertheless a divorce has been pronounced. So much for the humbug.
The injustice is a matter that I have already mentioned. I could not help

1091
calling to mind, when the noble Lord introduced this Bill, two fairly recent examples in your Lordships' House, one I think two sessions ago and one only on the 19th of last month. The first was the proceedings on what is now the Inheritance Act, and the second was the debate on the Finer Report. The debate on the Finer Report showed the most widespread apprehension among your Lordships about the lot of one-parent families, but this Bill actively creates one-parent families, as indeed the 1969 Act has done. It encourages the creation of one-parent families. The reason is perfectly simple. It enables a man to repudiate his wife after five years' separation, even though she has stood by her matrimonial duties, has stood by her marriage in every way and no complaint can be made against her. She has merely ceased to find favour in her husband's eyes. It generally means that someone else, someone younger, who has not yet had to go through the labour, pain and peril of childbirth and all the household chores, has found greater favour. But he can repudiate his wife and her family, and marry the younger second woman.
As was pointed out to your Lordships, when the 1969 Act was being debated, by a judge of incomparable experience in this sphere of judicature, my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson, and confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who has had professional, Parliamentary and Ministerial experience of this problem, the fundamental fact is that there are only a handful of men in this country who can afford two families. Therefore, if you enable the husband to repudiate his wife merely because she has ceased to find favour in his eyes, and marry another wife and have a second family, the first family goes plummeting down to the level of poverty where they are lucky if they are caught at subsistence level by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Indeed, the horrifying fact that appeared from the Finer Committee's Report was that there were 45,000 families who were below supplementary benefits level; in other words, below subsistence level. Therefore, I am afraid that this Bill embodies a fundamental injustice.
Marriage is really based on a functional division of co-operative labour between husband and wife. The wife in our
1092
society, in any envisageable society, bears the children and manages the home and thereby suffers economic impairment. The husband, by her assumption of her responsibilities, is freed for his economic advancement. Those problems can be worked out in the state of marriage, and it is one of the reasons why marriage as an institution has been fostered in every society known to me. It is a way of working out fairly the fundamental division of co-operative labour between husband and wife. But this Bill, like its predecessor, strikes at the very root of that principle because it enables the man, even though the wife has fully played her part in the co-operative labour, to repudiate her. That is Clause 2(1)(e).
In introducing the Bill the noble Lord mentioned the avoidance of cruelty and suffering. I cannot believe that he has read the contents of the Finer Committee Report on One Parent Families. As I have said, a measure like this creates one-parent families. It was a masterly and most moving report and it showed beyond any doubt at all the cruelty that society inflicts on the one-parent family and the suffering they endure. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to attach to ourselves any flattering unction: thinking that by passing this measure we are avoiding and obviating cruelty and suffering. On the contrary, we shall be adding to it.
The noble Lord mentioned financial provision and I want to ask him this question. The English Divorce Reform Act was accompanied by an elaborate Act enabling the court to do justice after divorce, so far as it can be done where you have two families clamouring for the resources of one. It enabled the court to do justice, so far as it could, to a divorced wife. Is there to be a comparable measure in Northern Ireland?
I ask something more. Both in England and in Scotland and now under this Bill if it is accompanied by the financial measures that are necessary to mitigate to some extent the cruelty and suffering, Parliament will be putting divorced women in a more favourable position than women who have stood by their marriages. That is quite unnecessary. Many of the Commonwealth countries have recognised the problem and given courts the same power to make provision for a wife or a widow or, indeed, for the personal representative of a

1093
wife as they do for a divorced woman. How long are we going to endure that kind of discrimination against the married woman?
During the course of this year we hope to see a report from the Law Commission on the matrimonial home. Many of us hope that the report will recommend joint ownership of the matrimonial home. It would be something on the way, but we have not got it yet and at the moment, and until we get even that measure, we are discriminating against the woman who stands by her marriage and providing that after she has played her full part in the co-operative division of labour she can still be cast aside with her children and both of them consigned to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is what is involved.
Notwithstanding the fact that I have no claim to connection with Northern Ireland, I thought it right to give this warning. When we debated the Finer Report on 19th January there were signs of recognition that a wrong step had been taken, as I believe it had been, in 1969. It was particularly noticeable, not surprisingly, in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, but it was also, I thought, most noticeable in a speech that was made from the Bench of Bishops. There is no question that the Archbishop's Commission and Putting Asunder, jumping on an intellectually fashionable bandwagon at the time, was a major contributor to the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and that it contradicted entirely the evidence that was given by the Church of England, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Morton Royal Commission of 1954 to 1957. I think that I saw signs of recognition that this problem to which I have referred, the creation of a particular class of one-parent family, had been perpetrated by the 1969 Act.
Despite that, I shall not ask your Lordships to divide against the Bill, for two reasons. First, I think it is always a very great evil when the matrimonial and divorce laws of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland diverge. You get false claims of domicile: people taking up a domicile in order to gain a forum. It seems to me, if I may say so with respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was entirely justified—as, indeed, the noble
1094
Lord, Lord Melchett, reiterated—in drawing attention to the advantage of bringing together the three jurisdictions.
The second reason is my own feeling that things have got to get worse before they get better. I remember many years ago now serving on a Royal Commission that included a very wise psychiatrist. He said to me, "I often feel that I have to send people away because they are not yet ill enough for me to help them properly". I have a feeling that in recent years our society has caught this sickness and that things have to get worse before they get better. There has to be wider recognition of the misery that has been caused by throwing over established institutions and traditional ideas. I shall not, therefore, ask your Lordships to divide against the Bill but will content myself with warning, as I hope I may with respect, that the Bill contains inbuilt imperfections of injustice for married women—and humbug.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could develop a little further his argument that Clause 4 is not a sufficient safeguard against the evils upon which he has been dwelling.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, the reason is that on ultimate analysis Clause 4 is discretionary. The discretion has never once since 1969 been exercised to refuse a divorce, even in those cases I mentioned where a wife had proved that it would cause grave financial or other hardship. The words on page 4, line 13, were held by the court to be sufficient to entitle them nevertheless to grant a decree of divorce, and I am bound to say that I think that that construction of the Act was absolutely right. The shameful thing is that what Parliament enacted as a safeguard has proved to be no safeguard at all.
5.51 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is not rising, so I will rise instead, first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dunleath for the courage and foresight he has exercised in introducing this Bill. We in Northern Ireland are in some ways much closer to Scotland than we are to England and in its wisdom Scotland has

1095
followed in England's footsteps (I believe the Act came into operation at the beginning of this year) and therefore it seems to me that Northern Ireland is rather left sticking out like a sore thumb.
I much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Personally, if it were possible—and I am not saying this in any sense of criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, but just as someone who has been part of a provincial Government for some time in the past—I would prefer to see the Government introducing a measure of this kind rather than that it should come from a noble Lord privately. I believe it is easier for a Government to introduce legislation of this kind, especially when dealing with Northern Ireland, and to get it through both Houses—because that is another important point. We might get it through this House and then it might be thrown out in the House of Commons.
It could be argued with force that this is something which should be left to a future Assembly in Northern Ireland, but I know, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, must now know, that there are some Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland in the House of Commons who are dedicated to ensuring that no Assembly shall ever be re-established in Northern Ireland. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, this is something that the Government are thinking about; and I hope they will continue to do so in the future.
I should like once more to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Some noble Lords present here tonight may not realise that he is a Member of what is known in Northern Ireland as the Alliance Party, which is one of the rare Parties representing both Catholics and Protestants. That is something which I think noble Lords should appreciate while we are discussing these matters tonight. I wish the noble Lord well. Like him, I hope that this Bill will not be killed: I hope it will be kept open, waiting for the report, but I believe that for final success it might be better if the Government were to take over a measure of this kind, perhaps a more inclusive measure covering other matters as well, because I believe that that would have a greater chance of success.
5.54 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise that my name is not on the list of speakers and out of no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I intend to intervene for only a short time. First, I think we should always look carefully at Northern Ireland Bills to see whether, under a devolved Government, they would have been the subject of legislation in Northern Ireland. Under the Stormont Parliament I assume that this Bill would have been handled in Belfast, so although I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said with regard to the prospect of setting up another Northern Ireland Assembly, I would just say that on an occasion of this kind I think Parliament should tread with some wariness.
Having said that, I believe that this Bill would bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with the law of England and Wales and of Scotland. I accept the contention put forward by the noble Lord in his speech, that there is a considerable body of opinion in Northern Ireland today which takes the view that, as the law in Great Britain has abandoned the concept of the matrimonial offence and put in its place the need to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, so this should be the criterion of divorce proceedings in Northern Ireland. I think that on this occasion we on these Benches must look towards the Government to decide what ought to be done about the Bill on this occasion. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has advised as to the volume of demand for this legislation and whether there would be perhaps any other body of opinion in Northern Ireland, either public or legal, which might wish to amend the divorce law for England and Wales and for Scotland so that the law became slightly different in respect of Northern Ireland. And having listened to no less a person than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who after all was President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, voicing fundamental criticisms of the law as it stands today in Great Britain, it is reasonable to say that there might be two sides to the objections in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, may say to that "Very well. Let us carry the Bill forward and let us amend it and discuss

