Lords Sitting of 22 May 1980

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Woolton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SOVIET UNION: EXPORT CONTROLS
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made with our NATO allies and Japan towards ex tending the list of high technology exports that may not be sold to the Soviet Union, and controlling the provision of cheap credits; and when it is expected to reach agreement on both these matters that conform with the requests of the United States following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, discussions with our allies on the tightening of controls on the export of sensitive technology to the Soviet Union are continuing. It is not possible to say how long these discussions will last. The Government are concerned that effective international agreement should be reached as quickly as possible. The 1975 British- Soviet credit agreement has not been renewed and business with the Soviet Union no longer enjoys the concessionary interest rates provided for in that agreement. Any further tightening of credit terms for the Soviet Union would need to follow international agreement if it were to be effective and British exporters were not to be put at a competitive disadvantage.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer.
1026
May I ask whether he remembers that, before the general election, the present Secretary of State for Trade promised that a Conservative Government would carefully review the COCOM lists of exports to the Warsaw Pact countries on which there was a ban and said that he would try with our allies to bring to an end the free-for-all in the provision of cheap credits for the Soviet Union? Does not the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, followed by the American appeal to her allies to take urgent action in both these fields, emphasise the importance of doing just this, and is not the progress that has been made very disappointing, and even disturbing?
LORD TREFGARNE: No, my Lords; I would not say that. There is certainly no such thing as a free-for-all, as my noble friend describes it, in interest rates in this matter; but we need to reach agreement by consensus, and that is what we are doing.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, have the Government any indication, as I seem to have, that the Russians are even more deeply concerned about this question of the passage of high technology than they are about the Olympic Games?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Olympic Games is another matter, but certainly it is true that the Russians rely very much upon technology provided from both Europe and the United States, and I have no doubt that they are feeling the draught just now.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is this matter on the agenda of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I would have to find out and write to the noble Lord.

CYPRUS: BRITISH SOVEREIGN BASES
3.4 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much has been paid to the Government of Cyprus since 1965 for the use of the two sovereign bases on its territory.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the sovereign base areas are not on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus. They are sovereign British territory. No fees or rent are payable for their use.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is not this quite extraordinary? Do not the British bases occupy 99 square miles of the territory of Cyprus, and surely they are on that island as foreign sovereign bases? Surely we should be paying something to the Cyprus Government for the existence of the bases there.
LORD TREFGARNE: No, my Lords; what we should be doing is complying with the agreement which we entered into with the Cyprus Government in respect of the use of those bases. That agreement, which was signed in 1960, did not provide for the payment of rent.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, were not the circumstances of 1960 very different from the circumstances of today? Has there not since been the Turkish invasion, and did we, as a guarantor of the integrity of Cyprus, not fail to defend it under those circumstances?
LORD TREFGARNE: No, my Lords; we met all our obligations to the Republic of Cyprus. However, with regard to the bases, which are the subject of the Question on the Order Paper, there is no question of Britain having failed to meet her obligations. There was some aid promised under the 1960 agreement, which was given. Apart from substantial contributions to refugee relief and to the United Nations' peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, a million loan was offered in 1978.
LORD PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not one of the differences between now and 1960 the fact that in 1960 Cyprus was a far happier and more prosperous place?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in suggesting
1028
that, unhappily, there are now some difficulties in Cyprus.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has happened to a number of personal possessions belonging to Turkish Cypriots who had been formerly employed in the British bases, and who had to go to the North? They have not been able to recover those possessions, which include motor cars, tractors, sporting weapons and other items of that kind.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is the case that the movable assets to which the noble Lord refers could be returned to the Turkish Cypriots in question only by being transported through Greek-Turkish territory, and thus that return would need the agreement of those Cypriots. It has not been possible to obtain that agreement for the moment, but we hope that it will be possible to do so in the context of an overall agreement.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, since reference has been made to the arrangements of 1960, may I refer in particular to the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, which I signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which provided that the British Government would stand against either annexation of any part of the island to Greece or Turkey or partition of the island? Can we be told whether the present Government support that obligation which we accepted at that time, and are not prepared either to neglect it or to reject it?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, it would certainly be possible for the Government to say that, but not within the context of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is it not time that the co-chairmen who guaranteed the sovereignty of Cyprus—ourselves, Greece and Turkey—got together again to try to solve this terrible problem?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, that point, too, is outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.

EXPORTING AND FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVES
3.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to reduce the handicap now placed upon United Kingdom exporting industries by the combination of high interest rates, artificially high exchange rates and high inflation.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government recognise that United Kingdom industry generally is facing tough competition in both home and overseas markets. The best way that the Government can help industry is to stick to their policy of strict monetary control and reducing public sector borrowing. This is the only sure and sustainable way of reducing inflation and bringing down interest rates. But it is equally important that industry should restrain the increase in its own costs, and in particular that the level of pay settlements should be brought down to a more reasonable level.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and in accepting his agreement with me about the importance of the problem, may I ask him whether he would not agree that all the figures that have been published so far, since the Question was set down—the figures for the inflation rate, the exchange rate, and the manufacturing production output—show that the position is worsening, not improving? While accepting that we have to control the volume of money, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not consider this? If manufacturing industry today can solve problems like going to the moon, or world-wide communications satellites, is there not another way of controlling the volume of credit other than by this crude interest rate policy?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, British industry has shown remarkable success in facing the problems that confront it. Our exports today are better than they
1030
were in 1978, despite the difficulties to which the noble Lord refers. The biggest problem which faces industry, as well as ourselves, is the level of inflation. There s no other effective way to deal with this problem than the one which the Government are currently following.
LORD KALDOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to explain to the House the mechanism by which the control of the money supply brings down the rate of inflation?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, this has been a matter of considerable debate in your Lordships' House. There is no doubt whatever, on the basis of the evidence, that an expansion in the money supply is followed in due course by a rise in the rate of inflation, and control of the money supply will be followed, again after a time-lag, by a fall in the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation from which we are currently suffering is very largely a reflection of the lack of control over the money supply during the dying days of the Labour Government, of a lack of control over public expenditure by the Labour Government and of an excessive public sector borrowing requirement by the Labour Government. These unfortunate effects cast a long shadow in front of them, but the time will come when we get out of that shadow.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the adverse balance of payments, the very high deficit on the budget and the current high rate of bank lending all make the suggested corrections of the misfortunes to which the noble Lord has referred untimely, and that they would be best corrected by higher production and lower or moderate wage agreements? Is he also in a position to state what proportion of the total national budget is eaten up by two points—unemployment pay and the amount paid on the national debt?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his support. As has been said in debates in your Lordships' House on many occasions, the real key to success lies in higher productivity, and this, I am sure, is supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is also true that as long as pay settlements continue at their

1031
present level they will delay the time when we can get back to a lower rate of inflation. So far as concerns the two specific questions which my noble friend asked me, the level of interest payments on the national debt currently amount to about 6 per cent. of gross national pro duct; unemployment benefit, plus supplementary benefit payable to the unemployed, account for a figure of somewhat less than 1 per cent. of GNP.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that the present height of the exchange rate is due to a complex of circumstances, some of which must be regarded as favourable—for instance, the unexpected bonus of North Sea oil—and the natural expectations of investors at large with regard to that bonus? Would he further agree that on top of that there is a tendency to maintain or raise the present rate of interest which is more ambiguous, in that it is caused by the attraction of hot money by the present height of the interest rates? Without in the least wishing to contradict his general position on the inevitability of the control of the money supply, is this not—
Several noble Lords: Too long!
LORD ROBBINS: I have nearly finished, my Lords. Is this not a reason for continually wondering about whether interest rates can be reduced by other means of controlling the volume of credit?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, while I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very long supplementary question, I think I would make only two comments. The first is that the exchange rate, and the present high level of the exchange rate, is of course influenced by North Sea oil as well as by other factors. Secondly, a high exchange rate, while it poses certain problems for industry, also brings certain benefits to the country, because it keeps the price of our imports much below what they otherwise would be, and this in turn tends to lead to a lower level, not only of consumer prices but of wage settlements in the country. It also means that industry is able to buy its raw materials—which, of course, is a matter of very great importance—at much lower prices than it otherwise would.
LORD MISHCON: My Lords, to revert to the original Question, if I may, is the Minister aware that one of the industries which is suffering in regard to the export trade is the gramophone record industry, and would he take this into account in not furnishing the playing of gramophone records for internal consumption so frequently as he does, and assist instead in the export of gramophone records?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am not such an expert, either on gramophone records or on repetitive statements, as the noble Lord.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain one matter, after his very lucid statement on pay policy? With comparability and phasing, the increase in public sector wages has been an increase of 25 per cent. this year, I believe, in the actual money paid. Can he therefore explain what he is going to do to restrain public sector wages in the next pay round?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I do not think the question of public sector pay settlements is within the ambit of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the light of the decision to give 31 per cent. to doctors and of the great increases given to dentists, you cannot expect trade unionists to accept a restraint on their wages in the light of the reduction in their standard of living caused by the high inflationary policy the Government are following?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, with respect, that question is even wider of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, having heard what the noble Lord said in reply to the question put by a distinguished former chairman of the Financial Times, now sitting on the Cross-Benches, would the noble Lord care to comment on what the Financial Times says today, when they point out that the United Kingdom is now
"an attractive place for the foreign bond- dabbler"?
Is it not a fact that if present trends continue we shall have a country which is

