Lords Sitting of 14 June 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

CONAKRY: UK DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet considered the status of British diplomatic representation in Conakry, Guinea.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the question of our diplomatic representation in Guinea has been under review and the Government will give the matter further consideration later this year. We welcome the positive trend in our bilateral relations and are pleased to note the increased interest in Guinea being shown by our businessmen.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that I asked a similar Question of the previous Government and was given virtually the same Answer? Is he further aware that the opportunities for British business, for investment and for cooperation with the Guinea Government in the exploration and development of minerals in particular is very ripe today in Guinea, that the door will not remain open for ever, and that here is an opportunity for British enterprise in this very promising country?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are aware that there are increasing prospects for our businessmen in Guinea. There are difficulties, however, first of all, in the face of opening a new mission in Guinea. As I think the noble Lord knows, our affairs there are presently looked after by the Ambassador in Dakar,
710
Senegal, and we also have a permanently accredited Consul in Guinea. As regards trade, the noble Lord may know also that our exports to Guinea in recent years have been rising and the figure last year was C5½, million. We imported from Guinea some £476,000 in goods. There are however, difficulties also about trade. The record of payment of Guinea is not as happy as perhaps it should be. ECGD cover for the moment has been kept for short-term credit only. Long-term ECGD cover is not presently available and is unlikely to be renewed until the rescheduled debt agreement is brought into line by the Guineans. As the noble Lord and the House may know, some payments under that rescheduling agreement are in arrears.

PAROLE AND DEPORTATION: NOTES FOR GUIDANCE
3.8 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of any advice or instructions given to the Parole Board or their local review committees concerning the policy to be followed in the case of prisoners who are liable to deportation on completion of their sentences.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Notes for Guidance of Local Review Committees, a copy of which is also given to each member of the Parole Board. Guidance on consideration of prisoners liable to be deported is given in paragraphs 401 and 402. The principle is that the prisoner should not be at a disadvantage in relation to parole because of his liability for deportation. Consequently, parole is first considered on the merits of the case applying the normal criteria but without reference to where the prisoner will live if released. If he is found deserving of early release the case is referred for the deportation decision.
Lord AVEBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive and helpful reply. Is he aware that in some cases which have come to my knowledge welfare officers have said that they will not recommend a prisoner for parole because they know he is liable to be deported on completion of his sentence? In the criteria for selection for parole which is given in the Parole Board's annual report there are several paragraphs dealing with a prisoner's home circumstances and employment prospects which are not applicable to a person who is liable to be deported. Would it not be sensible for the decision to be made by the Secretary of State on a man's future immigration status before the parole review committee come to consider whether or not to grant his application for parole?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he is content with my reply. With respect to what he then said, I am not aware of what he has put to me about decisions being taken because deportation is being considered. I should like to make it crystal clear that that is directly contrary to the Notes for Guidance, a copy of which the noble Lord requested and which I have placed in the Library.
With regard to the way of life of a person after parole, it is also crystal clear from those Notes for Guidance that the absence of what is called a release plan should be disregarded in looking at the reasons for parole. May I finally answer the last question that was put by the noble Lord: Could the cart be put before the horse; in other words, could parole not have to come before the deportation decision? I cannot accede to the noble Lord on this on behalf of anybody. Clearly one cannot consider deportation of a prisoner while that prisoner is still in fact in prison.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, perhaps I could take that point up in correspondence. May I ask one further question? Does the Prisons Department keep any statistics of prisoners convicted of the same offence on the same occasion where one is liable to deportation on completion of sentence and the other is not? By making a comparison between these two classes of prisoners, the Home Office and Prisons Department would be
712
able to find out whether the guidance, which no doubt is excellent, is being followed by the review committees.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to be unhelpful, but it is not possible to make comparisons between the cases which the noble Lord had asked me about and all the other parole cases, because the numbers of cases where parole is to be followed by deportation is so infinitesimal compared to the enormous number of other parole cases.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am so sorry, but what I am thinking of are cases where two or more people are convicted of the same offence on the same occasion and one of those convicted is liable to deportation on completion of sentence and the other is not. If the parole experience of those prisoners was not identical, then there would be reason to suppose that the guidance was not being followed.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, that is for the local review committee or Parole Board to consider.

BRITISH NATIONALITY: COMMENTS ON GREEN PAPER
3.15 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will list the names of the persons and organisations which submitted views to the Government on the proposals in the Green Paper on British Nationality, published in April 1977.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, 253 persons and organisations have sent in comments on the Green Paper. I doubt whether your Lordships' House would consider the printing of a long list of names in the Official Report, most of them of private individuals, to be justified. If the noble Lord has a particular point in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, it is gratifying to know that such a lot of

713
interest has been expressed in the proposals contained in the Green Paper. I wonder whether, in the light of the Government's forthcoming legislation on nationality, the noble Lord will consider the suggestion that I made to the previous Administration, that at the very least a summary of the views expressed to the former Government should be published, so that we may have these in front of us when evaluating the present Government's proposals.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I will consider the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the great importance of any Bill for citizenship in this country and the great interest in this problem, as indicated by the noble Lord's reply, would it be possible for the Government to issue either a Green Paper or a White Paper of their views, so that there might be public consideration before the Bill is introduced? We now have no idea what the proposals of the Government are.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we have already had a Green Paper from the previous Government. I am not sure what shade another Green Paper would take—possibly paler, but I hope not. For those reasons, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand me when I say that I am not sympathetic and my right honourable friend is not sympathetic to the issue of another Green Paper. But of course we will consider what the noble Lord has suggested regarding a White Paper.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: CONFERENCE
3.17 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their attitude to the high level conference on protection of the environment proposed in the Economic Commission for Europe.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the decision of the Economic Commission for Europe that a high level meeting on the environment should take place in November 1979, and look forward to playing a constructive part in it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and encouraging Answer, may I ask whether he can give us a little more information? For instance, what will be the position of the EEC and the individual national Governments at such a conference, and what will be the nature of our delegation?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the EEC will be represented at the conference together with the United Kingdom, Scandinavian countries, certain East European countries and the Soviet Union. Our delegation will probably be led by a junior Minister.

THREATENED TUBE STRIKE: CONTINGENCY PLANS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will repeat a Statement on contingency plans for a London Underground strike. The Statement is being made in another place and it will be repeated in this House at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

CHARGING ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for imposing charges to secure payment of money due, or to become due, under judgments or orders of court; to provide for restraining and prohibiting dealings with, and the making of payments in respect of, certain securities; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—
(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the limitation of actions and arbitrations and with respect to the liability of a debtor who becomes his creditor's executor by representation or administrator. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to companies. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord LYELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for Scotland as respects the law relating to the qualification of jurors; to amend the law relating to jury service in Scotland; to make further provision for Scotland in respect of prior rights in the estates of deceased persons; to provide a procedure whereby an heir of provision may establish entitlement to act as trustee; to remove an obligation to preserve inventories of the estates of deceased persons in Scotland; to make further provision in respect of performance of the duties of sheriff principal; to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction and powers of the sheriff court; to empower Senators of the College of Justice to act as arbiters and oversmen in commercial disputes; to make further provision in respect of awards of compensation by the Lands
716
Tribunal for Scotland; to remove the right of a vexatious litigant to appeal against a Lord Ordinary's refusal to allow the institution of legal proceedings; to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session in actions for reduction; to amend the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 relating to liability for offences committed by clubs; to amend provisions of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 relating to preliminaries to marriage; to make minor amendments to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [H.L.]
ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [H.L.]
SOUTH OF WIGHT BILL[H.L.]
TYNE AND WEAR BILL[H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order paper. These four major general powers Bills have been carried over from the last Session and I am asking your Lordships to agree to set up a Select Committee to consider the unopposed clauses of these Bills and the three Instructions that are attached to them. These three Instructions, your Lordships will remember, were agreed by the House when these Bills received their Second Reading on 19th February last. Of course, the Select Committee will make a special report to the House in due course. I am happy to say that the noble Lords, Lord Aylestone and Lord Nugent of Guildford, haave agreed to serve with me on the Select Committee, if your Lordships agree to set it up. I beg to move.
Moved, That those provisions in the Bills against which no Petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn in whole or in part, or which

717
become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113 be committed to a Select Committee together with such Instructions agreed to by the House on the 19th February last as relate to those provisions and that the quorum of the Select Committee be two.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might make a few remarks about this Motion which, as the Lord Chairman of Committees has said, deals with the four Bills in the second batch of those brought forward as a result of the provisions of Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, which provided that all local legislation then in force, with a few exceptions, was to be repealed on certain dates from 1980 to 1984. To the extent that the powers contained in those Acts were still needed, the local authorities had to bring forward fresh legislation for enactment. There was an inheritance of what the Lord Chairman of Committees called a "hotch-potch of powers". It was to tidy up that "hotchpotch" that Parliament required the new local authorities to come back and prove again the need for such powers as they wished to retain.
It was considered that some of the matters dealt with in the old local Acts would be better dealt with in public general legislation. The then Government introduced for that purpose the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which became the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, when referring to this Act on 12th July last, said that, useful though it was, it did not go far enough. It is not at all clear to me why many of the common clauses in the Bills now before your Lordships which are in the model general powers Bill were not included in that measure, or, indeed, why it was not possible to introduce a further miscellaneous provisions Bill now.
The Select Committee on Opposed Common Clauses of the four first Bills to come forward as a result of Section 262, expressed the opinion that provisions such as they had considered should be enacted by public general legislation. The noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees said, in moving that the House
718
take note of the Select Committee's report, that the procedure being followed was the best option in the absence of public general legislation. The only reason given for the continued absence of that legislation was the lack of parliamentary time, although I should have thought that in the long run, if all the local authorities had to bring forward separate Bills which would have to be dealt with in each House in batches of four like this, seeking identical or similar powers, surely more time would be consumed.
I realise, of course, that the miscellaneous provisions Bill was not as uncontroversial as some people had hoped. Also, your Lordships had decided on a previous occasion that even if it were considered that a provision which was brought forward in a Private Bill would be more appropriately dealt with in a Public Act, it would not in itself justify denying that power to the local authority in question. That was the effect of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, when the South Glamorgan Bill was before your Lordships on 9th December, 1975. Nevertheless, I hope that the Select Committee may reaffirm the opinion which they expressed previously on this matter, in the hope that the new Government will be more receptive of their advice and will bring forward a miscellaneous provisions Bill in the near future.
At the same time, as a result of this procedure I am afraid there will be a sacrifice of the uniformity or consistency which it is the aim of this procedure to achieve. I am sorry to say that the consistency is not even achieved as between Bills in the same batch, let alone as between the first and second batches of four Bills which your Lordships have considered. What does it mean, this uniformity or consistency? The noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees said at the outset of the proceedings on the first batch—and I quote from the transcript:
… the so-called 'common clauses' exercise, which aims at achieving as much uniformity as possible between the Bills where they seek powers of the same kind …".
He went on to say later:
"In the new circumstances produced by the Local Government Act, however, the desirability of achieving as much uniformity as possible has taken on an entirely new dimension. We do not

719
think it would be acceptable to this House if provisions in the four Bills conferring the same sort of powers emerged from our proceedings in a form that varied appreciably from one Bill to another except so far as the variations were attributable to genuine differences in local need."
Later, however, the noble Lord the Lord Chairman said this was when the report of the Select Committee came before your Lordships' House—that "uniformity" was not quite the right word, and that what Section 262 of the 1972 Act really sought was consistency. If uniformity was to be the general rule there would be no argument whatsoever for the provisions in question being dealt with in private Acts rather than in public general Acts. The noble Lord added that in county council Bills, at any rate, a degree of uniformity should be sought, whatever differences were appropriate as between one district and another within a county.
It seemed to me, on reading these debates, that what is concealed by the terminology is the lack of any fixed principle in deciding whether to accept particular clauses or variants of them. That was illustrated very well in the case of the public processions clauses which we had dealt with in an Instruction that I moved on the Greater Manchester Bill but which your Lordships at that time did not see fit to accept.
If one looks at the old local Acts, one finds that the vast majority of authorities which did require notice of processions were content to make do with 24 hours' warning, in the case of 43, or 36 hours, in the case of 56. A mere seven required two days' notice; two required three days and two wanted longer than three days. If one looks at a few examples of the local authorities which had these provisions, there are inexplicable variations between them. Oxfordshire had 36 hours' notice; Cambridgeshire had no notice; Rochester had no notice; Chatham required 24 hours; the West Riding of Yorkshire, 36 hours, the East Riding, none; Derby, 24 hours and Leiecster, 36. So it appears that up to 1972 very many councils did not find it necessary to have these powers at all, and the ones that did have them were, in the very large majority, content with either 24 or 36 hours. Apparently it never occurred to the Governments of the day to consider whether,
720
in general, it was a good idea to lay a statutory obligation on the organisers of processions, which the overwhelming majority of them would have been quite happy to do voluntarily, in any case.
There is a danger, once a provision of this kind has appeared in a large number of private Acts, that that will be taken as sufficient justification for its continuance in one form or other. We find in these Bills which are now appearing that the length of the notice has been increased to three or seven days. Three days is the period which is suggested in the General Powers Bill Common Clauses; seven days is the period of notice which is required in Northern Ireland. I think that that is where the local authorities which have chosen this period got the precedent from; but, of course, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are totally different, as I think your Lordships would agree.
Of the Bills that have been considered in your Lordships' House so far, four have gone to the Commons—the West Midlands Bill, where the notice clause has been taken out on an Instruction of the House; the West Yorkshire Bill, where the promoters have stated their intention of withdrawing the notice clause; the Merseyside Bill, where the promoters have agreed to reduce the notice from seven days to three, and the Cheshire Bill which still has to have its Second Reading, but it is rumoured that the promoters will agree to three days.
In the case of the four Bills which we now have, and which have been referred to the Committee, the Tyne and Wear Bill has no notice; the Isle of Wight Bill has seven days; the Greater Manchester Bill has seven days and, in the case of the South Yorkshire Bill, I understand that the promoters will agree to withdraw the clause requiring three days, when it get into Committee.
So that there are these tremendous variations between one Bill and another. I realise that the Select Committee, which is concerned with unopposed clauses, will be dealing only with the Isle of Wight, but it will no doubt have regard to the fact that it now looks as though no authority will have seven days' notice and, in many cases, even three will be abandoned. If the promoters of the West Midlands Bill do not seek to restore the clause which was knocked out by the

721
Instruction, when that Bill comes up for Report in another place, then four out of these eight Bills, which are at various stages in each House, could have no notice at all, and it would be necessary to probe the necessity for it in the others even more closely than the Select Committee would have done otherwise.
If I may say so, the general approach of the Conservative Party to legislation, with which I have a certain amount of sympathy, is that we have too much legislation, and that whenever opportunities occur of striking out redundant provisions from the Statute Book, then we should act accordingly. It is for that reason that I have ventured to make these remarks this afternoon, not only because I respectfully hope that the Select Committee might take note of them, but also with the object of saving the promoters time and money by reducing the areas of controversy.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it might be of assistance to the Lord Chairman of Committees if I told him that in the Isle of Wight we should be perfectly happy to have three days period of notice. I should perhaps add that we share our police force with Hampshire, so that additional policemen have to be brought over by boat which does not run all the time and not so much at night. So we do require this extra warning, and anything less than three days would make it difficult for the Hampshire police and their administration.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I can assure them that what they have said will be brought to the notice of the Select Committee. May I just say, so far as uniformity of legislation is concerned, that that is obviously a case for public general legislation and it has nothing to do with me. But I am quite sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has been listening avidly to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said.
Where I agree with the noble Lord is that where a promoter has shown that he has a need for a particular power, then it is desirable that that power should be consistent between one local authority and
722
another. Of the eight Bills that the noble Lord mentioned, none of them has yet completely passed through both Houses of Parliament, and I am sure that in both Houses we shall be trying to achieve as much consistency as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1)Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument(whether or not in draft),where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament arc proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly(Powers)Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures:
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i)that it imposes a charge on the

723
public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii)that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv)that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v)that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (I) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi)that there appears to be a doubt whether it is infra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statutes under which it is made;

(vii)that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii)that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Segal, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Vickers, B.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
724
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order No. 48, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Janner, L.