1097
it in Committee". It may be that that is what your Lordships would wish to do, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the Government, has said that the Secretary of State is awaiting a report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland; and as I understood from the noble Lord that the Government wish to await that report I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, may also be content to await the report. However, to my mind this Bill has one particularly valuable function: It is a Bill—a comparatively rare occurrence amid the flood of Parliamentary orders which has had to serve as Northern Ireland legislation during these past years. Therefore, on the subject of divorce reform for Northern Ireland I hope that when the Government are ready to proceed, if this Bill is not to proceed through Parliament on this occasion, the Government will then do so by way of a Parliamentary Bill and not by way of a Parliamentary order. To my mind that would be the least that should be done to recognise the importance of social reform in Northern Ireland and the work which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has undoubtedly devoted to bringing his own Bill before your Lordships today.
5.58 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the various noble Lords who have been good enough to speak on this measure. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, speaking on behalf of the Government, for his thoughtful and favourable response to what I said and to the Bill. I welcome his statement that it is right and proper in the absence of a devolved Government for Her Majesty's Government to look closely at measures of this kind. I also welcome what I think he said, that it was important that this type of measure should be subject to public comment and discussion. I am grateful for his remarks.
I felt a sense of privilege that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, should have felt it proper to speak on this occasion. Knowing the experience he has and the weight of his authority I felt it was an extremely valuable contribution. It is clear that he approves of this Bill no more than he approves of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. This is an opinion—and an authoritative opinion—to which he is
1098
entirely entitled. He made a number of interesting points and I should like to assure him sincerely that these will be looked at closely. I have taken some notes, but I shall study his speech in Hansard extremely carefully.
With regard to financial provisions, those that accompany the 1969 Act I think were passed in 1970 and taken through by the Government, and I was assuming that a similar provision would take place if this Bill goes through in respect of Northern Ireland now; but again this is a very good point to look at. I welcomed the noble Lord's statement that parity was the tidy and logical way to do it, because that is what I feel and that is one of the purposes of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
It was an unexpected pleasure to hear my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine. I take his point about there being advantages in the Government putting through a measure of this kind rather than it being a Private Member's Bill. But Governments need the odd prod every now and again, do they not? At the end of the day that may turn out to be the best way of doing it. But I think perhaps there is advantage in having this Bill in motion off the ground at the moment because it gives an opportunity for public reaction.
The noble Lord may be interested to know that I have received public reaction from two bodies which I thought particularly significant. One was from the Christian Marriage Committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland saying "Good luck. This is what we need. All power to your elbow". I had a similar message from the Methodist Church Council on Social Welfare. I found it extremely heartening that those two bodies, which have been working on problems such as this for a considerable time, should have felt like that, and I think that is quite a good thermometer of public opinion. If your Lordships are good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that will provide further opportunity for public reaction before we reach the next stage.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for what he said. Certainly I am very happy, and indeed I think it would be the proper course of events, to

1099
wait, if the Parliamentary timetable permits it, until the report of the Standing Commission on Human Rights comes through, so that we can see what it says, and also the report to which I referred from the Faculty at Law of Queens University. Certainly I would be happy to wait for those, and indeed I think this would be the best course of action. In thanking your Lordships for your consideration of this Bill, and thanking noble Lords who have contributed with their remarks, I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROE DEER (CLOSE SEASONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY AND GAS UNDERTAKINGS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
6.3 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Electricity and Gas Undertakings (Financial Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 25th January, be approved. The order is in two distinct parts. First, it authorises payment of compensation to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service for financial loss incurred in the year 1975–76, in respect of observance of national price restraint policy, and to the Northern Ireland Gas undertakings for loss incurred similarly in 1974–75 and 1975–76. Secondly, it amends the Gas Act (NI) 1971 and the Electricity Supply (NI) Order 1972 by regularising matters involving the issue of gas and electricity bills based on estimated levels of consumption in circumstances where officers of the fuel undertaking are unable, for whatever reason, to gain access to premises for the purpose of inspecting meters. Articles 2 and 3 together with the Schedule provide for the payment of compensation. The provisions extend the powers contained in the Electricity and Gas (Financial Provisions) Measure (Northern Ireland) 1974, and bring Northern Ireland into parity with the Statutory Corporations
1100
(Financial Provisions) Act 1975. It is expected that some £31 million will be paid under the order.
Your Lordships will be aware that price restraint subsidies were ended over the whole range of nationalised industries by April 1976, and therefore the order stops with the year 1975–76. But this does not mean that we shall ignore the serious financial difficulties of the Northern Ireland energy concerns. Very substantial tariff increases will be required in future, to enable the electricity and gas undertakings to break even, even in the absence of any further assistance. I am sure that such increases, on top of a tariff structure which is already the highest in the United Kingdom, would be highly undesirable. This is why we are currently examining the future financial prospects of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service in the light of both the Shepherd Report, which examined the Service's financial position, and the Economic and Industrial Strategy Review, better known as the Quigley Report.
Meanwhile, a survey of the Northern Ireland gas industry by experts from the British Gas Corporation is currently under way, and when we receive their report, which we hope will be by the end of March, we expect to be better informed about the range of options for the gas industry's future in Northern Ireland. At present, gas prices in Northern Ireland are about three times higher than in Great Britain and are still not at an economic level. Northern Ireland's energy problems stem from a lack of indigenous resources, a high dependence on oil for both electricity generation and gas manufacture and high interest charges. These problems are formidable but the Government are determined to do what they can to lessen them.
Article 4 of the order remedies a defect in existing legislation dealing with the issue of electricity and gas bills based on estimated levels of consumption. Under the present legislation, whenever increased charges are levied they are not to apply until after the inspection of a consumer's meter following the publication of the new rates of charge. This stringent provision has proved unworkable in those areas where it has been difficult—sometimes impossible—to inspect meters. Indeed, the present law in Northern