1033
booming for the bond-dabblers and means bankruptcy for the industrialists?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, I do not think that the first part of that commentary has anything at all to do with the Question on the Order Paper. The second part of the commentary is denigratory of British industry, and I should like to dissociate myself from it.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House on when he is going to apologise for and withdraw all this nonsense that he has just spoken?
LORD COCKFIELD: My Lords, I think that that is better classified under the heading of vulgar abuse than under the heading of intelligent comment.

THE OLYMPIC GAMES: UK PARTICIPATION DECISION
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 draw to the attention of the British Olympic Committee the revelation in The Times of 20th May by a former KGB officer and Tass correspondent that "some middle ranking Soviet officials welcomed President Carter's call for a boycott of the Olympic Games in the hope that it might make the Kremlin think again about Afghanistan"; and whether this, together with the West German decision not to go to Moscow, does not make it imperative for Sir Denis Follows to think again.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 20th May, she has already asked British athletes to think again in the light of the decisions by the Olympic Committees of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany not to go to Moscow. The Government have throughout made clear their view that participating in the Olympics would be tantamount to condoning Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply, is he aware of the statement in the Soviet Communist Hand-book which says:
"The decision to give the honour of holding the Olympic Games in the capital of the world's first socialist state was convincing testimony to the general recognition of the historic importance and greatness of our country's foreign policy and the enormous service of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace"?
Would my noble friend not agree that that statement is directly against the spirit and aims of the Olympic Charter?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is without doubt the case that if the Olympic Games proceed unhampered it will be a political and diplomatic coup of no mean proportions for the Russians.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, while I congratulate the noble Lord on his assiduity and versatility of achievement in this House, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to expect the athletes to exercise sanctions which Her Majesty's Government are not themselves prepared to exercise? Is it not true that every country that has acted as host to the Olympic Games has used the Olympic Games for advertising itself? Has not this been done regularly? Is there anything wrong in what the Olympic Committee of the Soviet Union has done? According to the International Olympic Committee, they have carried out strictly all their obligations. Is it not therefore absurd to turn to the athletes and to ask them to do what Her Majesty's Government have not the courage to do themselves?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I reject that absolutely. May I say that I find it difficult to distinguish between the Soviet Olympic Committee and the Soviet Government? There is little distinction between the two. The senior officials of the Soviet Olympic Committee are senior civil servants in the Russian Government. As for the position of the athletes, we do not think it is wrong to ask them to do their public duty.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the cause of freedom is not greater than the wish of any competitor to compete in the Olympic

1035
Games? Is not the total lack of leadership on this issue by Sir Denis Follows utterly deplorable?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government very much regret that the British Olympic Association still apparently intend to go to Moscow. We hope, even now, that they will see fit to change their mind. On the subject of freedom which my noble friend raised, I can refer to the freedom of all those dissidents in Russia who are being rounded up and imprisoned before the athletes get there.
LORD DAVIES of PENRHYS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that if Her Majesty's Government had been as forthright in their attitude to sporting organisations going to South Africa they might have had a little more luck in their attitude towards the Soviet Union?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that is a different question. The fact is that we have made plain our view on British participation in sporting events in South Africa in the same way as we are doing with regard to Moscow.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in inviting Sir Denis Follows to think again, there is any ground for thinking that he has so far thought at all?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, it might be wrong of me to comment directly on that supplementary question; but I can say that, as your Lordships may know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently wrote again to Sir Denis Follows.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an estimate of the number of people who have been moved out of Soviet cities where Olympic events are to take place in order to avoid their meeting athletes from the Free World?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an estimate of the numbers. They are certainly substantial and I think they go to prove our point.
LORD PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if the Government, with the overwhelming consent of the country on this matter, regard the visit of these athletes as an injury to this country, why can they not take the powers to guard this country's interests by seeing that they do not go?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I still live in a free country, as does the noble Lord. We will not take away their passports.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not comforting to the Government and to all people who think in the same vein, that 30 countries have now said that they are not going to Moscow and are thus refusing to endorse the Afghanistan invasion; and that a host of other countries which are going have limited the choice of athletic disciplines of their individual Olympic Committees? Does this not reflect the fact that much of the Third World, as well as the Free World, realises that by going to Moscow one is boosting the Soviet system and endorsing the invasion of Afghanistan?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. A large number of countries have said they are not going. From memory, I think the number is now 40 and not 30.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to solicitors and notaries public in Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

TRANSPORT BILL
LORD MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt.:—

Clauses 2 and 3

Schedule 1

Clauses 4 to 12

Schedule 2

Clauses 13 to 20

Schedule 3

Clauses 21 to 38

Schedule 4

Clauses 39 to 41

Schedule 5

Clause 42

Clause 1

Clause 43

Schedule 6

Clauses 44 to 49

Schedule 7

Clauses 50 to 58

Schedule 8

Clauses 59 to 66

Schedule 9.

—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FRIENDS MEETING HOUSE (REIGATE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDWARD BERRY AND DORIS EILLEEN WARD (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable a Mr. Edward Berry, aged 62, a widower since October 1977, a British subject always domiciled in the United Kingdom, to marry a Mrs. Doris Eilleen Ward, aged 58, also a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, a widow since 1965, notwithstanding that they stand in the relationship of step-father and stepdaughter. This Bill is concerned only with the personal relation ship of these two persons and with nobody else. The Personal Bill Committee, chaired by the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees, considered the petition of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward.
1038
Its members were unanimously of the opinion that the objects of the proposed Bill are proper to be enacted in a Personal Bill and that this Bill before your Lordships' House is proper for carrying out the purposes set out.
Personal Bills, as your Lordships are aware, are a very rare phenomenon in this House. They are presented only in special cases. This case is a very special case, as the facts will demonstrate. The facts are most exceptional. Not only that but this Bill is concerned with the future happiness of two persons who, in my view, well deserve the sympathy, com passion and indeed the admiration of your Lordships. They are two persons of the highest integrity who I submit are suffering a deep injustice under the existing law. Here they are in the twilight of their lives wishing to live together, but they have refused, and still refuse, to do so until the law of this land allows them legally to be married. In furthering their basic moral principles and the inherent value they personally seem to attach to the sanctity of a marriage tie, they are facing the inevitable publicity and expense of this Personal Bill procedure which is forced upon them.
As I have said, they are to be admired and I feel sure that your Lordships will listen to the exceptional facts of this case with sympathy and compassion, for this Personal Bill has as its sole objective to achieve the mutual happiness which this couple, and this couple alone in these circumstances, are seeking through a legal marriage ceremony.
Before I deal with the facts of this exceptional case, I must refer to a personal matter. It relates to a question that I have been frequently asked in the last few days. I have been asked frequently and most courteously by members of the Press and the media why it is that I am presenting this Bill to your Lordships. The answer is very simple. Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward have had to employ at their own expense a well known firm of parliamentary agents named Rees and Freres. On the staff of that firm is a certain Mr. Leslie Calder who may not be unknown to some of your Lordships, who went to the same school as I did, Sloane School, Chelsea, a London grammar school which was closed a few years ago when the Conservative Party ruled at