725

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Nathan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and that a Message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday the 27th of June at half-past Four o'clock in Committee Room No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must first remind your Lordships that it is four months, almost to the day, since your Lordships passed the Second Reading of an exactly similar Bill by a comfortable majority. A month later in Committee a number of Amendments were set down, but of these several were not moved and those that were moved were subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the Bill which is before your Lordships today is the one which had completed its progress through the first two stages in this House, before its untimely death owing to the dissolution of Parliament. That being so, I greatly hope that your Lordships will feel that the decision to approve this Bill in principle, which you made so recently, will still stand today.
I am, however, aware that there were a number of noble Lords who wished to amend the previous Bill in its later stages, by setting a higher age limit for marriages which would be legalised by this Bill than is set for marriages with affinities, or indeed for other marriages altogether. In our previous discussions, although I do not accept the desirability of this change. I indicated that should the House so desire and an Amendment be moved in that sense I would accept it, and that understanding I now repeat.
726
Since the demise of the earlier Bill and the birth of this one, I have received a number of further communications from people who would be affected by the Bill. All are variants of the stepparent/step-child pattern and, though I do not have full details of them all, it appears from this sample—which is not, of course, a scientifically selected sample; it is people who have picked on my name by chance in the Press—that the widowed and the divorced are about equally matched in numbers. I sometimes wonder whether, in our anxiety about rising divorce rates, we have forgotten that death is still with us, and that it is death that terminates a very large number of marriages, sometimes quite early in life. But, in the divorced category, I have yet to meet a single case in which either of the parties wishing to marry has been involved in the divorce proceedings of the other. There may, of course, be such, and it may be that such people would not have chosen to write to me, but that is the fact of the cases that I have had so far.
For the most part, my couples are well advanced in age—some are even in their 60s, and I have one in the 70s—and have waited a long time for the opportunity to legalise their unions. The younger ones sometimes think it improper to beget children. Others have brought up children, though aware that these must be condemned to permanent illegitimacy. There arc very few young people who have written to me, and I have only one case in my file in which there is a single individual under the age of 20. That is the case of a step-father in his 40s and a girl of 19, who wish to marry. If a dozen or so persons have written to me, it seems reasonable to suppose that there must be a thousand or two more scattered about the country who have not done so. But even if few in number, they are real people and not hypothetical cases. Those who have written complain that they are obliged to live a lie and that they are also penalised both socially and financially as I hope presently to show.
Now let me turn to what the Bill will do for them. As, unfortunately, I cannot assume that all noble Lords present today were in their places for the Second Reading of the previous Bill, I regret that I must recapitulate its background and effect, although as briefly as I can. In

727
this situation, I am not sure who is most to be pitied: myself for having to repeat the story or noble Lords who have heard it before. The Bill is concerned only with marriages between affinities, defined as:
"persons connected by marriage and not by blood".
It would validate all the remaining marriages by affinity which have not yet been legalised, but it leaves the prohibition on marriage between blood relations exactly where it now stands. It would in fact permit marriage between any two people not already married who are not connected by blood, with the single exception of adopting parents and their adopted children.
The Bill does not, as the media would sometimes have your Lordships believe, herald a radical moral or social revolution. It attempts only to bring to its logical conclusion a development in our marriage laws which has been in progress for the whole of this century and, in a sense, for a good many centuries before. As your Lordships are aware, the list of what are known as the prohibited degrees goes back to the Old Testament, but they remained matters purely of ecclesiastical law in this country until the time of Henry VIII—who, after all, had considerable marital experience. They were incorporated into our statute law by an Act of 1540.
If I may now jump four centuries, the first important change in the prohibited degrees was the Act of 1907 which legalised marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, but it gave no similar privilege to a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother. For that we had to wait another 14 years, and when this change came it was not expressed in the same form as the right already conferred upon a man. In those days, it was assumed that men always married women and that women never married men. So the Act, which should have been, by parallel "The Deceased Husband's Brother's Marriage Act" was entitled The Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act. If we turn it round, it comes to exactly the same thing, while maintaining the fiction that the marriage is always by the man and never vice versa.
The next stage was the Act of 1931,
728
which extended the freedom to marry by permitting marriage with the former spouse of a deceased niece, nephew, aunt or uncle. In 1949, a consolidating Act tabulated all the prohibited degrees of both blood and affinity exactly as they then stood. However, as soon as that tidying up process was finished, the Government of the day promptly untidied it by appointing the Morton Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, which considered all aspects of the law of marriage. On the prohibited degrees, this Commission received evidence from the British Medical Association, pointing out that there could be no possible biological objection to marriage between affinities, since they were not related by blood. Similar evidence was also given by Professor Glanville Williams on behalf of the Haldane Society, and by the Fabian Society, both advocating the abolition of all restrictions on marriage between affinities.
It is fair to say that none of these witnesses elaborated their evidence, nor did the Commission examine them at length. The Commission was much more concerned with the question whether the right to marry the relative of a former spouse should be extended to cases where that spouse had been divorced as well as to cases where his or her marriage had ended in death. Eventually, with three dissentients, the Commission decided to report in favour of this concession. This was quite shortly afterwards enacted in the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 which permitted marriage with a divorced spouse's relative if marriage with the same relative of a deceased spouse was already legal.
The last review came in 1970 when the marriage laws in general were reconsidered by the Law Commission. Contrary to their usual custom, the Commissioners treated the subject of the prohibited degrees somewhat cursorily. First they found, and I quote, that the "historical objection" to the marriage of affinities was "based on the ground that husband and wife were one"—-that relationship by marriage was equivalent to relationship by blood. They added:
"This reasoning is unlikely to appeal today, so one must ask whether there exist social or moral reasons against such unions."
However, having posed this question, its authors made no attempt whatever to

729
answer it. They merely circulated to certain professionally interested groups a working paper which stated that:
"There are people who feel that unions between step-relations are immoral and should not be permitted,"
although the Commission added, without further comment, that some witnesses who appeared before the Morton Commission had recommended that all prohibitions on the marriage of relations by affinity should be abolished. Nevertheless, neither in their report nor in their working paper did the Commission seek to evaluate the social or moral implications of these obviously conflicting views or their acceptability to the general public. In their report they merely recommended, and again I quote, that since they had:
"no evidence that public opinion has changed since 1955 and now desires a revision of the existing prohibited degrees,"
the law should stay as it was.
Lacking any evidence on the state of public opinion, the Commissioners took no steps to collect any. I have taken what steps I can, but it is, I think, significant that out of some scores of persons to whom I have put the simple question: "Do you think it is right that a man should be allowed to marry his stepdaughter?"—people in all positions of life, and of many varieties of occupation and political or religious opinion—the vast majority, with I think only two or three exceptions, have all expressed astonishment that such marriages are not legal, usually accompanied by some such comment as, "Why ever not? They arc not blood related". Nor can it be disputed that in the two decades since the Morton Commission reported there has been a marked change in public attitudes generally towards matters of sex and marriage. Rightly or wrongly, divorce has become more frequent and more socially acceptable. An increasing number of couples now live together without marriage, either because they wish to evade or to postpone the obligations of matrimony, or sometimes because either one is already married to someone else, or even both of them are.
Against that background, does it not seem ironic that a proposal to allow the marriage of couples who earnestly wish to be married, who are free of all marital ties and who arc not related by blood should be condemned as a threat to the
730
stability of family life? Is there not a much greater threat in the temptation to such couples to live together as man and wife without the legal or religious sanctions of matrimony? To that course neither the civil nor the criminal law raises any objection. Yet any children of such a union cannot be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, as other illegitimate children can. In certain cases a court might agree to their adoption by their parents, but even this can by no means he taken for granted.
Apart from the question of children, there are other disadvantages. If the man dies, the woman gets no widow's pension, either from the State or from the man's previous employment. And if either of them has any capital or owns the house in which they live, on the death of the one partner the survivor gets no benefit from the exemption from capital transfer tax which is available on bequests between spouses.
My Lords, the cases I have quoted relate mainly to step-parent relationships, but the Bill covers others. I have chosen these because I think they are the ones most likely to cause practical interest and concern. Not many of us, presumably, are consumed with a passion to marry our fathers-in-law or mothers-in-law, or the former spouses of our grandparents or grandchildren; but I have included these also, for two reasons. The first is logical completeness and the
second is that the Statute Book would look rather ridiculous if the only people we were forbidden to marry were the people marriage with whom would be the least likely to attract us.
I have also followed the precedent of the 1960 Act in proposing that the law concerning marriage with any relative of a former spouse should be the same, s
whether that spouse has died or been divorced, as is already the case in all those affinity marriages which are at present legal. In the absence of any evidence that this rule has resulted in disastrous consequences, I have therefore applied the same principle to the marriages which would be legalised by this Bill.
There remains, however, I know, the fear in the minds of some of your Lordships that the right to marry a divorced wife's daughter may lead a man to get rid of his present wife in order to substitute a younger and possibly more

731
attractive edition of the same, or even because she stands to inherit money from her own father. I have lived long enough to know that there are people who will do anything for sex or money, but a case such as I have just described has never yet come to my notice. Although I would not deny the possibility of its occurrence. I would reply, first, that a family in which the husband casts lustful eyes upon his stepdaughter is not a particularly stable family anyhow, and that my Bill does nothing to produce that situation, which can arise independently of the Bill.
Next, I would call in aid the report of the Morton Commission, which pointed out that under the existing law the cases of hardship are fact and the cases of what people might do in order to get sexual or financial benefit are hypothetical. Finally, it seems somewhat illogical to exclude one particular class of relationship from the conditions which apply to all other marriages between affinities. Would it not be a little absurd that a man should be able to marry—as he now can—his divorced wife's sister, aunt or niece, but that marriage with her daughter should be legalised only if the couple have waited until her mother is dead?
The British people have the reputation for always taking two steps to reach an objective where one would do, and the history of the prohibited degrees fully confirms that reputation. It took 53 years for the right of a man to marry his deceased wife's sister to be extended to cases where his marriage had been ended not by death but by divorce. But things move faster now, and I have no doubt that if the law were to be relaxed only so far as to permit marriage with a deceased spouse's son, daughter or parent, before long the same right would be conferred by another Act upon a person whose marriage had been dissolved. Meanwhile, I must repeat the hope that your Lordships, having so recently expressed in principle approval of this Bill's predecessor, will uphold that decision today and in so doing will bring comfort and happiness to a number of distressed individuals at practically no financial cost to the community and without ally damage, but rather, as I have tried to put it. with benefit to the
732
institution of marriage and the family. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—
(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.54 p.m
The Lord Bishop of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to begin with a personal word of explanation and an apology that I have not been present at all on any of the former occasions on which this Bill has been debated. In fact, work at the national level in Church House on matters concerned with Christian unity have prevented me from attending your Lordships' House as frequently as I would wish. Also, I very much regret the absence this afternoon of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Truro, who have encouraged me to speak in this debate. As the Bishop of London made clear at the beginning of his speech on the earlier Bill, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for her care in presenting this Bill to the House. I also express sympathy with her at the untimely death of her Bill and the obligation which she has now undertaken to present the Bill again to the House. Thanking her for the moderate and careful way in which she has presented the Bill this afternoon gives me great delight, because she is an honoured citizen of the county of which I am bishop. I wish I could support her in her case but I feel that I must ask your Lordships to vote against this Bill this afternoon.
As I see it, the substance of her case is that there are particular people for whom the present law creates injustice, and the speech which the noble Baroness has just made has demonstrated that that in fact is her principal concern. This was demonstrated in the Second Reading debate of the previous Bill by other noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
In reading the report of that debate it seemed to me that it was concerned primarily with the removal of injustice in particular cases and that the debate did not pay sufficient attention to the more general harm which the Bill now before us could do to the wellbeing of society. I draw your Lordships' attention to the second paragraph of the Explanatory

733
Memorandum on the Bill before you and I submit that this is a misleading statement of the scope of the Bill before us. The wording there suggests that in fact there has been a liberalising tendency during past years which is only to be completed by a modest step this time. I submit that the facts of the matter are in fact the contrary of that. Certain concessions have been made with some difficulty during the past decades but the main substance of the affinity restraints in marriage has not been touched and this Bill is likely to do far more harm by removing those restraints than simply removing injustices for particular individuals.
I cannot help feeling that we ought to have presented to us in this matter a different type of Bill which would not make the sweeping destruction of the affinity restraints but would be directed to the removal of particular injustices in particular cases, perhaps on the New Zealand model, by giving jurisdiction to the High Court in particular circumstances for particular individuals. In a few moments I wish to say a little about the healthy contribution that affinity restraints make to the wellbeing of the family. Indeed I base my case against the Bill primarily on that. I hope very much that, despite the previous Bill having been given a Second Reading, this Bill will be defeated or withdrawn and that perhaps a different kind of Bill, aimed at removing specific injustices will, after consultation, be presented to this House.
Before I speak about the affinity restraints and their contribution to the health of the family, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a fact which was overlooked in the previous debate—namely, that if this Bill is passed there will be a conflict of laws between the laws of Parliament and the laws of the Church. At the moment Church and State are in accord with respect to the laws of affinity, and Canon B.31 of the Church of England repeats the provisions of the Marriage Act. This Bill would change that and, speaking personally, I think it cannot be assumed that the General Synod would simply accept a change in this respect made by Parliament. I believe your Lordships should weigh that very carefully before voting today.
734
The present position was substantially endorsed by an Archbishops' Commission in 1940 and repeated in a more general report, Marriage, Divorce and the Church, in 1970. I believe we ought not to contemplate a major change of the kind set out in this Bill without further consultation—and this point was very competently argued by my noble friend the Bishop of London in the previous debate —nor that we should do it without further research. How pressing in fact are the particular cases of injustice, how many are they, how prevalent are they that they demand a Bill of this nature? I can only say that as a parish priest and as a Bishop I have never been consulted in a single instance about any of the matters now under consideration in this Bill this afternoon.
I wish to pass to some general considerations based on experience and reflection and not simply on the basis of religious authority, though I believe that religious teaching is consonant with what I am going to say. The three considerations I will put before your Lordships are these. First, the ascent of man, to use Bronowski's words, or, if you like, the development of humanity, or, again, the emergence, the creation of civilisation, this human achievement, has been a very great one. It has been brought into being over many generations. And contributory to this achievement has been the ability of human beings to define areas of freedom and areas of restraint.
I believe this pattern of freedom and restraint can be illustrated in many ways. I was present this week in the Royal Horticultural Society Gardens at Wisley, that ecological masterpiece, and it was clear as I walked through those gardens how much the skill of the gardeners depends upon being able to restrain plants and train them and prune them and at the same time giving freedom to develop in other ways. And, of course, in our democratic processes we see this restraint and freedom both playing a part in the processes which enable us to make a change of government as calmly and peaceably as we have done in this country recently.
I believe that in the family and in society we also need this harmony of freedom and restraint. The family is a complex network of different kinds of