1101
Ireland could be seen as unfair in the sense that it provides a premium to those consumers who are normally not at home when the meter reader calls, or to those who will not co-operate by allowing meters to be read. The estimating of meter readings when access to premises cannot be gained is a normal practice of the electricity and gas industries in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are, therefore, strong grounds for amending Northern Ireland legislation to permit use of an estimate of consumption at a time of increased charges. At the same time, statutory backing is provided for the long-standing practice of charging on an estimate when charges are static. Article 3 also provides that these changes should apply retrospectively. This is necessary because, despite the current statutory provisions, the energy undertakings have in fact been following the accepted practice in the rest of the United Kingdom by issuing accounts based on estimates even when these related to increased charges. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Electricity and Gas Undertakings (Financial Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 25th January, be approved.—(Lord Melchett).
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord's explanation of the order, I should like to ask whether he thinks it possible that some method could be found by which natural gas could be brought to Northern Ireland. This is where we miss out at the moment, I am afraid. Secondly, how do matters stand about the possibility of having a nuclear power station reactor for the whole of Ireland?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, on the first point, I am sure that is one of the matters that will be looked at by the experts from the British Gas Corporation who are currently studying the Northern Ireland gas industry. I have not seen their report. I would suggest that it might be best to see what they have to say about the many possibilities which have been canvassed, including the possibility of piping natural gas to Northern Ireland, before I comment on it.
The second question which the noble Lord asked concerned the possibility of a
1102
nuclear power station serving the whole of Ireland. I confess that I have not heard that suggested before. However, my understanding is that the power station development at Kilroot is likely to supply the needs of Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I do not think the problem is lack of capacity but rather the cost of the existing capacity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHARITIES (HOSPITAL AND EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OF LADY KATHERINE LEVESON, TEMPLE BALSALL) ORDER 1976
6.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Charities (Hospital and Educational Foundation of Lady Katherine Leveson, Temple Balsall) Order 1976, laid before the House, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Charities (Hospital and Educational Foundation of Lady Katherine Leveson, Temple Balsall) Order 1976 laid before the House, be approved.
This order brings into effect a scheme by the Charity Commissioners for an Alms-house Charity and a school charity known together as the Hospital and Educational Foundation of Lady Katherine Leveson at Temple Balsall, a village about 10 miles to the South-East of Birmingham. In accordance with the wishes of the founder, the almshouses were built in close proximity to the parish church. Constructed about 300 years ago in red brick, they have a simple beauty and are, I understand, listed buildings.
A few years ago, with the encouragement of the National Association of Almshouses and the assistance of a loan from the former rural district of Meridon, whose responsibilities now rest with the Borough Council of Solihull, they were improved so as to incorporate all modern amenities while preserving the existing facade. There is also a master's house which was rebuilt in the last century. The principal asset of the Educational Foundation is the school, also dating from the last century, built on a site adjacent to the almshouses and now a Church of England voluntary-aided junior and infant school having some 90 pupils.
The scheme with which we are concerned does not differ substantially from many others being made each year by the Charity Commissioners in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction. The only difference here is that the subsisting trusts of the charities are comprised not only in a private Act of Parliament of 6th May 1702 but in a Public General Act passed on 28th June 1861. In these circumstances Section 19 of the Charities Act 1960 requires that the order giving effect to the scheme shall be made by the Home Secretary subject to approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament.
The main purposes of the scheme are to update the existing trusts and, for convenience of administration, to embody them for the future in a single instrument. In particular, the scheme dissolves an old incorporated body of governors as being no longer required, reconstitutes the governing body of the charities, extends the eligibility of alms people and the area from which they may be drawn and permits the alms people to be charged, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, sums by way of contribution towards the cost of maintaining the almshouses. Suitable provision is also made in the scheme for application of the income of the Educational Foundation.
My Lords, these arrangements are broadly such as have been made in other schemes and I do not think that there is anything else to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. It is a very simple scheme. It conforms with all the requirements. Therefore, I commend the order and the scheme to your Lordships for approval.
Moved, That the draft Charities (Hospital and Educational Foundation of Lady Katherine Leveson (Temple Balsall) Order 1976, laid before the House, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of this order. It seems to me completely straightforward and there are no further comments I wish to make on it. I thank him for his explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CEMETERIES ORDER 1977
6.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved. It is now nearly three years since this House debated and approved the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1974. That order and the present one are, of course, related. The present order extends, amends, revokes and re-enacts the earlier one.
One consequence of the revocation and re-enactment of the 1974 order will be that the management code for cemeteries maintained by the burial authorities defined in the Local Government Act 1972 will continue to be found in a single Statutory Instrument; and this will, I do not doubt, prove to be a very convenient feature. Another consequence is, however, that we may, at first sight, seem to be introducing much more fresh legislation than, in fact, we are. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I make it clear at the outset that the main new topics with which this order is concerned are largely covered by four out of its 23 articles and by one out of its three Schedules; I should, however, mislead your Lordships if I did not add that Schedule 3 is a great deal longer than the other two put together.
The four articles to which I refer are Article 9 on the plan and record of cemetery, Article 11 on the Registration of burials and disinterments, Article 12 on the Storage of records and Article 16 on the maintenance of graves, et cetera; removal of memorials and levelling, et cetera. Schedule 3 relates to Article 16.
There is, in addition, a useful new contingency provision in Article 21 whereby the Council of the Isles of Scilly can be fitted into the pattern of the legislation for burial authorities. The provisions made in the 1974 order for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are somewhat changed in the present order—and this is in no small measure a consequence of the new Article 16. Some other provisions in the 1974 order have been amended in the

1105
light of subsequent examination and discussion. Much of the 1974 order is, however, simply reproduced in the present order unamended, or amended only in incidental and consequential respects. The amount of new law is limited accordingly.
Before I turn to the new material, I should like to mention three general matters. The first is that the making of this order was preceded by the consultations which subsection (4) of Section 214 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires. This is a valuable procedure which enables us to benefit from the experience and opinions of those closely concerned with the subject—including experience of administering the 1974 order provisions. The second is that the order continues in a trend of local government legislation including and following the Act of 1972, That trend is to leave to local authorities wide discretion in the exercise of powers relating to local services. Expressions such as "may, if they think fit", "on such terms as they think proper" and "such fees as they think proper" recur throughout the order. The third is simply to remind your Lordships that we cannot, in these orders deal with cemeteries other than those provided by local authorities.
To turn to Articles 9, 11 and 12, we have sought to provide a basic prescription for the records which are essential to the economical and fully effective management of cemeteries, keeping fully in our minds the pressing need to avoid adding to public expenditure. Many burial authorities will doubtless find that they are, in practice, already maintaining records more extensive than those stipulated by the order. I do not doubt that they will continue to do so, because proper records enable them to do the job efficiently and economically. Requirements to register burials go back as far as an Act of 1812, and were extended by various later applications of the provisions of that Act. The order provides, fairly simply, for plans and written records of burials, disinternments and reinternments and of rights granted by the burial authority and its predecessors; and for their safe storage.
Article 16 and Schedule 3 contain provisions for lawn cemetery conversions. Powers for this purpose have, over a period, been obtained by local authorities
1106
in over 100 local Acts. The objectives of the burial authority are to improve the appearance of a cemetary, or part of a cemetery, where they carry out such a conversion, while making maintenance simpler and cheaper. A certain amount can be done by simply putting and keeping graves and memorials in order and by levelling the surface of a grave with the level of the surrounding ground where the grave is a simple one of earth and grass. Different considerations arise, however, where the burial authority wishes to remove tombstones, kerbs railings and so on, or move them to a fresh position or to level with the surrounding ground a grave which is significantly more than just earth and grass. In such circumstances there must clearly be, at the least, an effort made to consult the owner of the memorial rights and notice given to the public of what is intended. Attention must be paid to objections; and objections by those most nearly concerned, relatives and the owners of memorial rights must have special weight. These are matters which have been covered in local Acts and the order provides for them; indeed it provides somewhat stronger protection for the public than is to be found in the local Acts.
As your Lordships know, one of the features of the Local Government Act 1972 was that it set out to provide means to reduce the mass of local enactments and the variety of statutory provisions which govern similar local services from one area to another. The order repeals local legislation for the matters described in Article 16 of the order, except as regards operations already in progress, so that the order will provide a uniform code for this aspect of the management of local authorities' cemeteries. The order is, as I have said, a more modest addition to local legislation than appears at first sight, but I commend it to your Lordships as a useful one.
Moved, That the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
6.23 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing

1107
so succinctly this cemeteries order. When the first of these orders was introduced three years ago by her much lamented noble friend Lord Garnsworthy we, on these Benches, and all Members of the House, welcomed the order as being a great step forward in the tidying-up of an enormous legal tangle of legislation. For that we were grateful. However, it was always understood that there would be further need to look at events as they took place, and the Government have looked and brought forward a second order which, as the noble Baroness said, is basically similar to what we have had before.
Let me express immediately welcome for all these four articles, 9, 11, 12, which have been changed quite a lot, and Article 16 and Schedule 3 in particular. I should like to mention that there has been slight anxiety, as your Lordships will be aware, concerning the action of certain councils with regard to their local cemeteries. As Lord Garnsworthy said three years ago, local councils tend to have their cemeteries committee meetings late in the evening, and people who fail to turn up get put on the cemeteries committee. It is not a matter of great import. Although that is the case from the point of view of local councils, from the point of view of relatives this is a matter of deep feeling and one cannot be sensitive enough. I was given a letter only today, although it arrived last month, which says:
"We discovered last August that as we had not objected by April last our headstone and kerb will be removed and the grave flattened. We have not seen a notice on the wall of the cemetery nor one in the local paper. We have paid for maintenance since 1948 and feel that we should have been informed. I got nowhere by correspondence".
That is a letter which could probably be paralleled by many others.
As I understand this new order, under Article 16 and Schedule 3 in particular, this action will not be possible provided the council have the address of people who are maintaining graves. The question I should like to ask the noble Baroness is whether the fact will be made known at cemeteries and in local papers that people who are maintaining graves should let local councils know their addresses. This is a simple matter which could easily go by the board, because of the fact of local advertisements and that if you live
1108
away you probably visit your cemetery only once a year on the anniversary of your relation's death. Therefore, I ask what publicity is going to be given to this, because it would be a tremendous step forward. Am I right that if the local council still wishes to tangle with the relative who is objecting, the appeal lies with the Secretary of State? I should like to have that confirmed. I welcome the uniformity of codes being put across all the councils concerned, and I welcome Schedule 3 in particular.
There is one other point: Where no relation is left but there is a monument of great interest, quite often societies are formed to look after the interests of famous people. One mentioned to me only today was the Galsworthy Society. What rights would a society like that have over maintaining the memorial concerned? Are they able to obtain rights if they do not have them? Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell me something about that. I have nothing more to say except to thank the noble Baroness for bringing in this order.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSEN-DALE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I welcome the introduction of this tidying-up order. I wonder whether, while declaring an interest as president of the Cremation Society and also as chairman of the London Cremation Company, I might use this opportunity to ask my noble friend what progress the Government have made with their consideration of the Brodrick Report, which of course deals with much wider issues relating to the law of burial and cremation.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I take first the last question from my noble friend Lord Greenwood. I am not in a position to answer about the progress we have made on the Brodrick Report, but I shall make inquiries about it and write to my noble friend, if that would satisfy him for the time being. So far as Lord Mowbray's questions are concerned, of course this order looks after the rights of relatives and those to whom the burial rights have been assigned. Provided the authorities have been notified when there is a change in the ownership of the rights, then those people will be consulted at all stages while this order is in being.