1039
County Hall, Westminster. We are therefore old boys of the same extinct school and still meet socially.
Mr. Calder knew that I was trained as a scientist. He knew that I had the privilege of being a Queen's Counsel practising exclusively and objectively in intellectual property matters. I have never had a brief outside that field of scientific and legal insularity. Not for me, my Lords, the pleasures of the criminal law and the criminal bar which is adorned by so many eminent Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place. But for me it has always been the technological objectivity—I almost said "obscurity"—of the patent bar.
After I had read the papers in this case I felt that Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward were suffering a deep injustice. As the Personal Bill Committee had acted unanimously, I therefore wrote to the parliamentary agents on 25th March 1980 accepting their request to move the Second Reading of this Personal Bill.
I do not know the parties to this Bill; I have never met them nor have I spoken or written to either of them. I believe that this is an exceptional case where there should be a relaxation of the prohibited degree of affinity to enable Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward to be married to each other.
May I now summarise the facts of this case as set out in the parties' statement of reasons for the Bill. As I have said, Mr. Berry is 62 and Mrs. Ward is 58. The dates in this case are of some significance, as your Lordships will ascertain later.
On the 25th September 1943 Mr. Berry (then aged 26 years and a bachelor) married Mary Blazey who was then a widow aged 37 years. The marriage took place at Lahore in the State of Punjab in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. At the time of the marriage, Mr. Berry was a Royal Engineer attached to and serving with the Indian Army but he remained, and continues to be, domiciled in England. At the date of her marriage to Mr. Berry, the late Mrs. Berry was a widow having previously borne four children by her first and only other husband (Garnett Harold Blazey) who
1040
had died on the 25th June 1936. Mrs. Ward is one of those children. At the time of the marriage of Mr. Berry to her mother she also was a married woman, having been married three weeks before.
After marrying the late Mrs. Berry, Mr. Berry assumed responsibility for the care and upbringing of his wife's younger surviving children. As one would expect, however, he did not take responsibility for Mrs. Ward who was then a married woman.
In July 1955 Mr. Berry and the late Mrs. Berry left India and became permanently resident in England where Mr. Berry pursued, and still pursues, his career as a projects engineer and is now employed by a large building and civil engineering firm. The marriage of Mr. Berry and the late Mrs. Berry was a success and they lived together on terms of great affection until the late Mrs. Berry died on the 31st October 1977, just over two years ago. There were no children of the marriage and Mr. Berry has remained a widower since the death of the late Mrs. Berry whose two surviving children are both of mature age, being aged 42 and 58 years respectively.
May I tell your Lordships some facts about the personal life of Mrs. Ward. On the 31st August 1943, three weeks before her mother married Mr. Berry, Mrs. Ward (then a spinster and an auxiliary nurse serving with the British Army) married William Ward (then a bachelor). The marriage took place at General Head-quarters, Basra in Iraq, in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. There were two children of that marriage and they are still alive, being aged 27 years and 32 years respectively.
On 27th August 1965 William Ward died in an accident in Sarawak in the course of his employment as an engineer. Four months later Mrs. Ward took up permanent residence with her children in England. Mrs. Ward has remained a widow since her husband's death. After the late Mrs. Berry died in 1977 they formed the wish to be married to each other. However, since Mr. Berry is the widower of the late Mrs. Berry and since Mrs. Ward is the daughter of the late Mrs. Berry, the relationship between Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward falls within a prohibited

1041
degree of affinity and, as a consequence and despite the absence of any blood relationship between them, they are unable by law to be married to each other.
Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward live apart and do not wish to live as man and wife unless and until they are permitted to be, and are, married to each other. Mr. Berry is a communicant member of the Church of England and his wish to marry Mrs. Ward has the support of the former vicar of his parish church. The petition to the Personal Bill Committee contained a letter from that clergyman, but I do not propose to inflict that upon your Lord-ships at this stage.
I should tell your Lordships something about the financial situation of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward. They are persons of modest financial means. Mrs. Ward apparently could gain a small pension from Mr. Berry's pension fund if she were to be married to and survive him. Mrs. Ward has been employed for some six years and is due to retire within the next two years, when she will receive a small pension for her years of service. Any financial benefit which Mr. Berry might derive from Mrs. Ward's pensionable employment, were he to be married to and survive Mrs. Ward, would be negligible. Apart from the benefit to be gained by pooling their resources, neither Mr. Berry nor Mrs. Ward has anything to be gained substantially by being married to each other.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with an account of the progress of legislation in this country, or even of legislation abroad; but I would mention that the degrees of affinity preventing marriage have been modified substantially in some countries, particularly in New Zealand. I mention the position in New Zealand because that was mentioned during a debate in your Lordships' House some time ago. It would seem therefore that the facts of the case of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward would satisfy a New Zealand court that there should be no prohibition as to marriage.
I must now inform your Lordships about certain facts concerning Bills which have been introduced into your Lordships' House. I have for many years admired the social reform activities put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton,
1042
and on 5th December 1978 she introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House, the Short Title of which was Marriage (Enabling) Bill. The object of that Bill was to remove all the degrees of affinity, but not of consanguinity, to enable people to get married. The noble Baroness said at column 1107 on 13th February 1979:
"I hope that it will bring comfort and happiness to a number of distressed individuals".
I see the noble Baroness nodding in agreement that I have quoted her correctly. That was a general Bill, giving general relief and it was not limited, as the present Bill is, to the facts of a particular case. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London spoke in the course of that debate, and I would quote what he said at column 1136—
"But what of marriage between those not related by kindred but by affinity?"
He continued in that same column 1136 of Hansard for 13th February 1979 as follows:
"I suggest to your Lordships that the one criterion which, above all, we ought to apply is whether or not such marriages will generally contribute to the stability and happiness of family life. If they would have little or no effect on family life, then let us extend the range. If they would imperil further the stability of the home, then let us be very cautious before we open the door."
In the exceptional case which is before your Lordships, it cannot possibly be said that the changing of the law would affect family life, but could only contribute to the stability and happiness of these two persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, to whom I spoke before coming into the House and who told me he was very sorry that he could not be present owing to a prior engagement, also supported the Bill of the noble Baroness. He said this at col. 1145:
"I begin with the certainty that there can be no theological objection to this Bill"—
that was the Bill of the noble Baroness—
"once the Levitical tribal system of consanguinity allied to affinity has been breached and broken. I have nothing to add to what has already been said about consanguinity—which, by the way, has nothing to do with this Bill—but I am satisfied that there can be no theological position sufficient to warrant a refusal in law to allow people who are already in a state of affinity to be prevented from marriage in circumstances which are peculiar to them and therefore cannot be regarded in general terms".

1043
That is the position in which Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward find themselves. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark at col. 1154 said this:
"But today what we are concerned with is what makes for happiness and family contentment and, just as I believe that there are times when divorce is permissible and should be encouraged, though only on certain occasions, so I believe that, in cases like this, when it comes to the marriage of a man to a step-daughter there may be cases when it is right".
My Lords, the present case is such a case. That Bill was considered by a Committee of your Lordships' House on 15th March, 1979, but the general election intervened and Parliament was dissolved. The same Bill was introduced by the noble Baroness into your Lordships' House during the current Session of Parliament and was rejected on Second Reading on 14th June 1979. Again, that Bill was in general terms and was not concerned with the specific circumstances of any particular person. Perhaps I might take up your Lordships' time by referring breifly to some of the speeches made. I will again quote from the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford at column 732. He said this:
"… 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 injustices in particular cases, perhaps on the New Zealand model, by giving jurisdiction to the High Court in particular circumstances for particular individuals".
I submit that this Personal Bill to enable Mr. Berry to be married to Mrs. Ward would not, in their particular circumstances, be subject to any of the arguments urged against such marriages in relation to the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. Your Lordships will have heard that Mr. Berry was married to the late Mrs. Berry just over three weeks after Mrs. Ward was married, and accordingly Mr. Berry has not at any time stood in loco parentis to Mrs. Ward. Both Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward are fairly advanced in years and Mrs. Ward suffers from a heart condition which has necessitated the insertion of a heart pacemaker. It is most unlikely that there will be any general change in the law as sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, during their lifetimes that would enable them to be married to each other. Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward live, as I have said, in separate homes, and if they were
1044
permitted to be married to each other they would be able to live together in a joint matrimonial home in greater comfort and convenience for the remainder of their joint life.
I submit that a marriage between Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward would enhance their family circumstances. I also submit that there is no ethical, moral, religious or social objection to such a marriage, and that their inability to be married to each other is the cause of real hardship to them. The only manner in which Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward may be married to each other is by the enactment of a Personal Bill, and I submit that the circumstances of this case are so exceptional as to justify the passing of this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
3.51 p.m.
THE LORD Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I rise to give my support to this Bill and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. As we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in December 1978, and again in 1979, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Aibinger, endeavoured to carry a Bill through this House which sought to remove all the restrictions to marriage between those related by affinity, save with a modest limit of age. She was unsuccessful, for one reason or another, on both occasions—
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate give way? On the first occasion, my Bill passed Second Reading and was through Committee without amendment.
THE LORD Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I readily accept that, and I did not indicate that it was not so in the words that I used. She was unsuccessful on both occasions. I could not be present on the second occasion, but on the first I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and proposed amendments in Committee. I made it clear on both those occasions that, in my view, there is a considerable difference, so far as marriage is concerned, between those related by kindred and those related by affinity.