735
relationship within which children develop, within which they mature, and within which adult people live securely. But within that network there are necessarily inhibitions on sexual activity, and these inhibitions have been expressed in different ways in different societies, of which, of course, the Old Testament regulations are but one example. These inhibitions, these restraints, have been created down through the ages. I believe that we should take care before we dismantle them in the wholesale way proposed in this Bill this afternoon, and that we should take particular care at a time when people are under greater stress and strain because of the circumstances of modern life. The human personality today has a far greater ability to enjoy life, to enjoy the gifts of humanity, to enter into the fullness of what it means to be a human person, and because of that the waymarks, the guidelines, need to be even clearer than they were in previous generations. I believe, therefore, that we should take care before we pass such a Bill as comes before us this afternoon.
The second consideration is this. Healthy family life is made up of many kinds of relationships, each of which has its own pattern and each of which needs protection. Let me take first of all the normal nuclear family, because I think what I am trying to say becomes clearer if I start there. Within such a family there is first of all the husband-wife relationship, then the parent-children relationship and then the brother-sister relationship. The husband-wife relationship, the foundation of the family life, a relationship in which the whole complexity of personal relationships, physical, emotional and spiritual are desirable, must be allowed free play in order to create harmony, joy and security within that family. The other two relationships are, however, also important; that is, the relationship of parent to child and the relationship of brother to sister or sister to sister, brother to brother. And these other relationships are important for the development and the maturing of persons and for the growth of children towards adulthood.
These relationships can often be of the deepest intimacy—for example, as between brother and sister—but they exclude
736
certain aspects of personal relationships, the explicitly sexual and the marital. Indeed the other two subordinate relationships can flourish to the wellbeing of the family only if it is accepted that the marital, explicitly sexual, relationship is excluded from them. And it is because that restraint is understood and practised that the relationships can develop in their own way to the joy and happiness and harmony of the family. In this case, it seems to me that there is a clear principle that marital relationships can exist only between two principals in the family unit, and that where that is accepted the other relationships may flourish in their own way.
Obviously these restraints are accepted for blood relatives. But I believe that they are also to be accepted in the extended family if the extended family is to live in the most joyous, creative way possible. The same principle of exclusion obtains in these more extended family relationships also. Take the relationship between a father and his son's wife, which would be made legal by the Bill before us. This relationship can grow and flourish and come to a deep intimacy of relationship, to the mutual enjoyment of the father and his daughter-in-law, so long as it is recognised that the whole range of personal relationships cannot be developed in this case—in other words, so long as the affinity restraint is accepted by both sides. Introduce the possibility that they may become suitors to each other and then the whole relationship becomes potentially dangerous to the harmony and well-being of the family. Or, again, take the relationship between a man and his father's wife—that is, his step-mother. So long as the relationship is accepted as one between mother and son then it can be a healthy one. But let the son become a potential suitor to his step-mother and deep distress will be caused to the whole family and not simply to the two persons most concerned. The Bill before us this afternoon would in fact remove the support of law from those affinity restraints, and, by removing the prohibition on marriage within certain degrees of affinity, it would open up the family structure to a whole new set of potentially threatening relationships.
My third submission is that marriage is not simply between two individuals. Marriage entails a wider relationship

737
which brings with it a range of new privileges and new obligations. Some new relationships entered into in marriage are, of course, of a sustaining kind; they bring new friendships to enrich life, new brothers and sisters to share in projects, new aunts and uncles to give help in times of sickness and so on. Other relationships entered into in marriage are of a more demanding kind and I refer, for example, in the case of a second marriage, to the obligations which a person enters into with regard to the children of his spouse—namely, his stepchildren—or to the obligations which a spouse takes upon himself or herself towards the aged parents of his or her partner, caring for them often as if he were a son or she were a daughter.
lf, therefore, by entering into marriage one accepts both sustaining relationships and relationships of obligation, it is not a far cry to suggest that one accepts also the obligation of affinity restraint, to which I referred earlier; that that restraint obtains in the new relationship of affinity entered into in marriage, and in fact is an obligation inherent in entering into marriage, because, as I have said before, marriage is not simply between two individuals but has a much wider range than that.
To underline this matter I should like to refer very briefly to the interchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of London in the previous debate about the position of adopting parents and adopted children. It became quite clear on that occasion that the law itself is concerned to assert prohibitions on marriage—that is, in the case of adopting parents and adopted children—even in cases where there can be no question of kinship, and that therefore the law itself recognises the importance of restraints beyond those that are due simply to consanguinity, to kinship.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if the right reverent Prelate will allow me to intervene, I should like to point out that I mentioned one exception as regards which my Bill leaves marriages that are not blood-related ruled out. Whatever my Bill does, adopting parents cannot, as at present, marry their adopted children.
The Bishop of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. I would submit that this exclusion from her particular Bill s underlines the point which I am trying to make—namely, that the law does not simply base itself on consanguinity, but recognises that there are other relationships within the family on which these restraints ought to operate—for example, the particular case of the adoptive relationship. There is also my argument on the affinity relationship as well.
To sum up, I should like to say a little about the function of the law in that respect, although I do so with some deference in this Assembly. I think that one must readily accept that the law may legitimise conduct which is not necessarily the highest attainable. That is true and one accepts it. It is equally true that the law should not create new risks which threaten the institutions of society. Indeed, the law must take even greater care not to introduce such risks in these days when there is so much confusion about what is right or wrong.
I believe that the restraints on marriage imposed by relationships of affinity are the fruit of long experience in human development and entirely healthy and helpful to the well-being of families and the maturing of human persons. I do not think that it is right that this House should remove the support of the law from these restraints in the wholesale way proposed by the Bill. I urge your Lordships not to pass the Bill.

THREATENED TUBE STRIKE: CONTINGENCY PLANS
4.15 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport. The statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on contingency plans for the London Underground strike which has been threatened from next Monday.

739
"There is as yet no sign of any settlement of the dispute, although I understand that further talks are planned for this evening.
"The offer which has been made matches that recently agreed with the London busmen. I am advised by the Leader of the GLC that if the unions' much larger claim were agreed, this would entail a very significant increase in fares in addition to those already planned, or cuts in services.
"I very much hope that the strike will not take place and that those who live and work in London will not be subjected to the widespread inconvenience that such a strike would cause. But I am sure the House would wish to have an early indication of the action the Government propose to take to ensure that people can continue to go about their daily business if the strike does go ahead.
"London Transport estimates that half a million people use the Underground daily on their way to work in Central London. Clearly the strike will impose great pressure on bus services and if too many people try to bring their cars into the centre there will be serious congestion and delay.
"We therefore propose to take the following steps.
"As far as Central London is concerned, 8,000 extra car parking spaces will be made available in the Royal and other London parks. On the advice of the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police we shall not at this stage be lifting waiting restrictions or suspending meter charges. This is to reduce the risk of congestion bringing traffic to a standstill.
"As far as outer London is concerned, where there is additional demand for extra parking spaces near suburban British Rail stations, the Commissioner has told me that enforcement of waiting restrictions will be relaxed in certain roads where this will not impede traffic movement.
"In addition the Police are taking steps to operate clearways on key routes between 7 and 10 a.m. and between 4 and 7 p.m.
740
The police will be issuing detailed advice on this over the weekend.
"The motoring and freight industry organisations are urging all their members to keep out of central London if they possibly can. Congestion will be minimised if employers adopt the maximum flexibility in hours of work to enable people to travel outside the rush hours and if people who have to use their cars take other people with them.
"I am advised that fuel supplies for public transport in London are unlikely to present a special problem, but the Government will watch this aspect
closely.
"I shall be keeping in close contact with the police on the effectiveness of these arrangements and will consider, as the situation develops, whether any changes are needed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has repeated the Statement. May I also take the opportunity of welcoming him into your Lordships' House on the occasion of his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be happy in the Department which he has been allocated and I hope that he will also enjoy his work in your Lordships' House.
Like the noble Lord, we on this side of the House hope that the proposed strike will not take place. However, I must say that faced with the prospect of 17.5 per cent. inflation by the end of the year, I can understand the determination and concern of the workers. What I should like to know is whether the Government intend to maintain the existing support to London Transport through the transport supplementary grants or are cuts likely to be proposed in those grants.
Secondly, as regards the steps that are proposed to be taken, it seems to me that they are continency arrangements which follow what has been the procedure in other cases, but will the co-ordination of

741
those arrangements be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport himself or will he delegate that responsibility and, if so, to whom?
Thirdly, we note that the police, quite rightly, will have the duty and responsibility of keeping the clearways and so on, but will the police also be monitoring the traffic in the early days if the event happens, and will they have the power to amend or to extend the proposals as they deem to be necessary?
The noble Lord has referred to the fact that fuel supplies for public transport in London are unlikely to present a special problem. However, can he also give an assurance that, if necessary, fuel will be made available for coaches which firms have arranged to bring their employees into the capital? Will fuel supplies also be readily available for those who are compelled to use their cars and are public-spirited enough to offer car-sharing? Finally, there was no reference in the Statement to any proposals for the Minister to meet—or, indeed, any indication that he had already met—either the representatives of London Transport or the unions, or both. if the Minister decides to intervene, am I right in assuming that both Houses will be kept informed of such negotiations as they proceed?
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, from these Benches may I also offer a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and congratulate him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. The circumstances in which he has had to make the Statement s give us all much cause for concern. We must all hope that the further discussions that will take place this evening will lead or show the way towards a settlement. I am sure that the parties to the dispute, as well as the Government, will bear in mind that there are still three days between Thursday and Monday. If, unhappily, an agreement cannot be reached tonight, I hope that further efforts will still be made to avoid what would be a terrible inconvenience to half a million people—indeed, more than half a million people—who are not connected in any way with the dispute.
I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said about the possibility of the Minister himself inter-
742
vening, if he has not already done so. I have only one comment to make on the proposals. If, indeed, there are half a million people trying to get into London, I wonder whether the provision of 8,000 extra car parking spaces might not be almost counter-productive, because there will be many, many more than 8,000 people thinking that they will get one of those car parking spaces. When the contribution is necessarily so small—and I am sure that it cannot be greater—would it not be better to have no extra car parking spaces? I should like to leave that thought with the noble Lord.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for their very kind remarks to me. I must confess that had the choice been mine I might well have chosen as my opening foray in this House a topic with which I had marginally greater familiarity than either London Transport in general or the Underground in particular. However, the fates have decreed otherwise.
The noble Baroness asked about coordination being the responsibility of Ministers. I think the answer to that is "No", in that this is essentially a matter between—at this stage at least—London Transport and the GLC. We very much hope that there will be no need for any further action to be taken, but if it should prove necessary, in my submission, at least initially it should be left to London Transport and the GLC.
The noble Baroness asked whether fuel would be made available. At present the Government see no necessity for any new or extra steps to be taken on this matter, because it is not felt that there is such a necessity and it is hoped that it will not prove to be the case. On car-sharing, I cannot emphasise too strongly the appeal which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is making to those who have to come into London in their cars to give lifts wherever possible. Each morning 130,000 cars enter Central London carrying 175,000 occupants. Therefore there is spare capacity for another 240,000 passengers in these more than half empty vehicles. Clearly, it would go a long way towards mitigating the effects of the strike if only that spare capacity were utilised. About

743
half a million people travel into Central London each morning by Underground. Therefore, if motorists with spare capacity would make that capacity available, they would contribute in no small measure to easing the lot of those who normally travel by Underground.
The noble Baroness then referred to discussions taking place with a view to ensuring that a strike does not happen. I am glad to tell her that, in fact, this very evening ACAS is meeting, and we hope that something may arise from that. The same point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as regards ministerial intervention. I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness: we hope that that will not be necessary. As to the noble Viscount's point about 8,000 extra spaces being counter-productive and that possibly it would be better to make no extra spaces available, in these situations one must take a view and decide on the best way to deal with the matter. Clearly, the Government believe that at this time it is in the best interests to do it this way; hence their decision at this time.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, on the radio last night there was a threat that the strike by the Underground might also be supported by the National Union of Railwaymen and affect railways. Can the Minister comment on that?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, we accept that some parts of the British Rail Service may be affected, but, in general, we are encouraged by the fact that the rail unions did not specifically say —or, at least, as yet have not specifically said—that it is their intention to do anything to exacerbate the position.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, will the Minister consider following the example of Los Angeles, where cars with one occupant are forced to park outside and are not allowed in the town at all? Secondly, will the Minister consider giving very positive and active encouragement towards the greater use of bicycles, perhaps by the provision of making certain streets available only to bicycles, providing parking spaces and so on?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will be very glad to take note of the points made by the noble Lord.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL
4.32 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, we now return to the Marriage (Enabling) Bill. Any Bill that has the patronage and advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, immediately commands the affectionate and sympathetic attention of the House, because she is a figure whom we all love and regard as a friend. The fact that this Bill has already had a Second Reading in the last Parliament of course gives it a certain piquancy on this occasion. However, the noble Baroness will be well aware that no Parliament can bind its successor. In any case, the composition of this House is continually changing.
Having disliked the Bill to start with, on looking at it more closely I find that I dislike it even more. If we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for the moderate way in which she has presented the Bill again, we should also express our appreciation of the quiet, sympathetic and instructive advocacy of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. The first fault that I find in the Bill was touched on by the right reverend Prelate when he said, in effect, that the Bill treats marriage as if it related to two persons alone. It refers to two persons and their families. The consequence of marriage is, of course, an ever growing family circle. However, the aim of the Bill is to reverse—without consulting the religious authorities concerned—a consistent marriage tradition common in these respects to the Jewish, the Christian and, indeed, the Moslem religions. That tradition is to preserve the wider family of in-laws as a tranquil, protected area of living, uncompromised by competitive sexual attraction, and to keep that area safe for the younger and the youngest generation.
We have heard three main arguments advanced for the Bill. The first is hard cases. I have no need to remind your

745
Lordships that, as we are often told in this House, hard cases make bad law. The second argument is that people who wish to will cohabit anyway. One might as logically legalise burglary on the ground that burglars often get away with the swag. The third argument advanced is that there is popular support for this, and there is popular ignorance of the substance and significance of affinity. But of course although the noble Baroness has correspondence of her own attesting all that, as the right reverend Prelate said, we have no scientific assembly of evidence on the matter.
I believe that there are three main arguments against this Bill. The first relates to the wider family. The prohibited degrees, the so-called incest taboo—and I think we should not be ashamed or afraid of using the word incest in connection with this Bill—in regard to the prohibited degrees is not meant only to apply to blood relations because biological inbreeding can produce madness, which is the commonly accepted view, but it also relates to in-laws in order to protect juniors and protect the wider family as a whole, and in particular, it is worth mentioning, to confirm the father's or the father-in-law's position in it as a father or father-in-law and not as a male competitor for the sexual interest of one of the family of the opposite sex. As I read it, this Bill would have the effect of destroying the trusting, sexless relation of the de facto guardian—he may be a stepfather—and his attractive young stepdaughter, or possibly even his attractive young grand-daughter.
Secondly, this Bill would approve sex blessed by marriage between a man in the position of father and his attractive young daughter-in-law, or even his grandson's attractive young wife. The noble Baroness says that where lustful eyes and looks exist that is not a very stable relationship. But the noble Baroness is wise enough to know that there is no man or woman on this earth, in or out of the family, who is proof against the temptation of lust. It is the very fact that this is how we are made that makes the restraints that society has created necessary and vital. This Bill would, by its logic at any rate, incite a man to divorce his ageing wife in favour of some attractive junior member of his own wider family.
746
My second argument is different. It is perhaps not a popular one these days, but it refers to fear and law. We have been told before that legal barriers are no discouragement to illicit unions. Indeed, that is so. We know it. But we also know that fear has always been the major sanction behind morality, whatever enlightened religion or religious leaders may have added as well. More important, there is the consensus judgment of human society at large which reflects the collective anthropological wisdom of the ages. That is what law reflects. This little Bill invites society at large to reject a weighty, indeed a gigantic consensus.
My third argument is of a different kind. There is deep in the human make-up an instinct of shame. It is practically impossible to define, but we all know what it means. I submit that we would tamper with that at our peril. A major misfortune of our day that has been written is that in getting rid of many false shames we have also killed off so much real shame as well. We all know that the man who blushes is not quite a brute. The incest taboo defends our sense of shame, an instinct respected by even the most primitive societies. An age where the generation gap is narrowing, to bring step-fathers and step-daughters closer together in years, surely requires the shield of shame so much the more, and yet shame, the very garment of human decency and hence human dignity, is I say affronted and assaulted by this Bill. It would, in short, legitimise what we know as incest: the very ultimate in the abuse of shame. The worst shame is surely to have none at all. Like Jonathan Swift,
"I never wonder to see men wicked,
But I often wonder to see them unashamed."
I invoke decency and shame alike in inviting your Lordships to follow the right reverend Prelate into the Lobby to deny this Bill a Second Reading.
4.36 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, when the noble Baroness moved the Second Reading of this self-same Bill in the previous Session and with adroit skill led it through its Committee stage, tributes were then paid to her for her dauntless crusading spirit and the lucidity with which she spoke to this House. Tributes have