1109
So far as publicity on the change of rights is concerned, I think that that is a useful point. It is not part of this order, but it is something that I shall bring to the notice of my right honourable friend and ask whether he can give some advice to local authorities on this point. So far as the rights of societies who are looking after graves of special or historical interest are concerned, I suppose that it is possible to get a grave or tombstone listed, and the same rights would apply to whoever was responsible for the upkeep as would apply to an individual's memorial rights. This order would not affect the right of a society to look after or maintain the grave of some eminent person.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Would that apply to memorials too, my Lords?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. In the new order we have provided for three months' notice to be given, whereas it was only three weeks in the previous one, provided that the addresses have been recorded in the last 30 years, which is a fair time. It means that perhaps authorities need a reminder from time to time, if there is a change in the burial rites, so they can tidy things up.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised. By amending and extending the provisions of the 1974 order, this order covers all the matters within the scope of the enabling power which we have identified as requiring general legislation. What we want to maintain at all times is a balance between people's emotions and administrative efficiency and convenience. This is sometimes difficult to strike, and I am sure it is too much to ask that the lawn cemetery provisions in particular will entirely suit all preferences, but I hope that most people will find that we have been reasonable in the conditions we have laid down in this order, which I commend to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DETONATORS BILL [H.L.]
6.32 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The legislation controlling the manufacture, distribution
1110
and use of commercial explosives is the Explosive Substance Act 1875. That Act was passed in an age when the widespread use of explosives by minorities for the purposes of terrorism was hardly thought of. It was designed as a safety, and not as a security, measure. There is now a very strong case indeed for rewriting the Act with equal emphasis on safety and security. This Bill does not attempt to do that; it is a very modest first step, but if the principles in it are acceptable, it will be an important move in that it will make it a little more difficult for evil men to procure detonators.
It is the detonator which is the key to an explosion—no detonator, no explosion. It is as simple as that. Nowadays it is reasonably easy to manufacture explosives by mixing oil and fertiliser, and there are many people in the island of Ireland who are extremely good at doing this. Equally, however, any who have tried to manufacture and improvise detonators have found it very difficult, and many have met the well-deserved fate of death and destruction.
It was encouraging to me to see the Convention to Suppress Terrorism being so largely supported because that is official recognition by our Community that we are all interdependent—that a terrorist campaign in one country is an attack on every member of our Community. Nuclear war is now unthinkable, and indeed conventional war is unthinkable because it would inevitably lead to nuclear war. It is left to the terrorist to try to conquer our will to defend our civilisation and our way of life. Indeed, I find it very sad that one of the front line Governments, the Dublin Government, have found it impossible to put their own house in order so that they could sign that Convention. They would stand in a much stronger position if they could put their house in order so that that could be done.
The United Kingdom is the country most under attack and we must give a lead in our legislation to deal with terrorism and all that goes with it. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland emphasised a few days ago how terrorists were attempting to prevent investment in the Province and to disrupt the commercial life of the Province. I wish at

1111
this point to pay a personal tribute to my friend Jeffrey Agate, who was murdered last week. Indeed, only last week he told my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who I hope will soon be introduced into your Lordships' House, that he had found that he was becoming more Ulster than an Ulsterman and that he was very proud of it indeed. Our Province has suffered very greatly indeed from the loss of a man of his stature in industry.
In considering the destruction which has been caused, I will not give the House a long list of statistics. In 1976 the cost of fire damage in Northern Ireland was £44 million, and the number of detonators used or recovered by terrorists was 3,600. In 1975 it was £13 million with 960 detonators recovered. If one then takes the figure of the damage caused per bang—that is, per detonator exploded successfully—one arrives at the sum of about £200,000 per explosion. There is, therefore, a very strong financial incentive to the Government to control detonators, let alone the incentive of the appalling death, destruction and injury to ordinary people.
There is a further reason why we must pass legislation to remedy any deficiency in the law. It is vital to demonstrate the will of the Government to win so that ordinary peace-loving people know that the Government have the determination to win. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, is not here today; he very much regrets having had to go abroad. He is a man of great authority and wisdom and has been a director of an explosives company for 30 years. He is also a Chartered Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers and in writing to me he said:
"The control of detonators is far from sufficient in this country, let alone others. The possession of a detonator without authority must be made a criminal offence. If ever anything needs control, it is the issue of detonators."
He wrote more, but that is the real point of what he said.
In this Bill we have two aims. The first is to make mandatory and to extend an existing overt geographical marking at the point of manufacture, and the second is to make mandatory the keeping of detailed and accurate records of what happens to those detonators throughout their distribution and use. At present it
1112
is quite common for management purposes—all the best managed quarries and organisations do so—to keep records, but it is not mandatory. I believe that practically nobody realises that to hold detonators does not require the keeping of accurate records. It is extraordinary that this has not been required by law; but if it is not made mandatory how else can we make people report losses, and how else can we tell the size of those losses? Only the other day 34 detonators were found near a quarry close to my home. There was nothing necessarily evil about that; those detonators were just lying around. If there had been accurate accounts kept and the prospect of a thumping, heavy fine, they would either have been reported as being lost or they would not have been lost in the first place.
Almost at the beginning of the troubles, from 1969 onwards, the Northern Ireland Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, tried to persuade various Governments, Conservative and Socialist, to introduce the marking of detonators and to see that records of their distribution were kept. In 1971 we reached a real British compromise. The sole manufacturers of detonators in this country agreed to add a punch marking. Now, a detonator is a very small thing—about half the size of a "biro" pen—and it was agreed that a detonator destined for Northern Ireland should have one punch mark and a detonator destined for the Irish Republic should have two. But the detonators which were to go to Great Britain and those which were to go to the rest of the world—for the company which makes these detonators is a worldwide company—were to have no marks at all. If it was right to mark the detonators destined for the North and South of Ireland in a way that would help the Security Forces, it was, in all conscience, right to mark the detonators destined for the other markets.
Of all detonators used by terrorists, 98 per cent. have been made by that factory in Ardeer. Only 2 per cent. of those detonators are foreign. Since the marking began—this is the first point in time at which one can get any guide—22 per cent. of the detonators used by terrorists were destined for the Irish Republic, from which they were grabbed by the terrorists and sent up to the North of Ireland. One per