1045
I said then, and I still hold, that in the former category marriage between persons closely related by blood would be contrary to the law of nature and must be forbidden. I stated my belief that, in the latter category, the objections to marriage between those related by affinity are not so much moral or ethical as social. It is therefore, I said, proper and open to legislators to permit such marriages as they may deem right and proper; and we are now, in this one instance, being asked to exercise such a discretion.
If ever there was a case that merited our sympathetic consideration, this is such a case. Mr. Berry will be 63 in a month's time. His stepdaughter will be 59 in July of this year. They are, therefore, collaterals of the same generation and there can be, in this case, none of the dangers that could arise through the commixture of different generations. Mr. Berry, as we have been told, has never been responsible for the care and upbringing of Mrs. Ward; indeed, when he married her mother she was already herself a married woman. Since the death of Mrs. Berry, Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward have lived apart, but now they desire to live together as man and wife. I am of the opinion that we should make it awful for them to do so. I am glad to now that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who is here and who poke in opposition to the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, in 1979, agrees with the view that I have taken.
I would only add two further observations which are incidental to the main issue before us. First, if we should pass his Bill, as I hope we shall, there still remains a problem relating to the application of the Canon Law. I understand hat Mrs. Ward is a Roman Catholic and Mr. Berry is a member of the Church f England. I cannot, of course, speak with any authority for the Roman Catholic Church, but I am credibly informed that in such a case as this, should the parties ask to be married by hat Church after the Bill has become an Act, a dispensation would be required and the likelihood is that it would receive sympathetic consideration.
As regards a member of the Church of England, Canon B.31 sets out the Table of Kindred and Affinity, within which all marriages purported to be made within the
1046
said degrees are void. One of the "said degrees" is that a man may not marry his wife's daughter. Should, then, this Bill become an Act, the marriage between the two parties would be legal by reason of statute law, but barred by reason of Canon Law, which is, incidentally, of course, part of the law of England. If a clergyman were invited to conduct this marriage, he would be free so far as Parliament was concerned, but would be in danger of committing an ecclesiastical offence, even though in the circumstances, in my judgment, it would be a very minor offence. This is, of course, a problem for the Church to sort out.
My own view—and it is purely a personal view—is that since the spirit of the application of Canon Law is to ensure an avoidance of rigidity on the one hand, and licence on the other, to refrain from and to respect the conscience of the individual, this is a case in which a Bishop would be within his rights in granting a dispensation from the effects of the Canon Law, once such a marriage was no longer void by statute law, I hope that such a course could be followed.
Secondly, this Bill requires us to look into the future, and I would not wish my support of it to prejudice any views I might have, should attempts be made to widen the rules governing marriage between those related by affinity. I should still be of the opinion that serious social insecurity could result from any wide spread relaxation, and I should want to stress such dangers.
But in this case, there is brought before us the hardship caused in exceptional circumstances, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, put before us movingly on a previous occasion, and I see no reason why we should not at some appropriate time introduce legislation to make it easier, in such cases as that of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, to be permitted legally to marry, without requiring recourse to such a laborious and expensive process as that of promoting a Personal Bill. I would think that they have been put to much inconvenicence, anxiety and cost, in order to bring their desire for marriage before your Lord ships' House.
I should have thought that it should be possible, in such exceptional cases, for

1047
the law to provide machinery whereby such a marriage could be permitted without, necessarily, recourse to Parliament. I myself proposed this when, in the Committee stage of the first Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, I suggested that the courts could be given power to grant permission under certain stated conditions. I was told then that such a course of action would be impracticable. But it has not proved to be o, as we have been told, in New Zealand, and I cannot believe that it would be beyond the wit of those learned in the law o devise some way by which persons in a similar situation to that of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward could be given permission o marry, without having recourse to Parliament. I hope that this House will ass this Bill.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I, too, have never met personally Mr. Berry or Mrs. Ward, but when I was about to introduce my Bill in the previous Parliament I received a communication from their solicitor, indicating that they were contemplating promoting a Personal Bill. But having heard that I was about to introduce a ill giving wider relaxation of the present marriage laws, they decided to wait to see what happened.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the right reverend Prelate have referred in some detail to the history of my Bill, but I should like to make perfectly clear the history of that Bill. I introduced the Bill in the previous Parliament. It was passed at Second Reading and then went to Committee, where it was unamended. Then came the general election. There is a rule that all Public Bills in both Houses, although the Membership of this House is not affected by a general election, die at a general election. So my Bill met with a premature death. Therefore I do not think, if the right reverend Prelate will allow me to say so, that it was quite an accurate description to say that I was unsuccessful. It was nothing that I or that Parliament did with the Bill which led to its death.
I hoped that the Bill would be the culmination of a long process of relaxation
1048
that goes right back to the Deceased Wife's Sister Act of 1907. There were further statutes and further relaxations in 1930 and 1960, and I thought that a Bill which would allow marriage between any two persons who were not related by blood or by adoption would be the logical conclusion of this process.
I think it may be appropriate to remind your Lordships that until the year 1857, which is not all that long ago, there was in this country no general law of divorce. The only way in which people could get divorced was by introducing Personal Bills, as Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward are seeking to do today. Since then we have had a great succession of divorce Acts making changes in the divorce law. It may be that history is going to repeat itself and that this particular case is a sign of the times. Be that as it may, nobody, as has been amply pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. and the right reverend Prelate, could say that the particular case before your Lordships today is anything but impeccable.
The vision that haunted many of the opponents of my Bill was that of a vulnerable young woman pressurised by a lascivious stepfather. Nobody quoted any cases of that kind, and there are none of that type on my file. I have a considerable file of cases which are, in principle, somewhat like that of the case which is before your Lordships today. In all my cases the parties are, I think, slightly younger; but they are people who have refrained from marriage because of this bar, and most of them are people of mature years.
That being so, it only remains for me to express regret that Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward have been put to the trouble and expense of this very cumbrous and difficult process. I very much wish that my Bill might have succeeded and that therefore they might have been spared it. I earnestly support the Bill. I hope that it will be passed and followed by a happy marriage between this couple for many years to come. It may be, as I have already said, that this is a harbinger of a widening of the relaxations, and I for one will certainly give every attention to the prospects for that widening. But in this particular case nothing is at stake except what has been very fully put to