747
already been paid to her on this occasion, too, and I should merely like to associate myself with them.
Whatever this House may do, there are, as we have been reminded, religious denominations in our country who will not sanction the marriages to be permitted by this Bill if it is passed, whatever your Lordships may decide. Having said that, however, may I just say—and it is an argument that I ventured to advance when this Bill came before the House previously, which I put forward again—that I can understand, if I may respectfully say so (and I speak with even greater respect in the presence of the most reverend Primate as well as the right reverend Prelate who spoke in this debate) anyone saying that, on grounds of conscience or for social reasons which commend themselves to him, he opposes this Bill root and branch. What I cannot understand is somebody who says—and I must take your Lordships, if you will permit me, through some of the arguments that were advanced last time—that this shall be permitted in exceptional cases, where they exist, which, as I understood it, was what the right reverend Prelate was saying to us this afternoon. Similarly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said to us on the previous occasion when he moved an Amendment at Committee stage, "I can understand it", and, as I understood him, he said he would approve of this Bill, provided that young people were safeguarded. What was then said by the right reverend Prelate—I regret to have to say this in his absence because he cannot reply and correct me if I am wrong—was that he wanted the safeguard for people under 21, and that safeguard only; and the safeguard he suggested was that people under 21, if they wished to enter into a marriage to be permitted by the Bill, should go to our courts and obtain the sanction of the court.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London opposed the Bill's Second Reading and only since it got a Second Reading did he offer that compromise? But he was against it in principle, and said so.
Lord MISHCON: The noble Earl is absolutely right to intervene, my Lords,
748
and I shall shortly quote the Bishop of London from the Official Report as to what I understood, and I believe others understood, to be his change of mind if that amendment of his were proposed; I shall quote him because it is only fair that I should do so. The amendment that then came before the House, which we should obviously be discussing on Second Reading, because, as I understand it, it affects the whole principle of the Bill, proposed that the leave of the court should be obtained, and that, in determining whether consent should be given, the court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, which I shall summarise: first, the degree of relationship between the parties; secondly, the extent, if any, to which the dissolution of any previous marriage of either of the parties was caused by the conduct of the other; thirdly, the value to either of the parties of any financial benefit; and fourthly, the interests of any children.
In the course of the discussion that took place, I ventured humbly to put to the House, first, that, as I say, I can understand the Bill being opposed in principle; what I cannot understand is supporting the Bill but first making it obviously a tainted marriage by virtue of the fact that the court's ruling must be applied to it. One can imagine the effect on somebody under 21 of going through that gruesome procedure. Secondly, I pointed out, it brings into play the most anti-social of all conditions one would have thought—namely, trying to bring back before the court and the parties the reasons for a previous marriage having gone on the rocks, quite apart from the obvious difficulty and distastefulness of the fact that the court would presumably have to go behind even a divorce which took place by the consent of the parties in an endeavour to finish that unhappy union in a civilised way and without dragging up all the unpleasant facts which led to its unfortunate conclusion.
I therefore proposed on that occasion, in Committee, that if young people were to be safeguarded—and that was the very proper consideration that was before the House—the proper way of dealing with the matter was to say quite flatly that no marriage coming within the degrees as set out in the Bill would be

749
effectual in law if either of the parties was under 21, and that it should be left at that.
I was delighted that the noble Earl intervened just now, because it gives me an opportunity of, I hope, being fair to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, who is not with us this afternoon. This is what the right reverend Prelate said after I had made that suggestion to the House:
"I imagined that my Amendment was ameliorating the situation in that it would provide some way for those under 21 to marry within these at present prohibited degrees if they wanted to do so. If however I have the support of the noble Lord"—
and he was kindly referring to me—
"and generally of the sense of the Committee that they will support an Amendment on Report stage which simply says "21", then there is nothing that would give me greater pleasure because that suits exactly the point that I am trying to make. I only put these conditions and the appeal to the court because I thought that the Committee would want to have some relaxation on that rule".—[Official Report, 15/3/79; col. 828]
I think I am being fair to the right reverend Prelate when I say that it was inferred, as indeed I inferred from the correspondence which he was kind enough to have with me thereafter, that, subject to that safeguard, he was not unhappy with the principle of the Bill, although it is perfectly true that on Second Reading he said he thought that the utmost consideration should he given to various aspects of the Bill before the House acceded to it.
I conclude with the plea I made on the previous occasion: to me, this is a Bill which one either accepts or rejects, subject only to the point about safeguarding young people under 21, if the House accepts. What I feel would be quite wrong would, as I say, be if the House went down the middle of the road—an unfortunate and long middle of the road —and tried to make this relationship a permitted one under the law but a tainted one to start off a marriage because, with some uncleanliness implied, one had to go to a court of law to get the marriage sanctioned.
4.47 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, the family is a highly charged unit, and during the last Second Reading much was said about how, if the Bill became law, matters would become worse rather than better. There were sound practical reasons for the old
750
prohibitions, and indeed, if there were no sound practical reasons for those old prohibitions, it is hard to imagine how Shakespeare could have envisaged the plot of Hamlet.
I shall be brief—I want to intervene rather than make a speech—because there is only one point I want to make. During the last Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark voted for the Bill, and in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said about the last Second Reading that the debate had
"… revealed that there is no great ethical, moral or religious objection as such to the marriage of those who are related by affinity. On the other hand, as I, and other noble Lords, endeavoured to express to your Lordships, there are some of us who believe that there would be very grave social dangers if it was permitted for those related by affinity to marry one another without any restrictions whatsoever".—[Official Report, 15/3/79; col. 798.]
I therefore feel impelled rather to endorse the line which was taken just now by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Guildford and to say what is the position of the Anglican Church from the point of view of a lay communicant who has not advanced quite so far as some Members of the Episcopal Bench. Apart from social considerations, there are religious objections to what is contained in the Bill and Members of the Episcopal Bench who vote for the Bill or suppose there are no religious objections are transgressing the Scripture, epecially what is said in Chapter 18 of Leviticus and in the Prayer Book, which is a good summary of the position as defined in the Scripture.
In both Scripture and Prayer Book the prohibited degrees are extended to include kindred acquired by affinity through marriage just as much as kindred inherited through sharing the same blood. It is true that that familiar pages in the Prayer Book, Parker's Table, gives a more extended list of prohibited degrees than does Leviticus, and it is sometimes said that that extension has been arrived at on a different basis. But Scripture and the Prayer Book deal with the same problem. The list in Leviticus is a trifle incomplete, and so in drawing up his table the Archbishop inferred from Scripture more prohibited degrees than are actually given in it, quite fairly by a process that is sometimes called parity of reasoning.

751
Some parts of Archbishop Parker's table have now been eaten away by radical legislation, earlier in this century in particular. Anglicans, like Jews, can now marry their deceased wife's sister. But what remains of the table is still printed in the Prayer Book and the Prayer Book is still the essential statement of Anglican doctrine.
During the debate that I presented to your Lordships' House just over a year ago on the Prayer Book (Ballot of Laity) Bill the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, understood the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to say that the Synod can determine the doctrine of the Church of England, when in point of fact the Synod does not have this authority—
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Did I understand him to say that in his judgment marriage with a deceased wife's sister was sinful?
Lord SUDELEY: No, my Lords, I did not say that it was sinful. I said that it was now permitted to Anglicans, as it has hitherto been permitted to the Jews.

Reverting to what I was saying before the intervention, I wrote an account of the debate to which I referred in the Prayer Book Society's journal, Faith and Heritage, in which I said that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had implied quite wrongly that the Synod has the power to determine the doctrine of the Church of England, and I am very happy to say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London wrote to the Prayer Book Society asking that this statement should be corrected; and so it was. I wrote a further article for the Prayer Book Society's journal, Faith and Heritage, quoting from the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974 to say that all services of the Anglican Church must conform to the doctrine of the Prayer Book. The Prayer Book really is the essential determinant of the doctrine in the Anglican Church.
It may be tempting in the case of this Bill to split a hair and to say that Archbishop Parker's Table, like the 39 Articles, is not, strictly speaking, an integral part of the Prayer Book, but is merely bound
752
up with it, but surely, my Lords, what is bound up with the Prayer Book has the reflected authority of the Book itself. Therefore, I should like to urge all genuine Anglicans not to support the Bill on the grounds not only of what is said in Scripture, but also on the grounds of what is said in Archbishop Parker's Table.
4.53 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, there is of course a secular point of view about this subject, as well as a religious one. Until the noble Lord spoke just now I thought that we were going to get through the debate without quotations from Scripture or without the voice of the so-called "Leviticus School". Of course they were freely relied upon in the discussions years ago on the question of the marriage to a deceased wife's sister. But I come back to those considerations which I think are important in relation to the general issue before the House at present.
It seems there are now two questions before the House. The first is whether all or some of the prohibited degrees mentioned in the Bill should be removed altogether. The second question—which was raised by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is whether, in removing all or some of the prohibitions, conditions should be laid down as to age qualification for marriages contracted in such cases. Those now appear to be the two questions before the House, because we are told that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, then in some quarters it will be on the understanding that an amendment relating to age qualification will be made to it. I believe that this was done last time and we subsequently began debates in the Committee stage on the matters of important detail.
For my part I support the Bill without any qualifications whatsoever. I consider that the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, were reminiscent of the debates that took place on the Measure which eventually was passed by Parliament in 1907. Since this in my judgment is an extension of the long debate on permitting marriage to a deceased wife's sister, and is in fact related to the beginning of the erosion of the area of restraint in the field of

753
marriage, similar considerations apply. The forebodings, the predictions, and the prophets of gloom were as vocal then as they are now. I believe that, with the doubts and fears in the minds of noble Lords, in looking at the present proposal it is justifiable that we look at what actually happened when the first prohibition was removed.
In a speech which I made on the Committee stage I drew upon a most fascinating book entitled, Roads to Ruin by E. S. Turner, who has an ample chapter on the history of marriage to a deceased wife's sister, under the heading, Two wives; one mother-in-law. But in the same book there are the stories of the boy chimney sweeps, of the plimsoll line, of the mantraps, and of other dreadful features of life at that time, which were warmly defended—hotly defended, one might say—as being necessary for the preservation of good order and discipline in society.
The question of marriage to a deceased wife's sister was a raging controversy as far back as the reign of Henry VIII We have had numerous references to this. It is interesting to recall that from 1841, when the first Bill designed to bring about the required change was introduced into Parliament, up to 1907, when a Bill was finally passed, the proposal had been approved by the House of Commons on 19 occasions, with large majorities, and approved by the House of Lords 13 times, with decreasing majorities; and when it was finally passed into law it was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day and by 16 Bishops. In fact, Queen Victoria was so annoyed about what happened in your Lordships' House that she angrily said,
"There are too many Bishops in the House of Lords."
I think that she was probably right. There are two extremely conservative institutions in Britain today: the Bench of Bishops and the General Council of the TUC; and I do not know whether there is really much to choose between them.
I recall, for your Lordships' entertainment, that a hundred years ago this year, and again in 1883, the Royal Family took an interest in the Bill regarding marriage to a deceased wife's sister. The then Prince of Wales (who later became
754
Edward VII) produced a petition bearing the names of over 3,000 Norfolk farmers who were in favour of the Bill. He commended the Bill to the House in a brief, formal speech. But the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day spoke of the
"quiet widowed homes which would be broken up throughout England on the morrow of the change."
It never happened. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that
"the quiet widowed homes [were] broken throughout England on the morrow of the change".
But, although the royal Dukes took the unusual step of voting for the Bill, it was defeated time and again.
It was only when we had a Liberal Government in 1906 that they decided that the scandal of the deceased wife's sister had gone on long enough, and the Government decided to take up the Bill. With what we owe to the Liberal Governments of the past, you wonder why we do not have more of them! In 1907 the Bill was finally passed in your Lordships' House by 111 votes to 79; and, as my noble friend Lady Wootton has already mentioned, the Bill to legalise the marriage to a deceased husband's brother was not passed until 1921. But I believe it is still the case that no clergyman is compelled to solemnise any of these marriages. Mr. Turner, in his book, says:
"If all the evil consequences expected and predicted by opponents of those measures had come about, one might hesitate about further liberalisation of the law";
but probably the most evil consequence of the delayed change in the law was the bastardisation by law of successive generations of young children.
When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford referred in his speech to "areas of freedom and areas of restraint", I thought, "Ah!—areas of restraint and areas of repression". I have lived longer than the right reverend Prelate, and in my childhood there were not only areas of restraint: there were cruel areas of repression. We know how, in the past, sexual relationships outside marriage have been regarded and treated. We recall the attitude towards illegitimate children; the branding of children for life with the sin of illegitimacy, and how difficult it was, and how long it took, to remove that brand from innocent children. These were the areas of repression—a

755
punishment for non-conformity. I, of course, come from what might be described as a bigoted, non-conformist family.
I think there are no grounds for the belief that the gloomy forebodings which we have listened to will actually come about as a result of this Bill, but I know that in some cases—and I now come to the second point—noble Lords will feel that this Bill will be tolerable if there is some special safeguard of an age condition. I opposed this approach at the Committee stage of the previous Bill, and I do so again now. Every adult may have some difficult situations to deal with; and, having conferred adult citizenship on young persons over the age of 18, are we now to begin to subtract from that status by special exclusions? This is the second issue. At 18 years a young person may marry, may make contracts, may vote, may be called up for military service. I remind your Lordships that the Speaker's Conference on the question of the franchise recommended that, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Latey Committee in regard to the civil rights of persons over 18, the vote should not be conferred upon people at 18 but at the age of 20—a compromise reached at the Speaker's Conference. But the House of Commons would not have it, and they decided that the vote should be given at the age of 18 to coincide with the conferring of other civil rights upon young persons of 18 years of age.
In love and marriage, a young person of 18 may have to meet almost every conceivable situation except that of contracting a marriage within the prohibited relationships mentioned in this Bill. On what grounds do we justify the exclusion in this respect of persons between the ages of 18 and 21? Do we say that, in general, persons between 18 and 21 are unsuitable, are insufficiently experienced to know what they are doing? Is that, in general, our verdict upon young persons between 18 and 21? Or do we say that in some cases it may be? But then, of course, in some cases it may be that young persons do not know what they are doing when they marry other persons, upon which there is no prohibition under the law at the present time. It may be suggested that such a young person might be under undue influence. Again, if one is going to concede full civic responsibility
756
in all other sections of human activity, of social activity, why do we restrict it in this particular case?
I ought to be fair, of course, and add that there appear to be two respects in which persons under 21 are not given full civil rights. One is in connection with homosexual activities, and the other is in regard to membership of certain public bodies. But in neither case was the exclusion made after the general conferment of full civil rights to persons of 18 and over. These prohibitions remain because the law imposing them has not been amended. These were not specific exclusions made in the light of the general adulthood of young persons at the age of 18.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend but, as somebody who had the privilege of sitting on the Wolfenden Committee—and that is not really past history—may I say that we fully considered the question of age there and made it the age of under 21 after consideration of the law as it then was, and our recommendation was subsequently accepted.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Then, my Lords, I say that the exclusions have not been specifically made since the general change took place.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGDON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend again? There is nothing whatever in the Bill, the Second Reading of which we are debating today, about an age limit. My noble friend has put with great eloquence arguments which would make me agree with him that I would rather not have an age limit. All I said was that I realised that some noble Lords would wish to move an Amendment on this later, and that I should not resist it to the end, so to speak. I should resist it if any conditions were attached; but I feel we ought not now to he discussing the pros and cons of the age limit. It is not in the Bill. We are discussing the Bill as it stands.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also accept that there is nothing in the Bill about a