1113
cent. came from the North of Ireland. But—and this is the most important figure—75 per cent. had no markings. One had to assume in the first place that these detonators might be old stock but they are certainly not old stock now. So 75 per cent. of the detonators used by terrorists could easily come from Great Britain. They do not because they are coming in from the rest of the world and coming illegally into the hands of the terrorists.
Surely the Government can see that if it helped the Forces, helped our police and helped our Army to have the detonators marked with one dot for the North of Ireland and two dots for the South, it must be right to mark for Great Britain as one market and for the rest of the world as well. It is inconceivable to me that this has not been done. Nobody can tell me that it is a matter of expense. Maybe the factory which makes the detonators will say that it cannot decide how many it is making for each market. The market research that the firm does is extremely accurate and I simply cannot see that this cannot be done. More than that, if the Government had to re-equip the factory, one detonator going off in Northern Ireland could cause £200,000 worth of damage: I do not think that the books will balance unless this marking is done.
Ideally, we should redesign the detonators and I am told that that could perfectly easily be done but it would mean a major re-equipment of the industry. There are plenty of ideas but merely, at this particular moment, some inertia which cannot be got over, and that would be well beyond the scope of the present Bill. However, I believe that there is an urgent need for this to be done because we are moving into the age of violence as a method of achieving political change.
The Bill is simple. I do not intend to go through it in detail. Clause 1 deals with the marking of detonators and, following that, with the question of the markings—(a) for Great Britain, (b) for Northern Ireland, (c) for the Republic of Ireland and (d) for elsewhere. Clause 2 deals with the question of keeping proper records. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is no longer here but I wondered when she was talking about keeping a record for graveyards whether the noble
1114
Lord, Lord Harris, was paying attention because I should have thought that it would be better to keep the graveyards clear of some graves by stopping detonators getting into the hands of evil men. Clause 3 deals with the inspection of records and Clause 4 with offences against Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 5 covers offences by bodies corporate and Clause 6 is the interpretation clause. Clause 7 is the Short Title of the Bill. Also, this is a United Kingdom Bill, not a Northern Ireland Bill, because the problem is affecting the whole of the United Kingdom.
If we in this country can put our house in order, we can then go to our allies in NATO and other parts of the world with clean hands and can ask them to follow suit. I have been led to believe that there are many countries which are only too willing to follow our lead in this matter. Over the years, I have been very closely involved with the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary at all levels and all agree that this Bill would help them in their job. I am delighted to see in the Gallery today a very gallant gentleman indeed in the person of George Styles GC, whose leadership and inspiration has played such a part in our fight in Northern Ireland. He and his colleagues have lost 18 people killed by detonators that went off in bombs that they were trying to defuse. In asking your Lordships to approve the Bill, I want you to remember that the Army wants it, Lord Arwyn wants it——
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I apologise for intervening but the noble Viscount is giving an impression of the view of the Army. I am not quite clear whether he is proposing to give any indication of whose behalf he is speaking on at the moment.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I withdraw that absolutely. Many in the Army want it. When thinking about this, I want your Lordships to think not only of the financial damage which is done by explosions, not only of the victims who are killed and mauled, but especially of those very brave men in the Bomb Squad. Think of them as they walk towards that bomb. It is our duty to help them. and they are convinced that this will help. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Brookeborough.)
6.48 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the danger which my noble friend's Bill seeks to remedy is that there is no legislation which specifically covers the security aspect of the sale of detonators. As I understand the law, there is no mandatory marking system, no comprehensive accounting system and no absolute obligation to report a loss. Therefore, if a detonator is discovered at the scene of a terrorist crime there is no readily available evidence that can be deduced from the detonator itself by which the police can trace the course of that detonator from its origin to its final destination. If I am right in that assumption, I believe that two questions arise: first, could legislation improve this situation and secondly, would such legislation be practicable?
As to the first question, we have just listened to my noble friend very ably setting out the case for his Bill. The facts as he presented them certainly speak for themselves. Despite the inroads that the Security Forces have made into the operations of the IRA, especially in South Armagh, terrorism, counted in terms of destruction and damage, still continues. My noble friend gave some statistics of the sort of damage that explosions have been causing in Northern Ireland in the past. Those sort of explosions have taken an increasing toll of persons and property. Payments under the Criminal Injuries to Persons Compensation Act 1971 total over £21 million for the period 1969/1976 and payments under the Criminal Injuries to Property Compensation Act 1968 are running at double that figure if we only take the last three years. Also, there must be large amounts outstanding pending any further claims at the present time.
I believe that any member of the general public reading the statistics of damage done to property and to people in Northern Ireland would conclude that every measure which is possible to combat this menace must be taken. With the Oxford Street bombings of only some 10 days ago fresh in our minds, I believe that we would reach a similar conclusion so far as Great Britain as a whole is concerned. It is worth noting that, as my noble friend said in his speech, this Bill extends to the United Kingdom as a whole. I am certain that the Government, too, are determined to prevent terrorist outrages. It is to their
1116
credit that they now have had on the Statute Book for nearly two years the Prevention of Terrorism Act and of course the Emergency Provisions Act for Northern Ireland has been on the Statute Book for over three years. But although both those Acts are designed to prevent terrorism and to bring the terrorist to justice, neither of those Acts deals with the problem of discovering the source of supply of explosive materials used for terrorism.
In the context of the Bill I think that it is significant that the finds of explosives were almost double in 1976, compared with 1975, and it is even more significant if one takes only the first three-quarters of 1976, which is the only period of time I was able to find for that year for which statistics were available in Hansard of the House of Commons. The number of bombs which were neutralised in Northern Ireland during the first three-quarters of last year totalled 354 compared with a total of 236 for 1975. So as the years of terrorism in Northern Ireland sharpen police methods and increase the experience of the Security Forces, so the success rate in terms of explosions prevented climbs; and because the detonator, which after all is relatively cheap and is the key to any explosion, is discovered presumably at the scene of the crime, so it follows that if only one could find the way in which the detonator came into terrorist hands, then surely a vital link in the terrorist's supply line could be broken. As I understand it, this is exactly what my noble friend's Bill is setting out to achieve. The Bill requires a marking system to identify the source of a particular detonator and introduces a mandatory records system to trace the movement of a detonator.
However, there remains the second question: Is such legislation practicable? The only manufacturer of detonators in the United Kingdom, is, I believe, ICI. I understand that the total of detonators from this source is about 70 million individual detonators per year, of some 1,100 different types. I also understand that it is possible for the makers, using their own computer records system and identifying the type of detonator, to know in most cases, but not in all, the original destination of a particular detonator.
Under the Bill it will be for the Secretary of State to make regulations for marking,

1117
and the question which I think we must answer is: would a marking system be an advance on present practice so far as tracing a detonator from manufacturer to final user is concerned? All that I should like to add to what my noble friend has said at this stage of the Bill is that it would seem to me that, if regulations were to require a different mark on each of 70 million detonators—and this is an assumption which has been drawn by some people from reading the Bill—I think this would be impossible. If detonators were to be marked according to the individual original consignee, this again would be very difficult, particularly because it must often be unknown who is to purchase a batch of detonators until after they have been manufactured.
But if, as I understood my noble friend to indicate, what would be intended at the very least is that detonators for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Great Britain were to be marked in different ways, then I would agree with him that I can see very little difficulty in that. If (which was my assumption from reading the Bill) the kind of marking envisaged would be for comparatively large batches—say 5,000 at a time—then again I should have thought that Clause 1 of the Bill would be a practicable proposition. The advantage gained from that kind of marking would be that if a detonator thus marked were to be recovered, it would be possible for the manufacturer to say with absolute certainty that it was sold to one of, let us say, six original purchasers, and so by the use of police methods the first link in the chain of supply could fairly swiftly be established.
Here, as I see it, the importance of the keeping of records provided for by Clause 2 comes in, and I should have thought that there is very little practical problem here. After all, farmers (of whom I am one) who keep stock are subject to regulations concerning records of stock bought, kept and moved, and farmers' records have to be available, as is similarly the case under the Bill, for inspection.
Having said that, let us realise that the problem is the comparatively small detonators, doing a proportionately enormous amount of damage, which fall into terrorist hands. I think that my noble friend's Bill is rightly confining itself to
1118
the detonator which is necessary to cause an explosion and which would be far more reliable if a terrorist could only get hold of a commercial one to employ it, as is sometimes shown—as my noble friend said in an aside—when terrorists end their own lives while handling their own explosive materials.
Obviously explosives can fall into terrorist hands in a variety of ways. It may be through theft. I realise that the annual reports of Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives have in the past included statistics of thefts. But so far as I know, there is no mandatory requirement to report losses, and, if I am correct in my assumption, I should have thought that it ought to have been spelled out in the Bill for it to be mandatory for any explosive store or for any holder of a police certificate.
I suppose that the way that a terrorist would be most inclined to lay hands on detonators would be to persuade another person using explosives to pass some of them to him while pretending that the detonator and any other explosives had in fact been used to cause an explosion. I am bound to admit that I do not think that any legislation at all could prevent practices of that kind, except that the Prevention of Terrorism Act makes such unpleasant characters move furtively and carefully when they go about their wicked work.
There is of course a further line of supply, to which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred, and that is from the Republic of Ireland. Co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic has been an increasingly welcome aspect of the campaign against terrorism over the last few years, and all I would say here is that if legislation on this subject for the United Kingdom would enable and encourage the Government of the Republic to tighten up their own precautions against the illegal ownership and use of explosives, then I think that on that ground alone my noble friend's Bill would be well worth while.
I believe that the Bill should go to a Committee stage, if for no other reason than that it is relevant to the economic problems of Northern Ireland. After all, terrorist outrages claim their price, not