1049
your Lordships by my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, Nothing is at stake except the particular situation of these two people. They are, let me summarise it, of mature age; they have both been married; their marriages have been ended by death and not by divorce; they are deeply religious people. In those circumstances, no more acceptable special case can be thought of. I support the Bill.
4.5 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I find myself in a most daunting position, as I am opposed to the Bill. I have the utmost sympathy for Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward and I fully understand and comprehend everything which has caused them to ask your Lordships to pass this Personal Bill. But behind it we are doing something which in my view—and I submit that your Lordships should consider it—this House has already in principle rejected.
The noble Baroness most ably moved the Second Reading of a Bill, and after long and intensive debate that Bill was rejected. If we pass this Bill, I am slightly apprehensive that it might be used as a precedent to advance many others. We are not in a situation where we are saying to Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, "Yes, we are very sorry for you; you can do it". We are in a situation where we are saying, "The principle of the Bill, which we rejected, can be abandoned in your individual case." If we do that, we arrive at a situation where subsequently this House, having agreed to abandon the principle for one couple, will be asked to abandon it for all couples in this affinity class. However much I sympathise with Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, I do not think it right that this House should reverse that principle in a Private Bill. It is not the time and it is not the place to do so.
4.7 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I will speak only briefly in support of the Bill, and I speak for two reasons. First, I was a member of the committee which first vetted this Bill before leave was given for it to be introduced in your Lordships' House. Secondly, I do so in order to attempt to refute the implication that was
1050
made in this House that one cannot be, and I quote, "a genuine Anglican" and support a Marriage Enabling Bill, even such as the one we are debating today.
First, as concerns Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London have very clearly stated the position. I support the view that here are two people who should be allowed to marry, although I noted the complication of canon law put forward by the right reverend Prelate. In this case there has been no problem of divorce. Mrs. Ward was never brought up by Mr. Berry in loco parentis. They are only four years different in age. They are both respected members of their respective Christian churches, and as we have been told, are spoken of as people of complete integrity. I agree that only those who believe that a stepfather should never be allowed to marry his stepdaughter are likely to oppose such a marriage as this—and here I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
This brings me back to my second point as to whether a Christian should oppose all marriage enabling Bills. When Lady Wootton moved her comprehensive Bill for the second time on 14th June last year, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, ended his speech with these words, recorded in col. 752 of the Official Report:
"I should like to urge all genuine Anglicans" —
it is my emphasis—
"not to support the Bill on the grounds not only of what is said in Scripture, but also … in Archbishop Parker's Table".
I did in fact support the Second Reading of that Bill and the implication must be that in those words the noble Lord suggested that I am not a genuine Anglican. I had never looked at it that way and was relieved to hear what the right reverend Prelate had to say today.
In that debate in June we were invited to accept the code of marriage as laid down in the Book of Leveticus. What we were not invited to do was to go back only a little further to the Book of Exodus, where the word of God to Moses at that time was that his people should exact not only a life for a life but also an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burning for a burning and so on. So I would suggest—and I am

1051
a bit cautious with so many Bishops here—that we cannot necessarily go back to Mosaic times.
A second point which I think may be much more open to criticism—and again I am slightly timid here—is that I do not believe we have to accept as the final word even what St. Paul said about marriage. I submit that the Bible is a source of inspiration but not a book of rules literally to be followed as Muslims, I understand, seek to follow the Koran. It was, I think, the poet Robert Bridges who said,
"Knowledge accumulateth slowly and not in vain".
I am more of an optimist about our society than many people seem today. While learning from the past, we should also look forward to a happier future. That is what we all want: it is only as to the method of reaching it that we differ. I therefore support this Bill and retain freedom of action if the noble Baroness tries again with her Bill in the next Session. I hope at least that if we err it will be accepted that it is on the side of compassion.
4.11 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, there seem to me to be two aspects to your Lordships' debate today. First, there is the effect on Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward as individuals of any decision on the Bill. Secondly, there are the wider implications of that decision. It is on the wider aspects that I should like to offer a few thoughts.
When your Lordships' House last year considered and finally rejected the Marriage (Enabling) Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, it became clear that at least some of the changes then proposed would have been contrary to Christian, and indeed not only Christian, teaching and tradition. Incidentally, I would here interject that it seems to be that one cannot isolate moral and ethical reasons from practical and social reasons; I believe that the two must inevitably tie up.
It was felt accordingly by many of your Lordships that the changes would tend to undermine family life. For example, the possiblity that a father would be allowed to marry a child of his household might lead to conflicts of interest that
1052
could cause marital instability, could affect his carrying out of his responsibilities as virtual parent and could result in the abuse of filial loyalty in the worst cases. For these reasons, we should be very careful before doing anything that undermines the father/stepdaughter relationship, which, like the father/adopted daughter relationship, needs institutional and social protection.
Now, my Lords, of course we must guard against applying rules and principles unreasonably rigidly. When doing my research and looking back to that reference in Leviticus, I happened to look at two chapters earlier, and I was interested to note that, should I discover mildew in my house, it is my duty to telephone the vicar and tell him. Therefore, it is understandable that it should be claimed on behalf of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward that the present law bears unduly harshly on them. Both of them have clearly given much thought to the question of marrying before deciding that it would be right to do so. I respect that decision so far as it goes for them and their family.
Unfortunately, we cannot consider their case in isolation, however much we might like to do so, we have to think of the wider implications and the many individual people who might be affected. There must be the possiblity that the passing of this Bill would be followed by the weakening of the existing law and that it would be used as the thin end of the wedge to amend the law in principle. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, did express such a hope when she said that she hoped this Bill would be the harbinger of further changes.
At the risk of overworking a phrase, we all know that hard cases make bad law and we have the unnerving example of the divorce laws—again referred to by the noble Baroness—where changes started with personal Bills. Now I would freely admit that the subsequent abandonment of traditional principles may, on the one hand, have reduced hardship in many cases, but it has led to a vast accumulation of misery in torn lives which, if it had been foreseen, would surely have been thought unacceptable.
Therefore, I would say, my Lords, that if this Bill should become law and if subsequently it should be considered right to

1053
amend the law to deal with cases such as this without the laborious process of going through the Personal Bill procedure, it is of paramount importance that it is done in such a way as not to undermine the law in principle on marriages within the family, which at present, in my view, works to the benefit of family life.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boston, will permit me, I should like to make a very brief intervention. I did not put my name down as I was not sure that I should be able to attend the debate. I merely wanted to say, as one who opposed the noble Baroness's general Bill, that I would still oppose the general Bill but I would not do other than follow the lead of my right reverend friend by saying that I would consent and approve the passage of this Bill.
4.17 p.m.
LORD BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, there are few cases which are more deserving of help than the case of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward. Indeed, there are few which are as deserving as theirs when one is considering whether a step parent and a stepchild should be allowed to marry. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
As noble Lords have recalled, we have considered twice within the past 16 months whether the law should be changed so as to enable a person to marry any kin of a former spouse or a former spouse of any kin, to quote the words of the Long Title of Lady Wootton of Abinger's Marriage (Enabling) Bills. On both occasions the Government of the day adopted a neutral attitude, for both Governments regarded the matter as one which is traditionally left to individual Members of your Lordships' House to decide.
On the first occasion when we debated my noble friend's Bill, 13th February last year, when it received a Second Reading, it was the last Government that adopted that position. On the second occasion, on 14th June last year, when my noble friend's Bill was reintroduced this Session, and failed by six votes to gain a Second Reading, it was the present Government which took a similar view. But, although
1054
both Governments remained neutral on the general principle, I believe it would be right to say that both recognised, as did noble Lords from all parts of your Lordships' House, that cases of real hardship arose under the present law because people related by reason of affinity are prevented from marrying. Feelings of great sympathy were expressed for some of those who were affected.
The cases of special hardship which attracted most sympathy were perhaps these. In introducing her Bills, my noble friend Lady Wootton had in mind particularly the possibility that marriage might take place between step-parent and step-child, and there has been mentioned, as an example, the case in which a wife dies leaving her husband with young children of their marriage, together with an adult step-daughter of the surviving husband. In due course the step-daughter takes upon herself the dual roles of mother and of wife and the husband has never acted in loco parentis towards her. But, of course, under the present law the couple are not permitted to legalise their relation ship. That is indeed a situation which arouses sympathetic feelings. Were they to marry, it would be good for the young children, it would be good for the couple and it would be likely to enhance family life and the state of marriage itself.
Again, as we have seen previously, hardship can be caused in circumstances in which there are children who would be legitimised by the marriage of a couple who are at present prevented from marrying because of their relationship. As we have also noted on previous occasions, and as I found while I was there, cases are brought to the notice of the Home Office of couples related by marriage who wish themselves to marry and where little or no harm would appear to be likely to arise if they were to do so. On the other hand, there is the strongly held view, which has again emerged this afternoon, that to abandon the restrictions which exist at present would threaten family life and the state of marriage itself, and would harm the very special family relationships which are created when two families are joined by marriage.
I believe we have found in previous debates that one situation which is less acceptable than some is that in which the step-daughter was much younger when