757
deceased wife's sister or about homosexuality? Perhaps it would be more interesting if he directed his remarks back to the Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, it seems to me that when, in introducing a Bill and asking the House to give that Bill a Second Reading, an offer of a substantual change in the Bill is made by the mover, that virtually becomes part of the Bill's Second Reading. That is my judgment of the situation. At all events, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said that he supported the Second Reading of the Bill, as he did on a previous occasion, on the understanding that this question of age restraint would be part of it.
I know that I am anticipating what may be a debate at the Committee stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, it seems to me so important a feature of the debate on the Bill that with great respect to my noble friend Lady Wootton, it is very difficult to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill without taking notice of the fact that she has indicated her willingness to accept an important change in the Bill and that other noble Lords have indicated their support for the Second Reading on that understanding. That is how I see the matter.
I so not want to pursue this particular question unduly since it is not specifically before the House. I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment more because what we are dealing with in general—and any proposal for restraint by reference to age is also related to it—is the question of responsibility, of the age of full understanding, of the capacity to reach a decision having regard to all the circumstances. I would ask in that regard: Why 21? Why not the age of 30?—which was the age made applicable to women when they were first given the vote in 1918. Why not say that if it comes to a sense of responsibility, then all the precedents are in favour of giving it only to people over the age of 30—at least if they are women? One might go to the other end of the scale and consider whether there ought to be an upper age limit. Could it be that some persons are so old and senile that we ought not to permit them to contract a marriage because we fear that they do not know what they are doing? If it is going to be an issue of the full sense of responsibility in
758
all cases, then age is not the determining factor. However, I shall support the Bill as my noble friend has moved it and oppose her and anybody else who proposes to apply a restraint on age.
5.13 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I, too, should like to join with those who paid tribute to the way in which the noble Baroness has reintroduced this Bill. It must be a daunting task to do it again but it gives us the chance of looking again at the principle of the Bill having already considered in Committee what can be done to improve its details. Before getting on to my main points, I should like to touch on the argument that has been advocated in favour of the Bill: that because there will always be some people related by affinity who will in any case live together, the law should be changed to allow them to be legally married. And here there is the very important point of children. I believe that this argument, although superficially attractive, is a dangerous one, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has said. I felt that if one took it a stage further, one might as well say that, because some people will, in any case, commit adultery, the law should be changed to legalise bigamy. I should not like to be misunderstood: I am not equating the two things morally, but there is a connection in principle.
I should like to state my conviction that the changes proposed in the Bill run counter to the very basis of Christian marriage. I am not suggesting that there would be perhaps a very large moral and social upheaval as a result of it in its direct effect, but I believe that the principle of the Bill is counter to the very basis of Christian marriage. Coming from a layman, this may seem a bold statement and I shall do my best to justify it and if, in doing so, I quote the Scriptures then I do so without any kind of hesitancy or shame.
Right through the Bible, from Genesis onwards, the dominant thought about marriage—and I was going to say "the one absolutely consistent theme about marriage" —is that when two people marry "the two shall become one flesh" so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Whatever else this means, it surely

759
is the general experience in marriage that when two people marry, the relationships and relations of one partner become in a very real sense the relationships and relations of the other. I am sure that it is this thought that lies behind the prohibition in Leviticus and that this thought, perhaps much more important that the actual details of the prohibitions themselves, is the reason why they are relevant to us today. Again, this thought, I believe, is what caused St. Paul to be outraged at the action of the man of Corinth who had been living with his step-mother. And I believe that this thought is behind the thinking of the Church of England and our practice and law as listed in the Prayer Book.
Within the family, a relation by affinity is entitled to a similar degree of love, trust and obedience as is a relation by kindred; and what is received must not be abused. I draw three conclusions from this. First, the Bill downgrades marriage by going against the "one flesh" principle and detracts from the commitment of marriage. Secondly. it would lead to a conflict of interest in family relationships. How could a person act as father and lover to the same person? Here I feel that one must emphasise that in the Bill we are not dealing with the deceased wife's sister but something more drastic: that, among other provisions, a man should be allowed to marry someone who has grown up as a child in his own household. The third conclusion is that if there were a world where we all knew God's will and obeyed it, marriage between the degrees of affinity listed in the Bill would not come into question. To me this is the Christian starting point. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, there is also the secular viewpoint and secular considerations. The question is how to apply the Christian starting point to a society in which we all fall into one of two categories: first, those who do not recognise God's will and, secondly, those who continually fail to obey God's will. In considering changes in the law, we have to take into account the human frailty and wilfulness that have put, for example, family life, and especially marriage, under such strain in our present society and have resulted in so much unhappiness.
My Lords, one cannot fail to have compassion and understanding for those
760
within the degrees of affinity who honestly believe that it is right for them to be married, particularly if there is no question of either having broken up a previous marriage. But compassion and understanding do not end here. They also extend to the ageingwife whose marriage is threatened by the attractions of her daughter by a previous marriage to the step-father who is tempted to abuse his step-daughter's filial trust and obedience—to the step-father who is tempted and to the step-daughter whose trust and obedience is so abused. It is young people that we have particularly in mind in considering the possible dangers of the Bill. In my judgment, any legislation to help the hard cases must also have adequate safeguards for the others who might be affected by it. This Bill simply does not have those safeguards; in fact, it has no safeguards at all.
When your Lordships' House considered this matter on Second Reading in the last Parliament, there may have been some of your Lordships who, while worried about certain aspects of the Bill, yet felt that it should go to Committee in the hope that safeguards could be built into it. Now we have a different situation. May I remind your Lordships that the Committee stage produced no acceptable safeguards—indeed, quite the reverse. The only suggestion which seemed to be feasible, but was not considered formerly, was that there should be a lower age limit. It is therefore partly on principle and partly on the apparent impossibility of building in adequate safeguards that I oppose this Bill.
5.21 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton makes no sudden change in the law; it brings, as she says, a long history to a logical conclusion. Although we have been chipping away for more than half a century at the foundations of the impediments of affinity, we are always—and rightly—slow to change the law affecting family life. This is in part because most of us find changes in this basic social institution very disturbing. May I remind your Lordships of some of the changes that have occurred in this social institution in the past half century? We often talk as though marriage is on the point of collapse

761
as an institution and family life has crumbled. The truth of the matter is that marriage and the family have been one of the great success stories of the 20th century. We have far more marriage than we ever had before—
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment: far more marriages, yes; but divorces and re-marriages. If that is an improvement in society we should like to know why.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I shall come to divorce in a moment. Some 95 per cent. of the population marries nowadays. It marries at much younger ages than in the past. It remains married for very much longer, and 80 out of every 100 couples that marry do not divorce. If it be said that divorce is an indication of the weakness of the institution, it must be remembered that the huge quantity of divorce that we now have is partly a reflection of the establishment of near equality before the matrimonial law. It is a reflection of the much greater quantity of marriage and it is also a reflection of the much higher quality of married life. I think that a good deal of divorce results from the fact that some marriages fail to live up to the high expectations of the spouses. Lastly, of course, a huge quantity of divorce does not in any way reflect a situation in which the population are refugees from marriage; quite to the contrary, the highest marriage rates in the country are among divorced persons.
If your Lordships would care to look at the report of a committee of the Church of England called The Family in Contemporary Society, you will see there the statement that marriage and the family—and I am quoting it exactly—have never been so healthy as they are today. This is an essential background for the discussion that we are having. It is nearly common ground, I think, that we have to judge this particular issue in terms of the moral and social effects of changing the law. It is clear that the content of Christian marriage varies so much, not only between Christians and agnostics but among members of different Christian communities, that there is no common concept of Christian marriage save at a
762
level of generality which provides very little guidance for behaviour for married couples in the real world.
So we are forced to the moral and social consequences. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford put one side of the case in which these issues have been argued for the best part of a century, very clearly, very fairly and, I thought, very persuasively. I should like for a moment to attempt to put the other side of the case. He is an institutionalist and I think the heart of what he was saying was that however sorry we may be for the miseries or unhappiness suffered by individuals, these must not be relieved if the consequence will be to undermine the institution of marriage. This was the argument that was used always against the introduction of divorce in a law court accessible to more people than those who could get parliamentary divorces. It has been the argument used against almost every change in family law since the middle of the 19th century.
Perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Houghton and give one example, more recent, I think, than his. This is a comment that I extracted from a memorandum written by the Home Office and found lying in one of the files in the Public Record Office, relating to discussions about the introduction of legitimation into our law in 1926. The Home Office wrote:
"to allow children born in adultery to have the benefit"—
of legitimation
"may remove a deterrent against adulterous intercourse, and may therefore be prejudicial to family life"—
which
"in the interest of children generally is more important than the interest of a comparatively few illegitimate children".
So for that reason the facility of legitimation was given in 1926 only to illegitimate children born of parents who were free to marry at the time of their birth. We did not treat adulterine bastards in the same way until 1959.
I also extracted from the same file a comment which has perhaps some relevance in these hard economic times. The head of the Treasury wrote to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Home Office complaining about this Bill and

763
said that there would be a loss to the Crown revenue in escheat cases of:
"at least £5,000 per annum by legislation of the nature contemplated … Having regard to the imperative instructions for economy which have been issued, ought we to throw away at least £5,000 a year in order to avoid visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children? I suggest that you should postpone the revision of the Decalogue till such time as there is plenty of money in the Exchequer?".
I do not imagine that that particular argument will be used against this Bill. There in essence is the institutionalists' case: if you attend to the misery of individuals, you may risk the integrity of institutions.
I think the only way to answer this is in terms of what has happened to the institution of marriage over this century. It is the view of the Church of England, or of a committee of the Church of England, as it is my view, that marriage and the family have never been as healthy as they are today. There is a great deal of evidence, statistical and social, for this proposition. Bringing it down to detail, I might refer to the argument of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Guildford concerning these degrees of affinity, which was exactly the same argument as that presented by the Church of England to the Morton Commission, when they opposed the possibility of marrying a divorced partner's brother or sister. What they then said was:
"the family is and ought to be a secure, stable unit from which is excluded by universal custom any sex interest between its members … The possibility of marrying a divorced partner's brother or sister casts a terrible shadow backwards. The triangle of emotions is taken into the circle of the family. Affections are no longer suppressed as improper and incapable of fulfilment."
The advice of the Church of England was not taken in that particular instance and I know of no evidence that a terrible shadow has been cast backwards upon the family. I do not think that extending the ability to marry those categories of divorced persons has damaged the family in any way. One must always remember in these arguments that the fears of social damage are speculative. The miseries which my noble friend Lady Wootton is trying to relieve are actual and are suffered by people here and now. So it is for those reasons that I think this Bill will result in no social damage. It will not harm the family and it will benefit a number—I
764
imagine a very small number—of our fellow citizens. I very much hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put a question to him? Is he implying that those who are on the other side from him are interested only in protecting institutions or principles for the sake of the principles or institutions themselves, and not the individual people who are protected by those institutions or principles?
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: No, my Lords, I was not suggesting that at all. I think that what institutionalists argue is that the greater good for the largest proportion of members of society will result from maintaining the integrity of the institution. Those who think differently argue the case simply on the basis of experience which suggests that caring for the happiness of individuals strengthens, not weakens, institutions. It is an argument, as I see it, which must be conducted entirely in terms of the social consequences of the changes in the law that are made. The trouble is that we know far too little about these social consequences, and sometimes we know far too little because they are extremely difficult to measure.
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I am one of those who are speaking this afternoon but who did not speak on the previous occasions when this Bill was before your Lordships. House. I voted against it, but I did not speak because, at the time the Motion was put down, my feelings on the matter were rather cool and I wanted to hear what the noble Baroness had to say on the one side, having listened to representations from my friends on the other. After listening to the debate I voted against the Bill because I thought an insufficient argument had been made out in its favour. In the interim I have been studying the matter in more detail and in the last few days I have been doing some homework, immersed with Leviticus in one hand and the Koran in the other, trying to get back to origins and to find out how it all started.
If your Lordships look at the marital and familial laws and customs of mankind, you will find that they are the most

765
astonishing collection of variegated elements whose rationale appears to defy any description whatsoever. What we would count as incestuous in this country is regarded as a ritual blessing upon a future marriage in Eskimoland, and so on. One asks oneself: What purpose can these customs serve? The clue to it is that they are variegated means to a common end, and that common end is the pacification, beginning with the smaller units, of a society over-disposed to aggressive behaviour.
The means are two-fold: first, generally, and secondly, sexually. The family contributes to both of those, and I should like to refer to the concept of fostering as practised by our Scandinavian ancestors, the Danes, who came over here: our Anglo-Saxon ancestors may have practised it too, but I have not studied that. By "foster child" we mean what we should now call an adopted child, and the noble Baroness has told us what the ritual of adoption is now in this country and also that there is the usual sexual embargo on marriage with an adopted daughter; but in Scandinavian times one put children out for fostering with another family in order to establish a bond between the two families. Just as marriage establishes a bond between two families, so fostering did then.
One may turn to the great masterpiece of Icelandic literature in the 13th century, Njal's Saga, where a sacrilege upon the foster-bond took place. Skarpheddin killed his foster-brother, the White-Ness Priest, and eventually landed the Icelandic society, which was trying to find its way out of the blood feud by means of were-gild, outlawry and exile, into a tragedy which could not be escaped but which gave us a great masterpiece of literature.
If your Lordships wonder whether I am following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and others on the side of the noble Baroness by going back too far into the past, I want to bring this into its aspect of relevance by passing straight from 13th century Icelandic law through modern English law on adopted children to the injunction of the Koran:
"You are forbidden to marry your foster sisters".
That is one of the very few items in Chapter 4 of the Koran which is at some variance from the Mosaic Code. We must remember that both the Mosaic
766
Code and the Koran were codified at a time when among the Jews polygyny—that is, the maintenance of a harem with a multiplicity of women, the wives of the lord of the harem—was practised and tolerated, though on its way out. Of course, in Islam polygamy was accepted as normal and continues to be practised to this day, though only very wealthy Moslems nowadays are able to afford more than one wife.
That establishes a connection between three things. I am trying to argue the case that its latent function is the avoidance of disputes and, of course, sexual contexts are very likely to engender disputes. This is where I am entirely with my right reverend friend the Bishop of Guildford in what he said about the need to establish the cohesion of the family in the interests of its weaker members who need it; that is to say, the young. So we draw this sexual cordon sanitaire around the nucleus of the family, no matter in what form you do it. The form does not matter, provided that it affords a refuge to the young, in some part of the family environment, from molestation. Within the perimeter of that cordon sanitaire, you find an oasis of unifying parental love—if you like, agapé. Outside the perimeter there is a desert of divisive Eros and that is what we seek, at all costs, to protect the young from in our multiple incest taboos: an asexual area dominated by the mother and the father as archetypes of parental love, not thought of by their children as sexual partners.
It is one of the established facts of psychology that children find very great difficulty, however much they know about the birds and the bees and the facts of life, in visualising their parents as erotic partners. This is where I would certainly join issue with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, when he argued, by some strange process of ratiocination which I was quite unable to follow, that an increase in the divorce rate argues for an improvement in the quality of married life. Those of us who are on sufficiently good terms with our children to discuss these matters with them objectively know very well that children loathe their parents getting divorced. Inter alia, it is an unacceptable reminder of their parents' status as sexual partners, either with one another or with others.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? Has he not also come upon the many occasions in which children in their adolescence—and today their mature adolescence—in an age not only of Icelandic sagas but of Freudian studies, are appalled by their parents still being married and causing them a great deal of distress by not being divorced?
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I have never come across such a case, but that may be because my samples are selected, like the noble Baroness's, by the people who talk to me. One of the fathers of Marxism—it may have been Marx himself—was responsible for the dictum that our problem is not to understand society but to change it. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible by way of attitude. It reminds me of an amateur surgeon trying to do an appendectomy with no knowledge of anatomy, with no knowledge of asepsis and no knowledge of anaesthesia. The result, I imagine, could only be the death of the patient. To try to alter something as complex as society without taking the trouble to understand what holds it all together, is, to my mind, very irresponsible.
At this point, I can imagine a hostile critic intervening and asking: "What! Are you daring to suggest irresponsibility by the noble Baroness? So far from being an amateur, she is a professional sociologist." Far from knowing nothing about society, she is a magistrate. She is given to many good works for which we all admire her. I am sorry that she is not here to listen to me paying her these compliments. In days gone by she has been a governor of the BBC for twice as long as I have. She has chaired more commissions of inquiry and departmental committees of inquiry than I have. She is, in many ways, a much more experienced person than I am. I have no business at all criticising her. Because of her quality she is the last person with whom I should want to embark upon a controversy.
But even among the highest quality it is always possible that one is not the only pebble on the beach, and there is more than one school of sociology. Forty years ago, in the days when he was alive, Malinowsky was an international name to conjure with, and the views that I am
768
putting forward about sexual taboos being part of the pacification of groups against aggressive sexual behaviour were, of course, his. I learnt them from a study of his writings. I spent much of my youth reading great works of his, such as The Argonauts of the Western Pacific. There was a time when the Church of England asked Malinowsky his views on the conclusions that he had come to regarding sociology as a normative as well as an observational science, and he said that there was nothing in the teaching of the Church which was at variance with the findings of sociology.
There are others who work in the social field just as the noble Baroness does, but they see the magistrates' court from a different point of view. They are the probation officers and the social workers, and it is they who make representations to people, such as myself and my noble friends Lord Lauderdale, Lord Robertson and others, and beseech us not to nibble away at the perimeter of this cordon sanitaire. We have already damaged ourselves enough by the permissive society in which we live. They are the people who have to pick up the debris left in the wake of the liberal humanists crawling across the statute book and removing one stabilising factor in society's warp and weft after another until they achieve their hearts' desire—the flabby, licentious society in which we live and in which they can live out the love of their own ideas, rather than dedication to their fellow men's true interests. I repeat: Why tinker with this perimeter?
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was fighting the battles of the past. Exactly how we ever got into confusion over the deceased wife's sister I cannot imagine. What the Book of Leviticus says is that you must not take into your harem—and I am using the Jerusalem translation—a woman and her sister at the same time, uncovering the latter's nakedness while the former is still alive. How any medieval ratiocinator could have read into that an embargo on marrying your deceased wife's sister, I do not know. We are not beholden to the mistakes of the past. We should shed the mistakes of the past—but I do not believe we can do it by emptying the baby out with the bath water. That is why I will oppose this Bill and will vote against it if it goes to a Division.
5.49 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in this Chamber, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. I have no doubt at all that he will enjoy his time there. I certainly enjoyed my time there enormously. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I venture the view that I was not there long enough to do that Department lasting damage. It is a splendid Department, and I would pay tribute to the excellent officials there and the splendid service with which they provided me. I wish the noble Lord well, and trust that he will have a happy, rewarding and productive period there.
Perhaps I may be excused if I add one further congratulatory word. As my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has reminded your Lordships today, it is almost exactly four months since your Lordships gave her Marriage (Enabling) Bill a Second Reading and almost exactly three months since that Bill passed through its Commitee stage. Then, as we know, it was overtaken by the Dissolution. My noble friend is known, among other qualities, for her tenacity. She is to be congratulated most warmly on losing no time at all in introducing into this Parliament a similar Bill to that earlier Bill. Indeed, it was the very first Bill to be introduced into your Lordships' House in this Parliament—on the day after the State Opening—so my noble friend has again shown her tenacity.
I intend to be brief. In the previous Second Reading debate on 13th February of this year, I had the opportunity from the Dispatch Box opposite to refer to my noble friend's well-deserved reputation for compassion—something which, if I may say so, she demonstrated again today in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe that that is a tribute, and clearly from your Lordships' reactions it seems to be one in which noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House will wish to join, whatever views individual Members may hold on this Bill.
In giving the then Government's view on the earlier Bill I adopted a position of neutrality, for this kind of subject is one which Governments have traditionally
770
left to individual Members to take an initiative upon, and to the House to decide, without adopting a strongly positive or negative view. Speaking from this Dispatch Box, I feel that it would be somewhat unseemly as well as wrong to abandon that neutral stance a few months later. However, I do not feel that it would be wrong to add just a few words, in a few moments or so, to the advice that I offered last time to the House.
My noble friend has again drawn to the attention of your Lordships the very real hardship that can be caused in particular cases under the law as it stands at present. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister will no doubt be able to confirm, as I found when I was at his Department, that from time to time the Home Office has its attention drawn to cases in which men and women wish to marry, often in circumstances in which little or no harm would appear to be likely to result from their marriage but who are prevented from doing so under the existing law. It would be hard not to feel concern about that situation and not to feel sympathy with those who suffer such hardship. This is especially so if there are children who would be legitimised by the marriage of the parties involved, and I certainly sympathise with those who are affected in that way.
My noble friend has been at pains to emphasise today, as she did previously, that marriage in cases of that kind would tend to strengthen rather than diminish the existing de facto relationship. That was emphasised particularly—even more than it has been emphasised in today's debate—in the debate that we had just a few months ago. My noble friend's Bill is, I think, identical in every respect to the one which she introduced earlier this year. As we saw then, and as we see now from the Long Title of the Bill, the proposed change in the law would:
"enable a person to marry any kin of a former spouse, or a former spouse of any kin".
So the present prohibitions, as we have seen, on marriage by reason only of a relationship of affinity would be removed.
This brings us to the other side of the argument. It stems, in part at least, from the historical basis, which has also been referred to in today's debate, of the existing prohibition: the view that husband