1119
only in terms of lives lost and property destroyed, but in less readily identifiable ways. Any overseas firm thinking of investing in new plant in Northern Ireland will hesitate if suddenly the directors of the firm hear that there has been widespread destruction near to the site which they have earmarked. The Northern Ireland tourist trade has suffered grievously from terrorism in the last few years. Each time a factory or a shop is wrecked it is another blow to employment prospects in a country where unemployment is already far too high.
I admit that no legislation on this subject was brought forward between 1972 and 1974 by the then Conservative Government, but I am aware that the problems with which the Bill attempts to deal have been studied in the past. If I may put it openly, my reservation is whether a marking system can be devised which would not be unduly onerous for the manufacturer, and yet would be effective, and incidentally I think that consideraton in the Bill would need to be given to the same marking system applying to any detonators imported from abroad. However, I hope that the Government will agree that the Bill should be discussed in Committee, because if the right answers to the requirement of Clause 1 can be found, I think the Bill could indeed be a step in the right direction.
6.59 p.m.
Lord GREY of NAUNTON: My Lords, in seeking to support a Second Reading for the Bill I have no interest to declare other than one that I think I share with every Member of your Lordships' House: that is, a concern that we should do anything that is possible and proper to restore peace to Northern Ireland; and, if I may, I would add my respectful tribute to all that Jeffrey Agate did for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, if this Bill were to pass into law—and I hope that substantially it will—it would not of itself stop the use of explosives for wrongful purposes. As with so many of Northern Ireland's grave and tragic problems, there is no immediate solution. There is no course of action, however costly, painful, inconvenient or what you will, which, if it were put into effect, would cure the matter once and for
1120
all. But a Bill such as this would be a step on the long, hard road; and anything that can be done to prevent the use for improper purposes of an article of commerce which has its proper uses but which must be used under control, should be done to secure the i greater good to the greater number regardless of possible inconvenience, additional cost to manufacturers and so on.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the aim of this Bill is commendable, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, commended its aim while expressing doubts as to its practicability—doubts which, with respect, I do not entirely share. I think that the Bill is plain enough in what it proposes about marking. I do not think that it intends that the manufacturers should mark for individual consumers, however large those consumers may be; but it does intend that manufacturers should be under an obligation to mark ineradicably detonators which are sent to respective areas. I would doubt very much whether a manufacturer in a near-monopoly position would be unable to mark ineradicably large consignments which he knows will be sent to a particular part of the world. But it is possible that there is an imperfection in the Bill as it stands at present because, while it requires detonators to be marked to show ineradicably the area of intended use, I do not see any provision in the Bill requiring the manufacturer to send the detonator, so marked, to that area. Once he has complied with the obligation to mark, there does not seem to be anything to limit his right to send it where he will. If I am right in that, that is something which is probably easily enough cured at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.
I think your Lordships will probably want to be convinced also that, the life history of every detonator having been clearly recorded from manufacturer to last legitimate user, the combined effect of the regulations which are to be made by the Secretary of State under the Bill, and such legislation as is already on the Statute Book, will suffice to show any failure to limit the use of detonators to proper purposes. Indeed, it seems from what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that your Lordships will not be readily satisfied on that point because it does not seem that there is any legal requirement on the part of the last legitimate user to show to what

1121
use he put the detonators, much less to account for any that he has lost or had stolen from him; and that, surely, is a most alarming gap in our legislation.
I would think, with respect, that something even so small as half the size of a biro pen could be marked, without any great difficulty or cost on the part of the manufacturer. If one threatened to prevent the manufacturer from putting on a detonator any mark to show by whom it was manufactured, I would be surprised if he did not immediately rise in protest and bring to your Lordships' House the greatest of complaints; and that, presumably, is a mark which is larger, more costly and more difficult to put on something the size of half a biro pen than the four small marks that the noble Viscount's Bill proposes. My Lords, even if this Bill passes into law and is complied with, there will be detonators lawfully used in this country that are not so marked, because those are detonators that will come from outside the United Kingdom; but if, as the noble Viscount said, we give a lead, we may at least hope that others will follow, and if we do not give a lead then we may be sure that they will not be bothered to do anything about it at all.
My Lords, in this matter, as in so many Northern Ireland matters, let not the best be the enemy of the good. So often it is said, when something is proposed, that there are reasons against it, that there is no universal demand for it, that somebody has not been consulted about it or—most lamentable of all—that somebody did not think of it first. So often tragedy could have been averted if what could have been done had been done but was not done because it was thought that there was something better to do. If a Bill along the lines of the Bill to which your Lord ships are asked to give a Second Reading today, even if it be quite substantially amended, passes into law and it makes more difficult the task of any evil man seeking to use explosives for wrongful purposes, or makes a little easier the task of the Security Forces in apprehending anyone who has used explosives for a wrongful purpose, then surely the Bill will be well worth its place on the Statute Book.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I shall be short. Of course there are imperfections in the proposed Bill, but I
1122
hope it will get its Second Reading and will be corrected in detail at Committee stage. It is not a question of safety and health at work, it is a question of life or death; and if by any little extra trouble or by any slightly extra cost we can save life, it must be worth while. I commend the Bill.
7.8 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, while it is in my memory perhaps I could put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because I thought his was a rather significant intervention in the terms of the general impression it would leave. He interrupted my noble friend in his speech, when my noble friend said that the Army wanted it, to put the question: Had he any authority for saying that the Army wanted it? My noble friend had to reply that he had no full authority from the Army but he knew that many in the Army shared his view on this. I wonder whether, in order to put the thing absolutely right—because it is rather important—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is in a position to say authoritatively, when he replies, that the Army do not want it. Has it been examined by the Army to the point where we are going against the advice of our experts in this field? I think it is rather important. If neither has the authority to say that the Army is either for it or against it, then at any rate we will not have left the impression that I was left with marginally, in view of the question that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put to my noble friend.
I do not think this is a question only of Northern Ireland. It is understandable that it should have been brought to our attention by someone who is a part of Ulster and that it should be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grey, whose record in that area is so famous and well known. But this is a matter for the civilised world, really. It is quite clear that we are now living in a world where terrorism is rearing its head on almost every street corner, often for the most flippant of reasons, and that the detonator, connected with easily-made explosives, is the thing which is causing most of the damage. This is a matter where somebody ought to be giving a lead in view of the fact that we are now living in a world where this danger is lurking around every corner. I should have thought that the British

1123
Government should be the one to give the lead. Certainly, they can give the lead; for while I have said that it was not a purely Northern Ireland matter, the problems that we are facing there give us the right to say that we are talking from knowledge and experience. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be pressed to give some encouragement. It is absolutely clear, without taking a Gallup Poll or a referendum, that if the British Government at this moment said that they were prepared to support this Bill or one like it, this Bill would become a Statute. There is no doubt that both Houses would pass it with alacrity. All that is necessary is the authoritative lead of the Government of the day. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when replying will not treat this in any way as a normal technical matter. I am sure he will treat it in the knowledge that we are at the beginning of something which, unless stopped, will grow to quite terrible and disastrous proportions affecting the whole of the civilised world.
I was interested in the fact that my noble friend Lord Belstead cast some doubt on whether the experts at ICI, for example, who manufacture most of the detonators, would find it technically possible. I am convinced that if a mandatory instruction v/ere placed on the Statute Book, ICI would have an answer—an answer which would not interfere unduly with their present processes and an answer which. I am convinced, would go a long way towards meeting the practical terms as laid down in my noble friend's Bill.
On the technical side I should like to add further comment on the view of the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn. In case it is not generally known, I may say that Lord Arwyn is the only Member of either House who is a technical director of an explosives company. He held that post for something like 30 years. He is also, I think, a chartered Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers. With that vast experience, he has said categorically in a letter sent to my noble friend which I have in my hand,
"I will certainly support a Bill to control detonators".
If the terms of the Bill presented by my noble friend is one way—and, I should have thought, a practical way—of giving effect to the views that the noble
1124
Lord, Lord Arwyn, has sent to this House, it would need a lot of words from laymen outside the industry to undermine the confident assertion made by Lord Arwyn that detonators ought to be subject to some kind of control.
I do not think that the cost comes into this. I would not tie myself to any particular identification markings. I would say that if the people who manufacture these things are told that they have to produce some kind of identification to indicate who manufactured them in the first place, and if the way in which it is done is left to the firms to devise, then I should have thought that they would find a practical way of doing it. A cost of £1 million or £2 million or £3 million does not enter into it, if you put that alongside the damage being done not only to property but to society itself and the danger engulfing everybody. We may talk about this in rather subdued tones in this House and may have control of our emotions; but, deep down, the whole of the civilised world is becoming absolutely terrified of the consequences of terrorism in the world. It was recognised first in all its viciousness in Northern Ireland, but throughout the world that example seems now to be copied. While we cannot identify every aspect of this terror, we have now got to the point where it can be minimised if the control of detonators is so arranged that people cannot have them without it being recognised from whom they are getting them.
While one could go on being emotional—and it is an emotional subject—the hard facts of today are that Governments, not only of this country but of any country in the world, who are not prepared to do something or even attempt to do something to counter these growing dangers are neglecting their duty to posterity. I feel that we in this country, which has given a lead in so many fields, because of our experience not only in Ulster but of similar terrorism throughout the world, are in a position to give a lead, and we ought to do so.
While there is a fairly flimsy House at this hour, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has instructions and the agreement of his colleagues to give a positive answer to this. We do not want to be fobbed off with costs. But by all