1055
her mother remarried, and so the husband—the step-father—had been standing in loco parentis to the step-daughter. There seems to have been general agreement that where a step-parent has taken on the role of parent towards the step-child, the very idea of marriage between them would be quite contrary to the whole character of the relationship which ought to exist between them.
As we have found during the course of our debates there is, I believe, no satisfactory way in which the more deserving cases could be permitted under a general marriage enabling Bill while the less acceptable ones remained banned, and I very much take the point which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on the 15th March last year, during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, and repeated during the course of his speech this afternoon. We debated at some length the question as to whether means could be found for referring to the court applications for consent to marry, and it fell to me to spell out a number of fairly detailed objections to the practicability of embarking upon a course of that kind. I note, of course, what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said about what has been done elsewhere, but I am bound to say that I still remain unconvinced that we should be able to devise a practicable, short and uncostly means of doing that. I do not want to spell out all the reasons that we went into then. Perhaps there may be another occasion when we shall once again embark upon that particular exercise.
I return to the Bill now before the House. The statement of reasons for the Bill, carefully and painstakingly drawn, and all that we have heard about this particular couple, Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, show that theirs is indeed, I believe, a deserving case—one of the most deserving cases that one could imagine. There as never been any question here of a parental relationship between them; their ages are similar and there is no complication in their case arising from the presence f children of either of them. One is ed to believe that nothing but good could come from their being permitted o marry.
1056
Before we come to our decision, however, there are one or two other brief observations that I should like to make. In coming to our decision I do not believe that we can ignore the general principle involved. I feel that we must face up to that. If we pass this Bill I believe we shall necessarily be conceding the principle involved; that is to say, that people at present prevented from marrying by reason of a relationship of affinity, should be allowed to marry. I do not really see how we could pass this Bill and then decline to pass a Bill along the general lines of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton. I do not think we can ignore this. If we pass this Bill, at the very least what we are conceding is that we shall be prepared to consider further exceptions, further applications for exemption from the present law. I wonder whether we are really prepared to insist that all those who seek such permission should have to go through this costly and lengthy procedure. Here again, I very much agree with the tenor of the remarks made this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward are people of modest means—we have been told that. There may well be others of means still more modest, which just would not permit them to embark upon a measure of this kind. It may be of interest to your Lord-ships to know that I understand that the total cost of presenting a Bill of this kind, that is to say the printing costs, which form the main element, and the House fees, which I gather are comparatively small, is in the region of £1,000, and that does not include the fees of parliamentary agents, which of course is a matter between them and their clients.
There is this further point. It is necessary when going through this procedure, as has been seen, for the couple concerned to reveal many personal details about themselves. There is no way of avoiding that under the present procedure, and it seems rather hard that they should have to go through this no doubt painful process of submitting to public scrutiny personal details about themselves, even though it is done in the sensitive and understanding way in which it has been presented here in this case. It is perhaps worth noting that this is something from which those who, under our matrimonial law

1057
and jurisdiction, go through the Family Division of the High Court, the county courts or before magistrates sitting in domestic courts, are now mercifully and rightfully protected. It is rather sad that it is not possible to afford this couple the same protection from publicity and degree of privacy as, I say, a couple seeking a divorce. But of course it is simply not possible to secure anonymity under the present procedure, although I am quite certain that everyone concerned, and as we have seen today especially, seeks to deal with it as delicately as possible.
I do not know Mr. Berry nor Mrs. Ward, but from all we have heard and read about them they are clearly a modest couple, a genuine couple and indeed a courageous couple. Their modesty has probably meant that they have had to summon up even more courage than perhaps otherwise might have been the case. While this is obviously a matter on which individual noble Lords will make up their minds, I would not myself feel able to stand in the way of this Bill; and I would add, in a personal capacity, that I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am really here in a dual capacity. It is proper for a member of Her Majesty's Government to speak on a Bill of this kind, unusual as it is. It is also necessary for a Member of the House to declare his own opinion on his own conscience and I think I can reconcile both these functions without impugning my own integrity.
So far as the Government are concerned, I declare their absolute neutrality. This has been a matter of discussion between departments. We see nothing wrong in a Personal Bill of this kind, other than, of course, the inconvenience and embarrassment to the parties. It is a well-established although little used purpose for which Parliament exists; it is a matter upon which Parliament must come to its own conclusion. We do not think that any question of public policy is involved in this Personal Bill and therefore we are absolutely neutral.
Having said that, and I hope without any attempt whatever to influence your Lordships otherwise than by an expression
1058
of my own opinion, I must say that I come down firmly and without any doubt in favour of this Bill myself. In that respect, I differ—and I will give my reasons in a moment—from my noble friend Lord de Clifford, who thinks that the Bill infringes the general principle, and to a lesser degree (because he expressed it in a rather more qualified sense) I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I do not think it involves any departure from general principle and I think that for historical reasons the necessity for introducing the Bill has uncovered what is undoubtedly a defect in our legal system and, for that matter, a defect in the Canon Law of the Church of England, if the right reverend Prelate will permit me to say so.
You see, my Lords, there is a fundamental difference—and there always has been a fundamental difference—between the law of consanguinity and the law of affinity. It might be convenient if I just reminded the House of the situation which existed before the schism which arose out of the little local difficulty concerning Katherine of Aragon, whose precedent as a matter of fact has a curious relevance to this Bill. Henry VIII "married" Katherine of Aragon. I use the word "married" in inverted commas, because that was the whole question. She was within the bounds of affinity with Henry VIII because she was the widow of his elder brother, Prince Arthur, who had died.
In order to marry Katherine of Aragon—again I use the word without prejudice—he had to get a dispensation from the Pope because—and this is where the relevance to the present Bill becomes apparent—the Church as it had developed up to that point had always allowed dispensations for individual cases which came within the law of affinity though not within closer degrees of the law of consanguinity. Henry VIII was able to get and did get a dispensation from the Pope for his marriage with Katherine of Aragon. It was not considered, with great respect to my noble friend Lord de Clifford, the smallest deviation from the general law of the Church or the law of the land at that time that he should do so.
There were in fact two very considerable questions which arose. The first was whether the marriage with Arthur had

1059
been actually consummated, and the finding of fact was that it had not, although there was a dispute about it. If it had been consummated I do not think the Pope could have given a dispensation according to the Canon Law of the Church at the time. Henry, however, had qualms of conscience, no doubt engendered by his passion for Anne Boleyn. He thought that the Pope could not give a dispensation because it was against Leviticus, and therefore God's law, that the law of affinity should be infringed at all. So he was free to marry Anne Boleyn, and this is what this little local difficulty arose about.
In those days the Protestants—and we have heard an example of that this afternoon—were rigorists and they took Henry's side, although Henry was far from being a Protestant in many respects. At any rate, the point is that after the Reformation the power of dispensation which formerly existed in the Pope fell to Parliament, the Queen in Parliament, to exercise. That is why the Personal Bill is a perfectly proper weapon to use, although it is expensive and embarrassing and tiresome, and I think imposes hardship on the parties. It is a perfectly proper instrument to use in the present case and it can be used without infringing the general principle.
I thought it right to emphasise this historical background based on Canon Law partly because of my own opinion in the matter. I did happen to vote against the first introduction of Lady Wootton's Bill; I thought that, as drafted, for the reasons given by the right reverend Prelate at that time, it did possibly undermine the general principle of the law of affinity, which has, I think, still a public policy value. But I never thought and do not think now that there ought not to be a cheap, easy and reasonable way of granting a dispensation more convenient than that upon which we are now currently engaged. I do not altogether think that the courts themselves would like to treat such an issue as justiciable unless very proper firm guidelines were laid down by Parliament. But that there ought to be a power of dispensation I have no manner of doubt, and indeed there always has been.
The only trouble is that the power of dispensation which exists is inconvenient, embarrassing and, as we have discovered
1060
this afternoon, somewhat timewasting in the High Court of Parliament. But as it is the only way round what is otherwise an insuperable difficulty I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we ought to take it. Although I shall not reproach my noble friend Lord de Clifford for taking a somewhat different and more rigorous view, I should, if he pursues the matter to the Division Lobby, without hesitation support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I hope this Bill goes through and that this couple have a happy marriage at the end of it.
4.36 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, after that brilliant address to your Lordships from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, it would seem to me that I should be wasting your Lordships' time by expressing any further views, certainly on the history which he has developed so ably, or even on the facts of this particular case. I had intended to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to try to persuade him that the position was not as he had seen it, that the failure to pass the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, did not deal with this matter of principle, and therefore that the noble Lord should not vote against the Bill which I have the privilege of presenting to your Lordships. After the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I hope that Lord de Clifford will allow this Bill to go through without dividing the House on this matter.
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his very strong support of this Bill. He said that if ever a case was worthy of help and should meet with our sympathy this was it. He also explained the difference between the law of the United Kingdom and the Canon Law, and made some very helpful observations as to what course these two persons might take in the spirit of the Canon Law. I was glad to hear that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford also agrees with the support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is giving to the Bill.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for the additional information about the course of her Bill in the other place. I would say this to her, that the passage of this