771
and wife should be regarded as one flesh, with the result that relationship by marriage is to be regarded as equivalent to relationship by blood. It may well be that there are not so many people today as there were in earlier days who adhere to that principle, at least in its most literal sense. However, I suspect that it is still the case that many people still consider that marriage means that a special relationship is created; namely, a new kind of family relationship involving and uniting the members of the families of the partners to the marriage as well as the spouses themselves.
So we have on the one hand the often heart-rending predicament—for that is what I believe it to be—in which those who are prevented from marrying under the present law find themselves, coupled with a wish to try to end their anguish and suffering and the hardship and embarrassment suffered by any children who are involved, and, on the other hand, the fear that the special family relationships formed between the families of the former spouses will be severed in such a way that the concept of the family itself will be undermined, if the existing prohibitions are ended.
This conflict of interests and of arguments can perhaps best be seen by way of illustration, and we have had one or two tonight. My noble friend has indicated the sort of case she has particularly in mind—not exclusively but particularly; namely, the possibility of marriage between step-parent and step-child. The situation in which reform is perhaps most strongly advocated is where a wife has died, the husband has been left with small children of their marriage and a step-daughter, who is an adult and therefore appreciably older than the children of the marriage, then begins to take care of the small children. They come to look upon her as a mother. The relationship between her and her step-father then begins to develop and she takes on the role of wife as well as of mother. But as the law stands now, the couple cannot, of course, legalise their relationship by marrying, and their plight understandably arouses considerable sympathy.
The problem, as some people not unreasonably see it, arises in cases where the
772
step-daughter was much younger when her mother and step-father were married and where the step-father stood in loco parentis to her, perhaps for quite some time. There would probably be wide agreement that when somebody, a man or a woman, becomes the step-parent of a young child and so takes on the role of a parent towards that child, the idea, indeed the very possibility of a marriage between them should be completely alien to the nature of the relationship that ought to be formed between them.
That perhaps, if only very briefly, helps to illustrate the dilemma we face. There seems to be no way in which that type of case could be excluded from the provisions of the Bill while at the same time providing a remedy and a relief for those whom my noble friend especially seeks to help.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give a final, brief example of a rather different kind, and one which is in the nature of a confession. This kind of debate rather lends itself to confessions, and even invites them. For that reason, I am rather surprised that during the course of this debate in your Lordships' House we have not had more confessions. Your Lordships may be agog by now and wondering what awful revelations are about to be presented to your Lordships. However, this concerns my wife's family, and therefore mine. My wife happens to be an Australian. In 1926, in Melbourne, Australia, my wife's grandfather, then aged 63 and a widower for five years, married his step-mother, aged 70, who had been a widow for four years. After his previous wife's death, my wife's grandfather had gone to live with his father and step-mother, and in due course he married his step-mother. So it was lawful in Australia all that time ago. At least, we in the family assume and hope that it was. I should not dare to examine my own position if that were not so.
So, my Lords, there was enlightenment —so it might be thought by some—in Australia. Furthermore, the step-mother actually proposed herself to my wife's grandfather so perhaps there was even more of an enlightened attitude among women in Australia at that time. I am happy and indeed relieved to say (if I may make a final confession) that, so

773
far as we know, that happening has not brought any difficulties upon our united family and indeed those concerned—as is almost the whole of the family still—were practising Christians.
If I may say so with great respect, your Lordships' House has found it possible to grapple with this problem before and is no doubt well able to do so again today. One of the differences between the debate today and that on 13th February of this year is that there has been no suggestion that this decision is a problem which ought to be shuffled off on yet another committee. Just as your Lordships found it possible to come to a decision last time, so I feel sure that will be the case again today. I conclude with a final sentence or two, my Lords. As I indicated earlier, on the merits of this Bill my position is a neutral one, but I think it would not be improper to add that your Lordships have very recently given a Second Reading to an identical Bill. Your Lordships might therefore feel that it would be appropriate in those circumstances to do the same today.
6.2 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this afternoon your Lordships have expressed different views about the merits of this Bill, but I join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham—to whom I was most grateful for his characteristically kind remarks—in saying that I am sure the whole House can at least agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, can be applauded for her tenacity. The noble Baroness piloted this Bill through to report stage in the last Parliament and she has been quick to seize the opportunity of the new Parliament in order to present the Bill again to your Lordships' House. On the last occasion, the divergence of opinion, as recorded both in the debate and in the Division lobbies, crossed party lines. So it is against this background that the Government have looked afresh at the contents of the Bill and have considered what advice I might try to offer to your Lordships upon it.
The issues raised by the Bill, particularly as regards its impact upon the family and, through the family, upon society as a whole, are indeed important. The speeches of the right reverend Prelate
774
the Bishop of London in the last Parliament and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford today, remind us how seriously the Church of England views the effects of this Bill. Indeed may I say that that applies to all the spokesmen for the Churches—and of course on the last occasion the House had the benefit of a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who is unable to be here today. But in a sense I think the issues are really too important for it to be appropriate that the Government should try to form a collective view upon the issues and then seek to obtain for that view the assent of your Lordships' House. Essentially these are matters in an important Private Member's Bill on which each of your Lordships should be free to decide in the light of the considerations and arguments advanced during the debate—and dare I say that if I did offer advice I expect your Lordships would not take it!
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has very reasonably put forward as an argument in favour of her Bill the fact that it would enable a number of people who are now prevented from doing so to marry the partner of their choice. In his closing remarks the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred to this and the sympathy which it can excite quite naturally, among many people. These are people who, under the law of England and Wales, are, in general, free to marry; they are not partners in any existing marriage, although in each case at least one of the parties to a marriage which the Bill would allow, will have contracted an earlier marriage which has ended either in death or divorce. There are, as I understand it, no objections on genetic grounds to the marriages which the Bill would permit. If the previous marriage which created a relationship of affinity between the two people concerned had never occurred, there would be no obstacle to marriage between them.
What then is there to be said against such marriages? First, on behalf of the Government I confirm that although, as the noble Lord opposite was saying, there may be cases brought to the attention of the Home Office, none the less so far as I know there is no evidence of widespread public demand for a change in the present law. Indeed in the previous debate the noble Baroness suggested that the public

775
at large is for the most part unaware of the prohibited degrees of affinity, as opposed to consanguinity. That may well be right.
Then there are considerations of religious principle. As I understand it, no question arises of anyone being compelled to marry contrary to his or her religious convictions in any of the cases covered by the Bill. It would be exceptional in modern society if anyone were to be prevented from marrying under civil law in accordance with his or her own personal decision, simply and solely on the ground that the marriage was contrary to the religious convictions of other people. Thus it is that those noble Lords who feel that they really cannot accept this alteration in the law have drawn attention to the inconsistency of the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness—as they see them—with traditional Christian teaching, and as I have understood the speeches which have been made today, the critics of the Bill have then gone on to support their objections on wider grounds, related, for example, to the stability of the family which, although closely linked with our Christian heritage, does not stand or fall with the acceptance of particular religious views.
This brings us then to what seems to be the central issue—the effect of the Bill on family life. Today, as in the previous debate, most of your Lordships who have dealt with this question have considered it with particular reference to the possibility of marriage between step-parent and stepchild. That seems understandable and right since, in the other cases to which the Bill would apply, such as marriage to a parent of one's former spouse, as the noble Baroness put it in a more amusing way than I can, there would remain a rather natural disinclination towards the idea of marriage which makes it unlikely that advantage would be taken of the Bill's provisions in many such cases. It is between stepfather and stepdaughter, or between stepmother and stepson that the kind of attraction which can lead to marriage is most likely to arise.
It is also, I believe, in the normal run of cases in this category that a conflict is most likely to occur between such attraction and the character of the family
776
relationship which should obtain between step-parent and step-child. I speak of a conflict here because, so long as the step-child is physically or emotionally dependent upon the parent and stepparent, let us be crystal clear about it, that child is entitled to have both of them act towards him or her in loco parentis in the full human—and not merely in the dry legal—sense of that phrase. Attraction may well supervene before dependence ceases—after all, we are all human—and the temptation felt by the step-parent to make use of that dependence in order to strengthen the mutual attraction is, I am sure, a real factor which noble Lords who have been critical of the Bill have been right to stress.
In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has pointed out that in this context, all that the law is doing is to prevent marriage between step-parent and step-child. That in itself, the noble Baroness has suggested, can encourage a sexual relationship more than it can discourage it because it could relieve—let me be blunt—a seducing step-parent of the perhaps unwelcome necessity of even having to pretend that there is marriage in mind. As against that argument, however, your Lordships will wish to consider whether the law of the land does not need to provide a support for the family in which one parent is a step-parent—support of a kind which may be imperceptible because we have come to take it for granted, but it might nonetheless prove to have been important if not indispensable once it had been removed.
At the Committee stage of the Bill in the last Parliament and again today, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, following up a suggestion made by other noble Lords, held out the prospect of amending the Bill so as to introduce a special age limit to govern marriages to which the Bill would apply. The noble Baroness has referred to that possibility again today, and the possibility is there for any noble Lord to take up. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has commended such a course. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has condemned it. For me any such Amendment would, of course, go some way to meet the concern which has been widely expressed about cases in which there is or has recently been a family

777
relationship. Whether it would go far enough to meet that concern your Lordships must decide.
Finally, may I agree with the view that has been expressed by Lord Boston today, that further examination of the main issue raised by the Bill or of any related question by any standing body like the Law Commission or by a committee of inquiry appointed ad hoc really would not help to clarify the matter or to make the decision of your Lordships' House any easier. Lastly, if your Lordships do decide to give the Bill a Second Reading, I shall be glad to co-operate with the noble Baroness, subject to the approval of the House, in effecting various technical and other amendments to the Bill of the kind which Lord Boston indicated in the debates on the Bill in the last Parliament.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the kind words you have said about myself, and also for the very careful attention which those who have spoken have given to the contents of this Bill. Having had the advantage, as we all have, of being able to look at it twice on two separate occasions, I think perhaps it would be simplest if I take general points rather than more specific issues relating to the speeches of particular noble Lords.
There is this widespread fear that the Bill is hostile to the family. In my mind, it has no hostility to the family. It is intended to make it possible for respectable people, not married to anybody else, not wishing to have intercourse with their blood relations, otherwise absolutely ordinary respectable people, to marry and found families and to bring up legitimate children. I know that there are such people and I know that many of them suffer great deprivation, as has been quoted by some of your Lordships. I think this more than balances what has been said about the dangers to existing families.
Many of your Lordships speak as though my Bill would create sexual attractions or sexual temptations. It does not do that. The sexual temptations are there if the atttactive step-child is there and the husband casts lustful glances upon her. What my Bill does say is that in the last
778
resort he may marry her. The Morton Commission raised exactly the same points in relation to the deceased wife's sister, and they worked it the other way round, and I am inclined to agree with them. They said that the temptation was there, but the impossibility of marriage did not enable her to say, "Now you can marry me". It is possible that it works that way, that he will be more cautious, if he feels a sexual attraction, in how far he goes if he is afraid that, if, for instance, she becomes pregnant, he will be threatened with the obligation to marry her. I do not think we can argue that my Bill creates sexual attraction between step-fathers and step-daughters, which seems to have been behind a good deal of the argument today.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford ranged very widely again in defence of the family, in which I would be wholeheartedly with him. I am a great upholder of the successful and happy family. It does not always occur in the nuclear family, but where it does it is one of the most beautiful and delightful things on earth. I should like to see some people who are deprived of the opportunity, as I think quite unreasonably, allowed to enjoy it.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, also ranged very widely and made very sweeping statements, and some of these statements seem to have been implied in other speeches by other noble Lords. They spoke as though I was now proposing to abolish affinities de novo right from the beginning. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, used the expression "wholesale". I am not doing anything wholesale. The wholesale abolition of affinities, or the nearly wholesale abolition of prohibition on affinities, has been made, and there are just these few outstanding cases which remain. The aunt, the niece, the grandparent, the nephew and so forth, the former spouses of all these have already been legitimated. He also put my poor little Bill against the whole practices of society in the world, which I think was rather effectively answered by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. He showed that the practices in relation to sex and marriage over the world are extremely varied. I think the noble Earl would find that he does not need to look further than Europe and certainly not further than the United

779
States to find that some of the things which he holds are general to society are not observed in those countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very kindly tried to elucidate the stance which had been taken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose absence today we very much regret. I, too, have been in correspondence with him, and I believe, as my noble friend said, that there was a mutual understanding on the subject of an age limit. If the House wanted an age limit at the age of 18 or 21 this would greatly facilitate the protection of the young, and would not be resisted by me. I should, however, resist any suggestion that additional requirements should be added to the age limit. My noble friend Lord Houghton did say that if an age limit was proposed by myself or anybody else he would oppose it. It will never be proposed by myself, and I will give the reasons for that if anybody else proposes it. But I would rather retain the age limit than lose the Bill. It is on those grounds that I have referred to that.
I think we are very much back where we started, because we have done this twice and the arguments on both sides have been very much the same on each occasion. On the question of the public attitude, my inquiries of the public, as distinct from the letters sent to me, as to their attitude to step-parent marriages, have been very wide indeed; they have not been in any way related to persons I know intimately. They are not a scientifically selected sample, but they are not just people who have taken the initiative to write. It is no wonder the public do not want the law changed bceause the public think the law is as I am trying to put it. That seems to me an indication that the public would support this once they find that it is not so, that they are wrong. Indeed those who expressed the view that
it was so also thought that, as it was not permissible to make these marriages, the law ought to be altered.
Therefore, in the end it comes back to weighing hypothetical dangers—this has been the situation all along since 1907—against actual known unhappiness and deprivation. In the face of that history and of all that has been said tonight, I should certainly uphold that we regard unhappiness as the deciding factor.
I entirely support the view that particular religious bodies and sects—whether it be the Church of England or those of Jewish faith, or whether the authority is derived from Scripture or from any other access to divine authority—are entitled to make rules for their own members and that their own members have an obligation to observe those rules. But, in spite of the establishment of the Church of England in this country, it does not actually make the laws. The Synod may disapprove, but if it does disapprove it does not alter the fact that many people are not eligible to be members of the Synod because they are not members of the Church. In fact, I would hope that Churches will make laws unto themselves and that Parliament will make laws for the people. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will deal with the matter in terms, not of Scripture—which may or may not be binding, but which is binding on those who believe it to be so binding—but of what your Lordships think is best for the community and for the family Above all, I hope that your Lordships will look at the matter with compassion for those who are at present suffering under the existing law.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dowding, L.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Bowden, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Listowel, E.