1125
means say what it costs and then leave it to both Houses, in view of the value that we obtain from it, to decide whether we are prepared to pay that cost. We do not want to be fobbed off with talk about it being technically not possible. It is technically possible. One can read of cases where the manufacturing sources of stockings and shirts—and there are many more millions of them than there are detonators—can be identified in forensic examinations. The technical problems can be overcome if the desire to overcome them is there. While I have a normal resentment at the Government interfering and wanting to give instructions as to how people should run their show, this is one instance where the Government ought to assert their authority and ought to speak for the nation to see that these instructions are given.
I thought my noble friend Lord Belstead suggested, or may have given the impression, that there is some doubt whether this Bill would go to a Committee. I should not have thought there was any doubt about that. You have only to pick up the Bill and a Second Reading case is made. Whether or not there are other reasons why it could not go through the examination of a Committee, I do not know; but I feel that there is no doubt that this will go to a Committee and will have the examination to see whether these technical matters are greater than have been envisaged. I believe that we ought to get on with it in the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will give a lead not only to this country but also to all other countries who are sharing this terror. I hope that he will not give us "low-voltage" reasons for doing nothing at a time when it is our duty to do something or to attempt to do so. It is in the hope that he is going to do that that I support my noble friend Lord Brookeborough in presenting this Bill for Second Reading.
7.19 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a question? My noble friend Lord Belstead said that he thought there would be a difficulty regarding detonators manufactured outside this country and imported into it. That is easy to cure. Simply ban the import of detonators into this country
1126
from abroad. I agree with my noble friend behind me. have had a factory. It is nonsense to say that detonators manufactured in this country cannot be marked. A ·22 cartridge, which is far smaller than a detonator, is marked. Of course you can put marks on a detonator. I have never heard such nonsense—and it would be at a negligible cost. I would press the Government to consider this matter very seriously, to ban the importation of detonators into this country, and to insist on detonators manufactured in this country being marked.
7.20 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is a serious matter and certainly requires a serious speech from me. I respond at once to the appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that I should not attempt—to use the words he employed—to fob the House off with either technical arguments or with the grounds of cost. This is a matter of such importance that one has to demonstrate the merits of the Government's own position in this matter with great care, and I hope that I will do that. Certainly if the noble Viscount's Bill was right in itself no arguments of cost would really hold a great deal of water. The question is, is the noble Viscount's Bill necessary and therefore is it desirable? That is the basis of the speech that I propose to make this evening.
The noble Viscount indicated that it was the intention of his Bill to bring forward proposals which would hamper terrorists and help the police and security authorities generally to combat them. I am sure that the whole House shares this view and the Government have given the greatest priority to it, not merely in the aftermath of various incidents of terrorism to which we have been subjected, but equally in the periods when apparent lulls in Great Britain have led some to suggest that precautions might be relaxed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will not hesitate to introduce whatever measures may be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out that on this particular matter the Government acted with great despatch, with the support of both Houses, when it was necessary to put through with great speed the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Therefore I

1127
do not think anybody will seriously maintain that if the Government—any Government—face a situation of this degree of seriousness, they would not act with great speed, if they were persuaded that action was necessary, to deal with a particular situation.
However, the point that we have to address our minds to this evening is whether any new measures which may be put forward are useful, and whether they improve the controls and powers which we already have. Therefore it is necessary to examine carefully the proposals which appear in the noble Viscount's Bill and to ensure they are aimed at the right targets, and whether if put on to the Statute Book they would be a useful addition to the powers that already exist.
The Bill provides for all detonators to be marked at the point of manufacture with a "destination mark" indicating whether the detonator is intended for use in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. The Bill also provides for the keeping of records of subsequent movements of detonators, which should be open to inspection by an appointed person and for penalties for failing to comply with the provisions of the Bill. The noble Viscount has indicated that his reasons for introducing this measure are that the existing legislation under which explosives are controlled at the moment is thought to be unsatisfactory because it is old and concerned with safety rather than security; that there is no existing requirement for records of transfers of explosive materials, including detonators, to be kept; and that because there is no proper system of recording and marking, we do not know where the detonators used by terrorists in Great Britain originate. I hope to be able to explain to the House that the proposals in the Bill, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, are not necessary——
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: Would the noble Lord give way? My Lords, I was not so worried at this particular point in time about the detonators used in Great Britain. What I was worried about were the detonators used by the terrorists.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I assume that the noble Viscount is
1128
worried—as we all are—by the problems of detonators which may be used by terrorists operating in Great Britain.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: In the United Kingdom.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Of course in the United Kingdom, but obviously, perfectly properly, on this side of the Irish Channel as well as the other.
Perhaps I may begin by giving some indication of the existing powers. Detonators are subject to the controls over the manufacture, storage and acquisition of explosives. These controls are set out in the Explosives Acts 1875 and 1923 and orders made under the Acts, and in the Control of Explosives Order 1953 made under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. The controls are aimed both at the premises in which detonators may be kept and at the person who may keep them. A licensing system governing the manufacture and storage of explosives is operated by the Health and Safety Executive and by local authorities. It is an offence to sell or to transfer ownership of detonators to anyone who does not hold an appropriate licence or a police certificate stating that he is a fit person to keep explosives. I understand that licensees of factories and magazines report losses immediately to the police and to H.M. Inspectorate of Explosives.
On this point, I must say one thing to the noble Viscount, because one of his anxieties is what happens to detonators which are destined for use in Great Britain. We have already dealt with the problem of detonators which are going to be used either in the Republic or Northern Ireland. Since one of my principal responsibilities in the Home Office is for the police, over the whole period I have been at the Department—which is the past three years or so—I have discussed this matter with chief constables in England and Wales. I must tell the noble Viscount bluntly that I have met no chief constable who has not indicated to me first of all the care and attention which is devoted by the police in this country to any suggestion that there has been a loss of explosives from some site in the area of the police force concerned. Certainly, for very obvious reasons, a great deal of police attention has been directed towards dealing with this problem.

1129
There are similar arrangements between the holders of police certificates and the police. These arrangements are working satisfactorily in our judgment, but we will certainly consider whether these arrangements can, with advantage, be made statutory by regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, said that this was not a question of health or safety. To be absolutely blunt, it is a matter of safety; but what matters is not the name of the Act which we would use; what we are concerned about—as I am sure the noble Viscount is—is the substance of the matter: whether we have a regulation-making power to deal with this problem. We do have that regulation-making power and can use it if we consider it necessary to do so.
Under the Control of Explosives Order 1953 all holders of police certificates must also keep records of all transfers, by sale or otherwise, of detonators either to or from their possession. These records must include information about the date of transfer, the nature and quantity of detonators involved, and the name and address of the transferor or transferee as the case may be. These records, which must be kept for a period of five years, are open to inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, a police officer or a local authority officer. Licensees of explosives factories and magazines are exempt from these provisions, but I understand that they keep records which are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives. I have no reason to believe that these arrangements have caused any concern, but I am now considering whether there are any grounds for removing this exemption.
It is right, of course, that due attention should be paid to safety in the legislation relating to explosives, but it is absolutely essential, in the light of the situation which has been referred to today, that security regulations are taken fully into account. Premises where explosives, including detonators, are made and kept are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives or by the local authorities, and the police are always consulted about security considerations. All aspects of the security of explosives are kept under review—they have to be, in the present situation—and security controls will be introduced if necessary, again under the
1130
powers which exist under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The situation in Northern Ireland so far as control of explosives is concerned is rather different. Detonators are not manufactured in Northern Ireland and all supplies in fact come from Great Britain. Once inside Northern Ireland, they may be moved only under a police escort and they may be stored only in magazines or stores with a special licence over which the police exercise close supervisory control. At the point of use, only licensed shot-firers may use them, and then only under direct police supervision. Any detonators not used following a blasting operation must be destroyed on the spot, also under direct police supervision. A record must be kept by the user of the use or disposal of any detonators acquired immediately, showing up any losses to the supervising police officer.
That is a formidable structure of control, and one which the Security Forces regard as highly effective. The noble Viscount, together with other speakers, referred to the very unhappy fact that the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, has not been able to join us today. It is certainly unfortunate, I agree, for the reasons which have been set out already. The noble Viscount appeared to suggest—if I have misinterpreted him I should like to apologise in advance to the noble Viscount and also to the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn—that there was a belief that the unlawful possession of detonators was not a criminal offence in this country; but I must point out to your Lordships that it is indeed a very serious offence, under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, to possess explosives, including detonators. I would repeat that it includes the possession of detonators,
"in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable suspicion that he has it for an unlawful object."
That is the statutory offence. The penalty on conviction is 14 years' imprisonment.
That seems to me a fairly substantial penalty which exists in our armoury for dealing with a person who is caught with detonators in his possession in the circumstances which I have outlined. That is already part of the law of this country. I am saying that there is here a quite substantial offence and that, if it were