1061
Bill through your Lordships' House cannot, in my view, be a harbinger of things to come. It has been accepted that exceptional cases arise, and, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out to your Lordships, these exceptional cases can now be dealt with under the clumsy and expensive procedure of the Personal Bill. In no way has there been any indication or suggestion that the procedure of the Personal Bill is inappropriate in this case. In fact the principle of the Personal Bill is the only way in which a deep injustice of the kind that exists at the present time with regard to Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward can be dealt with.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Hampton and Lord Halsbury, and for the clear exposition and kind remarks made about myself by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He was good enough to say that there were few cases as worthy of help as the present. As he said, the case of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward is one of the most deserving cases that could come before this House.
My Lords, I do not propose to summarise the facts. These two persons are collaterals of almost equal age. When Mr. Berry became the stepfather she was a married woman, and therefore he did not become in the position of locum parentis. I can only quote the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships and say that it seems to me that nothing but good can come of this marriage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

SOCIAL SECURITY (NO. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

INDUSTRY BILL
4.40 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Viscount Trenchard).
LORD BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, we on this side of the House would not seek in any way to prevent the political will of the other place being accomplished in this legislation. We on this side of the House have sought to make as many constructive comments and amendments as we have thought fit. I feel bound to draw the noble Viscount's attention to the fact that some of the amendments that have been put forward, while not in any way obstructing the main political purposes of the Bill, would undoubtedly have improved it. I refer in particular to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which sought to secure the promotion of the involvement of the workers in the particular industries involved. That amendment could quite easily have been accepted by the Government.
I am bound to say that, so long as this House retains its function to scrutinise Bills that come from another place and to endeavour, in so far as it is possible, to improve on their wording, we are, in that way, discharging a valuable function. I can recall many instances in the time of the previous Administration when, on those grounds, amendments moved by the then Opposition were accepted by the House as a whole and were remitted back to the Commons for their consideration. In this particular instance the noble Viscount has insisted, in accordance with his brief or otherwise, on the Bill and nothing but the Bill, without any amendment whatever.
I feel bound, on behalf of those who sit with me, to draw the noble Viscount's attention and the attention of the Government to the dangers that may lie ahead if this course is continued. We have a very heavy parliamentary Session, and pressure towards the end of July may be very hard indeed. If the Government are prepared to be constructive in these matters and are prepared to depart from their rigid brief and admit amendments from all sides of the House when they are quite obviously and patently reasonable, then the position of the Government will be facilitated. If, on the other hand, the Government take the view, in regard to the remaining Bills to come before your Lordships, that they will, by means of their inbuilt parliamentary majority in this place, maintain intact every jot and tittle, every last letter and comma of the legis-

1063
lation they bring before us, then I must warn them that they may not receive the co-operation of many of your Lordships in getting their programme through on time. I deliver that warning because I believe it necessary that this House should be able to discharge without fear or favour its ordinary function, and I hope that the Government will take note of it.
This is a miserable little Bill. The only pleasant part about the Industry Bill is the very courteous and constructive manner in which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has introduced it and has piloted it through the House. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House could complain of the most careful courtesy and patience shown by the noble Viscount.
Since the Bill has been discussed on Report there have been two developments upon which I must comment. The objectives of the Bill are twofold, in the main, cutting out all that may be euphemistically called the "peripherals". The first objective has been to keep the noble Viscount's right honourable friend the Secretary of State within the narrow confines of his own ideology. Not only does he have acute sensibilities about his doctrine, but he evidently seeks to have them enshrined in statute. He has deliberately taken away from himself that degree of flexibility in the development of the whole of British industry which we on this side of the House think it advisable that he should have retained.
We live in times when unemployment is now at a record level, when inflation has over doubled itself since the Government came into office, and when the future of British industry—even according to some sections of the Confederation of British Industry—looks very bleak indeed. Therefore, we think it gravely unwise that the Minister should restrict himself within what, as I have said previously, are the confines of his own narrow political philosophy. He may rue the day when he dispensed with that flexibility.
The second aim of the Bill—apart from all the other matters which are, in the main, matters of administrative convenience—is to dispose of the assets of the National Enterprise Board. There have been developments since this Bill was discussed
1064
by your Lordships on Report. Since that time, as one reads from The Times of 20th May, a Mr. David Young, the chairman of Manufacturers Hanover Property Services, has been appointed special adviser to the Minister as regards denationalisation generally. Moreover, it is revealed that one of Mr. David Young's qualifications for this post—and I do not wish to minimise them in any way—is the fact that he is a property developer.
I do not wish to decry in any way the property development profession. Members of this House, especially those with memories that extend beyond the last five or six years, will have very acute memories as to what happened to property development, particularly during the Administration of Mr. Heath. Nevertheless, it is a very honourable profession and I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. David Young is a very able exponent of it. However, I must draw to the attention of the House the fact that the process of denationalisation, on which the Secretary of State appears to be bent, includes the disposal of businesses concerned, among other things, with spark erosion machinery, shower valves, telementary systems, chemicals, automotive products, tanning, undewater engineering equipment, industrial instruments, specialised vehicles, computer software, digital engineering equipment, process machinery, machine tools, microelectronics, word processing, typesetting, audio-equipment, glass manufacturing, paper manufacturing and sports equipment.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can explain—because he has much more experience of the customs of this House than I—the relevance of Mr. Young's appointment, about which he could very easily ask a question, to the Third Reading of this Industry Bill or to the Industry Bill all?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Yes, my Lords. As I explained to the House, it is quite legitimate for this House, before giving a Third Reading to a Bill, to consider the developments that have, in fact, taken place since the Report stage of the Bill, which were not available at the particular time and which have very strict relevance to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill itself.
However, I press the point no further, except to say that it will be very interesting to hear from the noble Viscount what

1065
particular qualifications this very honour able gentleman has to advise Her Majesty's Government on these matters. Moreover—and this is also relevant to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which give the mechanics of returning this property to private ownership—it should also be remembered that Mr. David Young is a director of the Centre for Policy Studies, which is the research organisation of the Conservative Party. I would ask the noble Viscount to bear in mind, as this process of denationalisation goes forward, that we are in full possession of the particulars of those organisations and companies in this country which have contributed to Conservative Party funds. We shall keep an eye on their appearance on the list of acquisitors in due course.
The second point, which I raised on Report and which the noble Viscount was not in a position to answer at that time, was the position of INMOS. This still remains in suspense. The noble Viscount knows perfectly well that on Second Reading, during the Committee stage and on Report we were able to point out that the future of this particular micro-electronic section of the industry was still in suspense owing to the fact that the Government were unable to make up their mind as to whether they would continue to support it. We observe from the press that negotiations with GEC for an acquisition of a part-interest in it have so far not succeeded. The next day we find out, that they are still on. Before we dispose of this Bill, we should like the noble Viscount to say just what is the position of INMOS. It would seem to me a very great pity if we parted with the Bill without knowing what were the Government's firm intentions.
In conclusion, and summing up the attitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House, we consider that in the existing economic state of the country and with the divisions within the party of the noble Viscount opposite—which are becoming increasingly apprehensive, together with those of their colleagues in the CBI, of the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government—the Government ought to be very careful indeed how they proceed under this Bill. If they proceed with very great caution and with due circumspection, no lasting harm will be done. But if the Secretary of State is allowed to get away with the political dogma that he
1066
has so often inflicted on another place and on the country, in my view and in the view of my colleagues who sit behind me, this Bill will not only not afford any assistance to the state of industry, as it is likely to develop over the next three years, but will bring lasting harm to the nation as a whole.
4.55 p.m.
LORD HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I should like to add to two points raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, referring to the developments since the Report stage of the Bill. As my noble friend has pointed out, all the economic indicators that have been published since the Report stage bear out the fears that have been expressed by this side, that this Bill, along with its accompanying industrial policy from the Government, is leading to disaster.
We have never heard any answer to the questions that have been continually put from this side, on the Bill and on the Government's industrial strategy generally, as to why they consider that this strategy, in 1980, should have any effects different from the effects of the strategy employed between 1970 and 1972, which it so closely resembles. However, I shall not pursue the philosophical issue which I have tried and failed to impress upon the Government during the previous stages of the Bill.
I want to concentrate for just a few minutes on Clause 9 and to ask the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government to address himself to the fears and, indeed, the confusion with which I have been left as a result of the Government's attitude to this particular clause dealing with the powers of the NEB and the two agencies in providing overseas technical assistance. The noble Viscount, who replied to me during the Committee stage on the Bill, appeared to me to have confused both what I was saying and the contents of that clause. Perhaps I may remind the House of what the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said during the debate on the Committee stage. He said:
"Noble Lords will know that overseas aid is a matter for the Overseas Development Administration. It has the prime responsibility for work of that kind. It is therefore a job for that office to carry out and not for the NEB and the agencies ".— [Official Report, 29/4/80; col. 1146.]
This surely is a confusion both of the meaning of Clause 9 and of the intention of the sections of those Acts which Clause