Brockway, L.

Gregson, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.[Teller.]

Castle, L.

Hall, V.

Collison, L.

Hampton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hood, V.

Mischcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Monson, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Northfield, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peart, L.

Stedman, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Swansea, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Robbins, L.

Vaizey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Caithness, E.

Hanworth, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Chesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ingleby, V.

Spens, L.

Colville Of Culross, V.

Ironside, V.

Stamp, L.

Crathorne, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Daventry, V.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Longford, E.

Swinfen, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lothian, M.

Torphichen, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monck, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood): My Lords, there have voted, Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 50: so the Contents have it.
[A Statement on the Division was made at the conclusion of this day's business, immediately following the Second Reading of the Kiribati Bill.]

KIRIBATI BILL
6.33 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carrington much regrets that, because the previous debate went on longer than anticipated, and because of an inescapable engagement, he is not able to open this debate himself this afternoon.
Your Lordships will be aware that this Bill affects the Queen's Prerogative and that Her Majesty's Consent would, therefore, normally have been communicated to the House by a Privy Councillor who is a member of the Government. Unfortunately no Member of your Lordships' House who falls within this category is able to be present at this time and I, therefore, take this opportunity to say that I understand that one of my noble friends will signify the Queen's Consent at a later stage.
782
I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before your Lordships, which was approved in another place on 11th June, is identical to the one already debated and approved by your Lordships' House in February and March in the last Parliament. The details will therefore be familiar to your Lordships, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, set out the position admirably in the Second Reading debate on 10th February. We, on this side, then in Opposition, supported the Second Reading, and particularly because of an undertaking from him—and I quote from column 1603—as follows:
"I am prepared to accept the suggestion that a Minister should, before the Bill is read a second time in another place, visit the Pacific to discuss with the Gilbert Islands Government and the Rabi Council of Leaders, if they are willing, the special provisions to protect the interests of the Banabans".
The visit was, in fact, made by Mr. Evan Luard, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I shall return to this later.
The fact that this Government have reintroduced the Bill as it stood does not imply that we accepted it uncritically. A Government have resources and information not available to an Opposition, and

783
we have examined the whole complex of issues most carefully before taking the decision to reintroduce it.
The Bill makes provision for the independence of the Gilbert Islands as a republic within the Commonwealth under the name of Kiribati, on 12th July 1979. The Gilbert Islands number 33, nearly all coral atolls, scattered over two million square miles of the Pacific. They have democratic traditions, shared with other countries of the area, and enshrined in the Constitution, of which there is a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House. Under their custom, they reach decisions by consensus and these decisions are then binding on the people. It was thus that after a long process of consultation throughout the islands, the government of the territory asked the British Government for a constitutional conference leading up to independence. It was clear from these consultations—and this was reaffirmed at the constitutional conference in November and December last year—that they wanted their independence with all their territory intact. This is not a goal that we should criticise.
Earlier debates on this Bill, both in the previous Parliament in this House and the present Parliament in another place, have been dominated by the Banaban demand that Ocean Island, or Banaba, be separated before independence. Personally, I regret that this has drawn attention from the main purpose of this Bill, which is to end a long and happy constitutional relationship with a colony with which we look forward to having an equally warm relationship after independence. Ideally, we should this afternoon primarily be welcoming a new member to the family of nations and to the Commonwealth; and I would not wish the fact that I am devoting much of my speech to the Banaban issue to obscure or detract from this, the main purpose of the Bill.
The Bill before your Lordships is concerned exclusively with constitutional matters: with respect to Banaba, it is concerned with the future status of the island and the extent of the sovereignty of a future Kiribati State, together with safeguards for the Banaban rights of land ownership on, and access to, Banaba.
784
On the central question of the status of Banaba, it is common ground that Banaba is, and for more than 60 years has been, a part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony, later the Gilbert Islands colony. To change this position, without the consent of the Gilbert Islands government and people would be a most exceptional act, which no government could take without compelling reasons. This Government, like its predecessors, have concluded that sufficient reasons for such a decision do not exist.
Your Lordships will be aware of the detailed provisions, both within and outside the Constitution, that have been provided to safeguard the rights and privileges of the Banabans in Banaba. They are set out in paragraphs 62 to 69 of the report on the Constitutional Conference; and they have been further reinforced as a result of discussions with the Gilbert Islands Government which have taken place since this Government came to power. I would here pay a tribute to Mr. Luard, who initiated these discussions during his Pacific visit to which I have already referred. His proposals were the subject of a Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on 13th March. They included the maximum devolution of local government powers to the Banaba Island Council; the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry after three, rather than five, years to review the operation of the special constitutional safeguards for the Banabans; and a proposal for a treaty with an independent country concerning the Banabans' rights.
The Chief Minister has reaffirmed to us his Government's firm commitment to the establishment of the review commission and his desire that it should be truly independent. He has also given an undertaking that Kiribati will take advice from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth on the Chairman of the Commission, and from two other Commonwealth countries, one of which could be Britain, on the other two members.
Secondly, when the Kiribati Bill, to include Banaba, is enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament, the Kiribati Government will be ready, if the Banabans wish, to conclude a treaty with the United Kingdom or another Commonwealth country to secure the special rights of the

785
Banabans within a united Kiribati republic. Such a treaty would refer to the special safeguards to be included in the Kiribati constitution and the other assurances given by the Gilbert Islands Government described in paragraphs 64 to 68 of the conference report. Any Banaban complaint which was not susceptible of resolution by the courts would be raised first in the Kiribati Assembly. If it was not resolved in this way, it could be raised with both Governments.
Every effort would be made to resolve the complaint amicably between the Council and the Kiribati Government, for which the good offices of Her Majesty's Government (or of another agreed Commonwealth Government) could be requested. If no agreement was reached within a specified period an independent mediator would be appointed, if needed by the Commonwealth Secretary General. I am sure that the House will agree that these undertakings represent further generous gestures by the Gilbert Islands Government to underline their good faith.
My Lords, our colonial record in the Pacific, originating, as it does, primarily from an endeavour in the last century to protect the islands in the region from raids by "black-birders" for labour to work in plantations in South America and Pacific territories, is one in which we can take great pride. Apart from phosphates, these territories have few resources, and the British Government have made no material gain from the colonial presence which is now coming to an end. All the proceeds from phosphate mining on Banaba, for example, have gone to the Gilbert Islands, including a high proportion to the Banabans. And our aid programme to the area, including the Gilbert Islands, has been, and will continue to be, among the largest per capita anywhere in the world.
The Banabans undoubtedly have some legitimate grievances arising from errors or omissions of the colonial past, but we cannot re-write history, and I am convinced we must now look to the future. In this spirit, I hope that your Lordships will join me in congratulating the Gilbert Islands Government in their forthcoming independence as a fellow member of the Commonwealth. I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
6.43 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. As I said when I performed a similar duty on that side of the House a few weeks ago, this is a good Bill. No independence Bill is without difficulty, as many Members of this House are well aware. I have handled more than my fair share of them. I can assure the House that every one of them presents almost implacable differences of view, of opinion, of interest, and this is no exception. The heart and centre of the difficulty here was of course the varying attitudes of the Banabans and of the rest, of the Gilbertese, as to the future of Ocean Island—one of the 33 islands which will constitute the new state.
The efforts of the Government of which I was a member, and of myself as the Minister concerned, were part of a long series of attempts by successive Ministers and Governments to try somehow to bring together two quite irreconcilable attitudes towards the future of these islands, on the basis that no case had finally been made for detaching this one island from the 33 without in that way making a similar case for the detachment of every one of the other 32. It was found reasonable to put forward, after prolonged discussion and negotiation, a constitutional conference of a fortnight, half of which was devoted entirely to the Banaban question. Let nobody say that there has been any lack of attention to the Banaban case during the conference, or before the conference. The opposite is true.
After these prolonged discussions the accommodation which the noble Lord described to us once more, which has been described in the other place as well as here before now, was put forward. I think that it is a fair and perfectly workable compromise on which the people of the 33 islands can move forward, confidently and co-operatively. The accommodation included one constitutional provision which the noble Lord has described; namely, that there should be within the

787
new State a special position for Ocean Island. This was not a universally popular proposal in the rest of the islands, or indeed in the rest of the Pacific. There is always the spectre of insular fragmentation in the Pacific as in the Caribbean. Simply to regard the desires of this attractive community, the Banaban community, in regard to this one island, to the exclusion of the anxieties of many other islands in that part of the world and in other parts of the world, would have constituted a derogation of duty by Ministers. But if there was a way of helping the Gilbert Islands, as we may still call them, to move forward as a body, but with a special provision to meet the feelings as well as the interests of the Banabans, then we wanted to find it, and we have found it.
Surely nothing could be more reasonable than to provide for the 33 islands moving into independence on their present territorial basis, because this is a basic principle of the processing of colonial independence. Nothing could be more reasonable than to do that but, at the same time, as the noble Lord reminded us, to provide for the fullest, in my experience the most unprecedented, guarantees for the interests and the wellbeing of the Banaban community in regard to Ocean Island, and in providing those guarantees, further to set up a Commission—I use the word not definitively, but some kind of commission—which would supervise the implementation of those guarantees and, at the end of three years, review the position.
Therefore, I suggest to the House that what the accommodation does is to give to the Gilbert Islands as a whole a feeling that we, in the United Kingdom, are not wrenching away one part of their territory as they move into independence; a feeling that that is not happening, but that they are moving as a group into independence as they ought to; and at the same time to provide for guarantees and the supervision of those guarantees for the interests of the Banabans, and a review of how that arrangement has worked at the end of three years. Indeed, the original proposal on these lines was made by the Gilbert Islands Government itself, and it was for a review at the end of five years. It was at my request that they generously said, "If it will help our friends and
788
brothers the Banabans, we will reduce the period to three years That is only one example of the generous spirit in which the Gilbert Islands Government has met this problem.
I commend the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he presented the Motion and I hope the House will join together in giving the Bill its Second Reading so that on 12th July the people of the Gilbert Islands, now to be called Kiribati, will move to independence as a united community ready to look at the position again in the light of experience at the end of three years.
I have a few questions to put before resuming my seat. Not now, but perhaps later in the Session, the House would like to know what the position is in regard to the ex gratia offer of 10 million Australian dollars which was made in May 1977 to the Banaban community. We have heard so much about how much the Banabans have lost in not having full control over the phosphates of Ocean Island and perhaps it is helpful to remind everybody that that ex gratia offer was made as far back as May 1977 by the British Government, after consultation with our partners in the British Phosphates Commission, the Australians and New Zealanders. Has that yet been taken up? Additionally, the accrued interest to that sum, which I believe is 1¼ million to 1½ million Australian dollars—what has happened to that offer?
If not now, perhaps later in the Session the noble Lord might confirm the provision of £1 million for the development of Rabi, where the vast majority of Banabans live and have lived since 1946; about 2,500 of them live there compared with perhaps 200 on Ocean Island, for reasons we all deplore but understand. There was that provision of £l million for the development of Rabi. I am sure that will be confirmed because it is important that we should recognise the generosity of the Fiji Government in what they did for the Banabans in making Rabi available for them in 1946–47 and the way in which the Fiji Government, and particularly that great statesman, Sir Ratu Mara, the Prime Minister of Fiji, have constantly helped this community since then.
I set great store by the offer that we—rather, the Overseas Development Ministry—should finance a thorough-going survey of Ocean Island. This island

789
was ravaged—I am not here to apportion blame; the blame is history in these matters—in order to secure phosphates not for the benefit of this country and I support what the noble Lord said about that. There may be a way by which this island can be rehabilitated. There was a firm proposal that there should be a survey of the island with a view to doing everything possible to rehabilitate it.
I hope that when he replies to the debate the noble Lord may be able to give encouragement along those lines and may seek to comment on these points. In the meantime independence must proceed, and I join the noble Lord in wishing the people of the Gilbert Islands, now to be called Kiribati, every good wish in their venture into independent existence. They have long wanted it and no one in this House would wish to thwart them. We shall join them, always in spirit and maybe one or two in the flesh, in the celebrations on 12th July, thus welcoming the 40th—or is it the 41st?—independent member of the family of nations which we are proud to call a true Commonwealth.
As always at these constitutional conferences, the Minister concerned never suggests, let alone urges, the emerging independent State to join the Commonwealth; he waits, but he does not have to wait long. Every one of them asks, "May we join the Commonwealth?" and it is a proud and happy moment for any Minister of State at the end of a constitutional conference of that sort to be able to say, "Yes, of course you may, and we in Britain will be proud and happy to sponsor your application to the Commonwealth for membership." So, in the future as in the past, we look forward to close and warm co-operation between this country and its people and the people of the 33 islands of Kiribati.
6.57 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wish to join with the spokesman for the Government and for the Opposition Front Bench in my very best wishes to the 50,000 or 60,000 people of the Gilbertese and Ellice Islands on moving toward their independence. They will have a difficult and exciting task. They will represent 33 different islands over an area of 2 million square miles. I am confident they will prove equal to the task. They
790
are among the most generous, kindly and unassuming people one could know. They believe intensely in democracy, not only in theory but in life.
I have a delightful picture of the Prime Minister on his bicycle moving through the streets in shirt and shorts. He belongs to the people and is of the people. I know only one other country where there is a similar democracy between those who govern and the people, and that is Tanzania, where the Prime Minister, instead of being accompanied by a cavalcade of police with all other traffic stopped, travels in a small car and even obeys the traffic signals. It is because of my understanding of that feeling by the leaders in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands that very sincerely I wish them well on their independence.
I regret very much that that independence is beginning with an area of controversy about the future of Ocean Island. It makes their task even more difficult, and I believe that even at this late hour we must do our best to bring about a solution of the problem. I believe that it is still possible, as I will indicate before I conclude my remarks.
I want incidentally to refer to one monetary matter. Monetary matters are incidental to the greater issue. The fundamental issue is the degree of self-determination which the Banabans are to have. However, I understand that the Government have now made an offer of a £1 million grant to enable construction to take place. I feel that that amount is most inadequate. I do not propose to refer to the past, to an island destroyed—from which this country, Australia, and New Zealand have benefited enormously—and with the majority of its population exiled. The grant of £1 million for all the restoration that has to be made seems to me deplorably inadequate.
In the past there has been some criticism of the Banabans because they have concentrated their attention on Ocean Island rather than on Rabi Island where most of them are now living. The Minister will be aware of the constructive proposals which the Banabans have put forward for the use of any grant that the Government make. First, they want roads constructed on Rabi Island where today there is almost a complete absence of roads. Secondly, they want some protection on their shores