1131
thought appropriate by the prosecuting authorities to do so, they would bring charges. Inevitably, they might bring charges under some other Act; it would depend on the circumstances of the case.
I have made it clear that the existing statutory controls already cover a substantial number of the proposals in the Bill of the noble Viscount which relate to the keeping of records. There is already a marking system, which has been referred to already, under which detonators made in Great Britain bear one of two markings, indicating whether they are destined for use in Northern Ireland or in the Republic. That system has been very helpful in producing evidence about the source of detonators used by terrorists in Great Britain. It has not been found necessary to make that scheme statutory but, again, that can be done, if thought necessary or desirable, under the powers already provided in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The noble Viscount said, and indeed there is substance in the point, that quite a significant number of unmarked detonators had been found; namely, not those which have gone either to Northern Ireland or to the Republic. The noble Viscount is absolutely right but, if he will forgive my saying so, he seemed to imply that most of them had come from Great Britain because it was unlikely—I would not say unthinkable—that many of them would have been manufactured at a time before the marking system came into operation. With great respect to the noble Viscount, a very high proportion of those detonators—though we certainly have not analysed every one—were manufactured, to the best of our belief, before the marking system came into operation. Some of those which have been recovered by the security authorities were manufactured in the 1920s, which would give an indication of the age of many of the detonators used by some of the people involved in acts of terrorism. I am afraid there are a very large number of detonators around, many of them manufactured a substantial number of years ago.
In the present situation with which we are confronted, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, the Government are obviously in close and constant contact with our security advisers over the whole
1132
range of the problems which are caused by the terrorists. However, I must say quite directly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that I am not aware of any support from responsible authorities for the provisions of this Bill. That includes what I may describe as the security advisers who are available to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I am speaking also on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. For the reasons I have indicated, they consider, and Ministers consider, that the powers which are already available to us are adequate to deal with the very real problem with which we are confronted at the moment. There is no disposition on our part to minimise the problem. Indeed, nobody who has had to deal over the last few years with the scale of terrorism we have seen on this side of the Irish Channel alone could possibly minimise the problem. That is not the issue. The issue we have to face is: are extra powers of the kind which are outlined in this Bill essential? Would it be right to proceed in the way which the noble Viscount is suggesting in this Bill? Also, if it is necessary to make use of some of the powers suggested, is it not better to use regulation-making powers which already exist under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974?
The problem with which I must deal directly is not that or inertia, as the noble Viscount suggested. There is no inertia among Ministers or their advisers who have to grapple with these problems, and I am sure that on reflection the noble Viscount would agree with me. The fact is that the noble Viscount's proposals provide for measures to mark the total number of detonators made in Great Britain which is of the order, in some years, of 70 million and, in other years, something like 100 million. Yet the problem which arises at the moment arises primarily from the less than 1 million detonators made in Great Britain for use in the Republic of Ireland. That is the central issue we are facing at the moment. That is the source of a large proportion of the detonators used by terrorists, and I must emphasise that those detonators are already marked. Therefore this Bill would in no way affect that situation, because the detonators are marked if they go to the Republic of Ireland. Surely in this situation the right

1133
course is to concentrate our efforts on this relatively small, but obviously highly important category, which we have reason to believe is the main source of this problem, rather than to dissipate our effort across the whole range of production.
I must emphasise that we are in constant contact with the Irish Government on the whole question of the security of explosives and detonators in Ireland, and their attitude continues to be most helpful. I myself, speaking again on the basis of the nearly three years in which I have held my present office, believe that over that period the improvement in day-to-day working relations between the police forces on this side of the Irish Channel and on the other has been immeasurable, and there has also been a most notable improvement in the co-operation in this area of the control of explosives. It is only right to say that because of some of the implied criticisms which have been voiced.
I should like to repeat this, so that there is no possible ground for misunderstanding the true situation. The threat from terrorism remains so serious that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not hesitate for a moment to take any measure which would be helpful in preventing terrorist outrages, or in detecting those responsible for them. The noble Viscount spoke movingly about the brave men who have worked in the bomb squad, and he was quite right to do so. I can remember, not so long ago, going late at night to Kensington Church Street where a bomb officer attached to the Metropolitan Police had been killed, and certainly after an experience of that kind I would not hesitate in any way whatever to give additional powers to the security authorities, particularly if it would in any way help the brave men who are doing this highly dangerous work, if in some way the Government believed that they are going to be in a better position to do their job. But the reality of the situation is that powers exist, and we do not believe that powers of the kind outlined in this Bill are necessary. Certainly, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, inconvenience and cost could not conceivably be arguments which would stand in the way of taking action of this kind, if it was necessary—of course not.
1134
The evidence is clear. The bulk of detonators and explosive material comes here from the Republic of Ireland, and I therefore believe, as do my colleagues, that our energies and efforts should be concentrated in trying to prevent this traffic. That in itself is a formidable task. I can assure the House that all material recovered from terrorist outrages—whether the bomb explodes or does not explode—is meticulously examined so that the maximum information can be obtained. Should the evidence from these finds, or any other information which reaches my right honourable friend, suggest that further controls over materials for use in Great Britain would help in detecting or preventing terrorism, I can assure the House that the necessary measures will be introduced.
I do not believe, however, that we should be tempted to introduce controls which we are not convinced would serve a useful purpose, merely in order to demonstrate to the public that the Government are doing something. Our measures should be genuinely designed for effectiveness, rather than as gestures. If, at any time, it proves necessary to introduce these stricter controls, action can be taken under existing legislation. As I have indicated, on two points we are looking to see whether some further regulation is necessary. For the reasons that I have indicated, though I wholly understand and applaud the motives of the noble Viscount in bringing forward this measure, I repeat that the Bill before us is not in our judgment necessary, and for that reason not desirable.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise very much in sorrow, because I feel that the Government do not appreciate the true seriousness of the situation. The noble Lord said that all is satisfactory so far as the accountancy is concerned, but, if I understood him correctly—and I may not have done so—he specifically did not say that it was mandatory to report any loss. All he said was that in the experience of the country losses had been reported. But the ones that are not reported are the ones that appear to matter.
He agreed that the marking of detonators for the North and the South of Ireland had been a help. Some day, the supply of

1135
old detonators must run out, and at present the number of unmarked detonators coming to hand is at the same level as in 1971 when the marks were first put in. So, in my view, that means that we should get down to marking them as quickly as possible, because if terrorism goes on at this rate we will very shortly get on to the most modern manufactured detonators.
The noble Lord seemed to say that the detonators that were being used and recovered all came from the South of Ireland, but in fact 75 per cent. are still unmarked. Twenty-two per cent. only come from the marked area—those that have been destined for Northern Ireland—and I believe that the noble Lord made an incontrovertible case for marking detonators as required by the Bill. He mentioned that there were between 70 million and 110 million detonators made in any one year; but it is the first detonator that kills, and only 3,600 were used by the terrorists last year with only 1,000 the year before.
The noble Lord said something which I felt was very sad, that the Government feel satisfied that they do not have to do something just in order to make it look as though they are in fact doing something. I believe that we have to convince our peace-loving population that we are doing something. This is not a question of health at work; this is a question of security. I believe it would convince our people that the Government really meant business if the name was changed, because the outside appearance of the Government's determination plays a major part in winning against terrorist attacks.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to be unjust to the noble Viscount, but is he suggesting that even if the Government take the view that these powers are not necessary, they should do this for, as it were, wider public relations purposes? Is that the argument that he is putting to the House?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: No, my Lords. The Minister was apparently
1136
saying that there was no need to do something just for cosmetic purposes. What I am saying is that in a conventional war you can capture land and property, but in a terrorist war you have to capture the minds; and to do that you must have an approach which demonstrates the determination of the Government to beat the terrorist. So I should very much like the House to send this Bill to a Committee stage. I have had reservations expressed about it by the Council of Shipping, as to their responsibility as carriers; and the noble Lord, Lord Grey, pointed out some omissions which can easily be repaired by amendment in Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.