791
from the devastating, turbulent invasion of the sea. Thirdly, they want to devote the grant to rehousing, because many of them are still living in primitive shacks. Their fourth proposal is one to which I think we ought particularly to respond. They want to use the grant for a boat which will enable them to travel from Rabi Island to Ocean Island when they so desire.
However, these monetary issues are quite subordinate to the fundamental issue of the right to self-determination. I think that we should recognise that the Banabans neither desire nor seek to delay the independence of the Gilbertese and Ellice Islands. They recognise the right of those people to their own independence. But what has not been indicated in the speeches which have been delivered tonight is the fact that agreement between the Gilbertese and the Banabans representatives is now very near. I emphasise that. A meeting was called at Suva by the Prime Minister of Fiji, between representatives of the Gilbertese and the Banabans. To that meeting the Prime Minister of Fiji—to whom I wish to pay the highest tribute for his statesmanlike attitude during all these discussions—made the proposal that Banaba should not have full independence; that instead it should become an associate State, with free association with the Gilbertese. That is to say that foreign policy and defence would not have been in its hands. He even proposed that the association with Fiji should be ended.
No recognition has been given to the fact that the Banabans have accepted those proposals, and that at the end of the discussions the representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Council of Banabans from Ocean Island agreed that there should be further talks upon this subject. It was proposed that these further talks, which might so easily have resolved this problem, should be held before the committee stage in another place. I regret very much that they were not held. What I want to emphasise tonight as strongly as I can is that if we really desire that the independence of the Gilbertese and Ellice Islands shall begin in the most promising conditions, an effort should be made, even at this late hour, to renew the talks which have already begun and which are so promising. I would urge upon the Government that, late as it is, a solution of the problem is more
792
important than the procedure of this House. If we really want independence for the Gilbertese and Ellice Islands to begin in promising conditions, we ought, even at this late hour, to call a renewal of the talks before the Bill is finally adopted.
If the present proposals are carried out, the Bill will pass and independence will be given to the Gilbertese and Ellice Islands. Ocean Islands and the Banabans will be integrated in it. If talks take place under those conditions, they will inevitably be prejudiced. They will be prejudiced because an imposed decision would have been reached by the British Parliament. Therefore I want to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that in order that independence may begin in a hopeful position, they agree even now to the resumption of the talks under conditions which are most likely to realise a satisfactory result. I and those associated with me do not propose to divide the House tonight on the Second Reading. With others—and not only members of the Opposition—I will put down an Amendment for the Committee stage. I will withdraw the Amendment if Her Majesty's Government will give me an assurance that, before the Bill is finally adopted, the talks which have been so promising shall be renewed and if, as a result of those talks, the compromise proposal made by the Prime Minister of Fiji shall he carried out. I am afraid that if I cannot have that assurance, when the Committee stage is reached those of us who are associated with the views that I have tried to express will have to press the Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he give the House an idea of what his Amendment at the Committee stage would be?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Amendment at Committee stage would be to exclude Ocean Island from the clauses of the Bill.
7.10 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I think it is quite certain that very nearly everyone in this House and very nearly everyone in another place, and probably opinion throughout the world, welcomes independence for the Gilbert Islands. Neverthe

793
less, I think we perhaps have to count ourselves lucky that in your Lordships' House we have a revising Chamber. I should like to ask the Government this evening: Why is this Bill being pushed through with such extreme haste? When the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was in charge of the previous Bill, there seemed to be the smell of a time-table. I submit that, now, the haste is becoming quite indecent.
This present Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 24th May, and completed all its stages there on 12th June. It is being submitted to your Lordships for Second Reading today, 14th June, and an examination of the Notices and Orders of the Day shows that it is intended to take the remaining stages in this House on 19th June, without there being even a single sitting day between Second Reading and Committee. Taking the whole procedure, there will have been seven sitting days, I think, from Second Reading in another place to the intended date of Third Reading in this House. In the midst of those seven sitting days has come the Whitsun Recess. I hope the Government can throw some light on this, to my mind, excessive degree of haste. The degree of haste seems to be particularly excessive in view of the extremely constructive, moderate and responsible speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
When we deal with Ocean Island and the question of the Banaban people we have to remember that we are talking of a community of about 2,500 people in all, of whom probably some 350 may be on Ocean Island today. We have to remember the very considerable contribution made by these islanders to the war effort of Britain and the British Empire in two wars. I believe it is our duty to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the Banabans shall not be left with any sense of disillusion, let alone of betrayal by this country. I suggest it is of the greatest importance that the Banaban people should not feel they have been worse treated than the inhabitants of Tuválu, formerly known as the Ellice Islands. I think that we should reflect a little as to whether there is any reason at all why the Banaban community should put their trust in any of Her Majesty's Governments, of whatever political complexion. This is perhaps a lamentable
794
state of affairs, but it is one to which we should address our minds.
We have to remember that Ocean Island has been exploited for its valuable deposits of mineral, not by wicked capitalist companies, not by multinational corporations out for profit, but by a consortium of three Governments, of which the British Government was one all along. I was very sorry when I heard both Front Benches today trying to pretend that this country had drawn no benefits from Ocean Island whatsoever. There is a very clear and obvious benefit which this country has enjoyed over a long period of years, and that is vastly cheaper meat from New Zealand and from Australia as a result of the Ocean Island phosphate deposits. There is a further benefit to the United Kingdom Exchequer in the very much reduced cost of administration of both the Gilbert Islands and the Ellice Islands as a result of royalties payable on those phosphates.
We have to remember that the niggardly offer of compensation of some £80,000 made in 1967 to the Banaban people was gradually increased until, when the court action was settled out of court in 1976 or 1977, the final amount of compensation came to no less than £6½ million. Why was it necessary, I ask, for the Banaban community to have to drag Her Majesty's Government through the courts? Why was it necessary for the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, to deliver a judgment which I think took 24 or 25 hours to read out, occupying at least three and maybe more sitting days of his court? May I now suggest a practical act of goodwill to Her Majesty's Government, and ask them what their reaction is to this suggestion? Will the Government now pay over the agreed settlement of compensation money to a body of trustees to invest and later spend on behalf of the Banaban people? This would, I think, defuse the situation quite a lot, if it could be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is somewhat closer, I think, to the situation than I am, and he has made extremely constructive suggestions this evening. I hope the Government will have a satisfactory answer to give him. There might, I suppose, be yet another alternative way of proceeding, which would he this: to grant independence as agreed and as

795
drafted to the Gilbert Islands, but not to Ocean Island, so that once the issue of independence has been cleared out of the way the Banaban people can decide for themselves with whom they wish to be associated. Nobody is arguing that they should be totally free and independent, with a seat in the United Nations, either where they live in Rabi or where they have lived on Ocean Island. Various possibilities of association have been put forward. It might well be that it will end up being an association with Kiribati. The island of Nauru, which is no great distance away, has also been suggested as a possible candidate for association. There have been considerable suggestions of association with the Fiji group. Those are three possibilities. But why can we not clear away the question of Gilbertese independence first, before dealing with the eventual status and future of Ocean Island?
The stock answer is this business about territorial integrity of countries approaching independence. One is horribly suspicious that this really means that, however badly the frontiers were originally drawn, they are to remain fixed that way in perpetuity. Certainly there was no consent asked or given by anybody in 1916 when, by an administrative act for British administrative convenience, Ocean Island was annexed to the adjacent colony. It is said that secession is quite wrong. Nobody is asking for secession in this case, but I think that history indicates that if you are strong enough to succeed you get away with it. This is precisely what happened in the case of Pakistan in 1947 and 1948, at the very time when what the Banabans call the Covenant, the solemn and binding agreement on the British Government (in respect, I know, of access and of land ownership), was being prepared and agreed.
My Lords, I submit that it would be quite wrong to separate these rights of access and rights of land ownership from the wider rights of sovereignty. In conclusion, if we cannot get this question right, how do we hope to settle satisfactorily, properly and correctly the future of the Falkland Islands, with their population of 1,805, the question of Gibraltar, with its population of just under 30,000, or the question of Belize, with its population of 140,000?
7.21 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful for the manner in which this Bill has been discussed in your Lordships' House tonight. I hardly need say that the passage of this Bill through the previous and present Parliaments has aroused more than the usual public and parliamentary attention attracted by an Independence Bill. Much of this attention has been controversial arising from the difficult Banaban issue. It is a great tribute to our British system that the voice of a tiny community at the other end of the world is heard so strongly. As I have already said, the Government considered the matter very carefully before deciding that it was only right that this Bill should be reintroduced to enable the Gilbert Islands to proceed to their promised independence—and I emphasise "promised independence"—on 12th July, on the basis of the agreement reached at the constitutional conference last December.
Several noble Lords have raised points which perhaps I can now deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, asked about the ex gratia payment of 10 million Australian dollars which was offered to the Banabans at the constitutional conference. As the noble Lord will recall, the Banabans withdrew from the conference without giving their answer to that offer. I am happy to say that the Banaban representatives are meeting my honourable friend Mr. Blaker tomorrow and will then perhaps give their answer to that offer. It remains open. The noble Lord also asked about the offer of £1 million towards the development of Rabi. That offer remains on the table and no doubt that matter, too, will be referred to at the meeting tomorrow.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the promised survey of Ocean Island. We are still ready to go ahead with that survey, providing the Banabans still want it; and doubtless, they do.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I ask whether interest will be payable on those sums of 10 million Australian dollars and £1 million sterling?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I should need to take advice as to whether interest is payable on the £1 million

797
sterling. I should think not. But interest is payable on the 10 million Australian dollars.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, also asked about a Government interest in securing the implementation of the constitution. I shall come to that later. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, however, referred to the £1 million which we have offered. I would emphasise that the sum is intended for the development of Rabi and not Ocean Island. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us, they have been offered other sums from other sources that they could use for the development of Rabi if they so wished. The noble Lord, among the various items he listed as in need of funds, mentioned a boat for travel between Rabi and Ocean Island. It is 1,500 miles. It will need quite a big boat which will take up a lot of the £1 million. Does he think that a boat is desirable for that purpose, having regard to its cost and to the fact that there are presently just 90 Banabans on Ocean Island? It is an island of only three square miles. While I do not underestimate the importance to these people of their homeland, whether a special boat between Rabi and Ocean Island is justified at what must be public expense is a matter which might bear further consideration.
The noble Lord also referred to the recent discussions which took place under the chairmanship of the Fiji Prime Minister. These discussions took place in Suva in the middle of last month. At the conclusion, a communique was issued to the effect that the two sides recognised that the issues were complex and would need to be considered and examined at further meetings in future. They accepted in principle and without commitment a working paper circulated by the chairman as a possible basis for future consultations together with the relevant provisions of the Gilbert Islands constitution.
At the Committee stage of the Bill in another place an amendment was proposed that a possible compromise solution in the working paper—namely that Banaban should be linked with the Gilbert Islands in what was called a compact and free association—should be incorporated in the Bill. My honourable friend Mr. Blaker, the Minister of State, argued that such an amendment was unacceptable
798
since it was inconsistent with the agreement last year at the constitutional conference and since it would pre-empt future discussions between the two sides which are envisaged in the statement to which I and the noble Lord referred. It is for an independent Government of Kiribati to decide how to carry forward these discussions.
The noble Lord also said (I think I noted it correctly) that the Banabans proposed that foreign policy and defence should remain with the Gilbert Islands. My information is that it was only defence that should remain with the Gilbert Islands and that the Banabans proposed to keep foreign policy to themselves.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I did not suggest that the Banabans proposed that. I said that the Prime Minister of Fiji had proposed it and that they had accepted it. I have got, in detail, the proposals which the Prime Minister of Fiji made and they included foreign affairs. And the Banabans did accept those proposals.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that confirms in my mind the view that this must be a matter for consideration after independence. I do not think that it is really considered that the Banabans on their Ocean Island should conduct a separate, independent foreign policy. Is it proposed that they should send representatives to the United Nations? I do not think that that is a sensible proposal.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I said that the Prime Minister of Fiji had suggested that they should not control foreign affairs. As an associate State, that would be in the hands of the Gilbertese. It is that that the Banabans accepted.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken. My information is that the proposals were that the Banabans should retain responsibility for foreign affairs. Be that as it may, nobody has suggested—and certainly the Government do not accept—that this should form the basis of some separate State to be agreed before the Kiribati State proceeds to independence. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked

799
for an assurance; and I am sorry that I am not able to give the assurance that he asked for. Therefore, if he sees fit and feels obliged to move an amendment, so be it. The sort of line that he is proposing is not at this stage acceptable to the Government.
My Lords, may I now refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who was, first, concerned about the haste with which we were proceeding to independence or, at least, the haste with which we were taking this Bill through Parliament. I would remind the noble Lord that this Bill, exactly as it is before us today, proceeded through this House in the last Session of Parliament. On that occasion, the Bill started in this House and then went to another place. It failed to become law because of the Dissolution. Therefore, it is not true to say that we are rushing this matter in order to keep to some predetermined timetable. The process of constitutional development has proceeded over the years, culminating in internal self-government in 1977 and now in full independence. There has been no last minute rush; on the contrary, had it not been for the Banaban problem, which we have tried to settle as amicably as possible, the Gilbert Islands might well have been independent before now. It is sometimes implied that negotiations with the Banabans have been rushed over the past few months. The truth is that they have been held on and off since discussions under Lord Shepherd's chairmanship in October 1968, 11 years ago. At that time the noble Lord concluded:
"It was not possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider the exclusion of Ocean Island from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony."
Since then, a number of attempts have been made to try to find an agreed solution, both by the parties themselves and by the Prime Minister of Fiji and successive British Governments. If they have not succeeded, it has not been for want of trying.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me a number of other points, some of which were fairly detailed. He asked, for example, about an association possibly with Fiji. We reject the principle of association at this point, but Fiji, I would remind him, is, as I said just now, 1,500 miles from Ocean Island and it would be a strange association indeed. The
800
noble Lord also asked about payment of certain monies into a trust fund to be held for the benefit of the Banabans. That is not an impossibility; it is very likely a matter which will be raised by the Banabans when they meet my right honourable friend tomorrow.
We all regret that the Gilbertese and Banabans could not reach a mutually acceptable solution to the future of the Banabans before independence. However, this Bill will not prevent them from pursuing further discussions in the Pacific as proposed by the Fiji Prime Minister at the meeting which he chaired in Suva last month.
The Gilbertese are among the most democratic people in the world; and, like their Pacific neighbours, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, which became independent last year, they followed the democratic path towards independence. They themselves are now poised to take the final step from full internal self-government to full nationhood and complete control of their own affairs. Their constitution is a democratic one and provides firmly entrenched safeguards protecting the interests of the Banaban minority. The Bill has received a closer and more critical scrutiny by Parliament than any independence Bill of recent years. It was approved in February by your Lordships' House after comprehensive debate. I trust therefore that your Lordships will again give it a Second Reading on this occasion.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the absence of the assurance for which I asked, I shall be moving the amendment at Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]: STATEMENT ON THE DIVISION
7.33 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement in relation to the Division which took place earlier today on the Second Reading of

801
the Marriage (Enabling) Bill. I have consulted the four Tellers concerned and they have jointly authorised me to say that the figures were inadvertently reversed when the result of the Division was made known. They should have been as follows: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 56. Accordingly, the Second Reading of the Bill was not agreed to but negatived.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me if and when an occasion like this has arisen before? I have been some time in your Lordships' House—some 50 years—and it would be interesting to know.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, there have been occasions when the figures have been incorrect; but I do not know of a case where the figures have been incorrect and have resulted in a change in the way in which the Bill has been treated.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, may I ask whether there is not some constitutional point involved? It having been declared
802
from the Chair that the Second Reading had been passed and the House having, so far as certain Members are concerned, been assured that that was so, is it not correct, that announcement having been made, that it cannot now be corrected?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should not like to be dogmatic at this point about what the noble Lord said. I can only say that the figures have been checked very carefully and that the result of your Lordships' voting was as I have now announced.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, may I further ask—and I promise not to ask anything more—whether the constitutional point can be looked into, so that the House may be satisfied whether, the announcement having been made that the Second Reading was passed, that announcement does not stand?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly draw this to the attention of those concerned.