1067
9 repeals. It is not a question of the NEB or the agencies competing with the overseas development administration. The intention of including the sections in the previous Acts, which are now to be repealed under Clause 9, was to allow what was then the Overseas Development Ministry to use the NEB or the agencies in order to provide technical assistance which the Overseas Development Ministry itself would govern.
Therefore, there is no question of competition here. It is a question whether public corporations, like the NEB, can be used to provide technical assistance. I would suggest that the Government are here destroying something which could be of immense value or—let us not exaggerate—of considerable value in their future policies both towards overseas aid and, in this case even more importantly, towards overseas trade.
This brings me to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington in his reference to the organisation known as INMOS. INMOS gives an opportunity for this country to at least get a toehold into the rapidly developing industry of micro-technology. It is of course owned by the NEB. Are the Government saying that if their Overseas Development Administration within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wants to ask INMOS to provide some technical assistance to a developing country, or indeed to any country overseas, that it shall not be allowed to do so?
If that is what the Government are saying, then it seems to me to be a very short-sighted policy and quite unnecessary, because the clause to which I am referring Clause 9, does nothing really to strengthen the Bill, and the only argument we have heard in defence of this clause is that the NEB must concentrate on its work in this country. But this is not going to divert the NEB. This small measure, which can have some considerable significance in the future, is not going to divert either the NEB or the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies from their work in this country, by providing technicians, knowledge, perhaps some software in the micro-technology industry, to overseas countries.
I should have thought that our whole experience shows that the use of this
1068
clause—perhaps it may be some time before it is used—and the power to use it could be of considerable value in the development of British overseas trade. As I have continually pointed out to this House, and as I think the Government accept, overseas aid, and particularly technical assistance, is of great stimulation to our overseas trade. The two things cannot be separated.
If the Government are looking for measures which can rectify their adverse balance of payments, if they are looking for measures which can assist the development of the export industries of this country, if they are looking for policies which can bridge that fantastic gap between the 18 million unemployed in the industrial countries and the starving half of the world, then this is a measure—admittedly a small measure—which will assist them in doing exactly that. To destroy that opportunity, to forsake the opportunity of the future, seems to me to make absolute nonsense. As yet I have heard no rational defence of Clause 9 in this Bill.
Finally, there is another dimension to the policy which is at least allowable within Clause 9. Is it the Government's belief that in the development of our overseas trade, and in the deployment of our ability to provide technical assistance, it is wiser, or perhaps more ideologically acceptable, to confine such provision to the multinational companies than it is to the public corporations of this country?
If that is the case, then I can tell the present Government and the Minister who is to reply, that that ideology would be widely rejected by many recipient countries. There is indeed among many of the developing countries a particular liking for the relationship between public sector industries in this country and public sector industries in their own countries. They prefer, and they trust more, the public sector industries within this country than they do the operations of many of the multinational firms that will be the only alternative if this clause is included in this Bill.
I would just ask the Minister to tell me something which I have asked before and to which I have not yet had an answer: Had there been consultations before this clause was drafted between the Department of Industry and the Foreign

1069
and Commonwealth Office, and particularly the Overseas Development Administration within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? If there had, I would be astounded to hear that the Overseas Development Administration does not wish to have any longer the right to use the public sector; to use organisations like INMOS; to use the NEB-owned industries; or to use the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies with their experience in the planning and development of industrial estates. I would be astonished if the Overseas Development Administration has told the Department of Industry that it no longer wishes to have this right.
Unfortunately, this clause, although we moved to delete it at Committee stage, has not been fully debated in either House. I hope it will be when it is taken back to the other House. It seems to me that this is a part of the blindness of the present Government to the opportunities that are open to them—which are being taken today by our competitors: by the Japanese; the Germans; the Americans; the Swiss; indeed by all our competitors—which are beckoning to us in the developing world, and which this minor clause is apparently designed to block.
I would ask the Minister: Is it not the case that he would be strengthened in his office if he at least retained the right to use both the NEB and the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies when he is looking for the opportunity, along with the Overseas Development Administration, to provide the technical assistance in countries abroad which can lead to increased trade between our country and overseas lands?
5.9 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his personal comments, and turn to the various points he has raised first and then to those that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has raised. I must say to him that I believe he has a theory about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which I can only tell him, out of the last year's contact with him, is a false theory. We on this side all share the view that private enterprise should be maximised and that it is the most effective way of creating new wealth which this country so badly needs.
1070
But my right honourable friend in this Bill has not been dogmatic at all; he has left the National Enterprise Board and the agencies, in so far as their functions are partly covered by the Bill, with major functions of the kind and type that the previous Administration had given them. He has left them with a field which, as I have said to your Lordships before now, is, in my judgment as an industrialist from a big corporation for many years, as much as any board could deal with. Those views have been echoed in the latest annual report of the NEB, some quotations from which I referred to on Report. We have left the main structure of regional aid. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have had to trim according to our budget, but we have managed to do that in a way which leaves a strong, and in some senses stronger, pool for any share of national potential investment to the areas of greatest need.
Where I believe the dogma lay is in the past in believing that the debilitation of British industry could be cured by one agency or by three, whichever way we look at it in relation to this Bill. I previously called this the idea: Having got private enterprise thoroughly dispirited, with its profit levels very low, after years of control and misuse, one could put the whole thing right with a panacea of an NEB and similar powers in the agencies for Wales and Scotland. We believe that is the dogma, and I must resist very strongly the suggestion that we have been dogmatic in the Bill.
It is a relatively small Bill. It leaves the NEB, the agencies and regional policy with major tasks to perform in a way which we believe is suitable to the current needs, to the current very difficult situation and to the current demands for public expenditure savings. I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that we have been quite insensitive to amendments and that we have thus departed from the tradition and purpose of this Chamber as a scrutiny and improving Chamber. I believe there is evidence, and will be more evidence on major complicated Bills, that that function of this House will continue. The noble Lord called this a "miserable little Bill"; I resent and reject the title "miserable". However, it is a little Bill and it is a comparitively simple one. It retains a lot, changes a bit and changes the long-term orientation.

1071
The amendments moved by the noble Lord and his noble friends in vast majority could not for one moment be described as amendments to improve the detailed clauses of the Bill. They were to delete Clause 1, the objects, to delete Clause 2 and to delete other clauses. They were straightforward political amendments against the will, to which the noble Lord referred, of the majority in the other place. I suspect that the reason for tabling them was to air once again the reasons of the party of the last Administration for opposing the Bill and the change of emphasis towards private enterprise on which this Government were elected. But, really, the noble Lord cannot claim that the vast majority of amendments moved were improvement amendments in terms of what is often necessary in a big Bill to get detailed clauses more meaningful and to avoid unexpected effects.
I moved one amendment—not as a result of points raised in this House but as a result of points raised after the Bill had left the other place—which I was glad noble Lords opposite supported and which was based on finding, even in this small Bill, just such a fault where an intention had accidentally slipped in. There were no other amendments of that kind. The noble Lord referred to the amendment moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I accept that that amendment, as I said, was not one which had far-reaching effects on the legislation. But we felt quite strongly, and I still do, that, though one could not quarrel with the sentiment behind the moving of the amendment, it really did not have a place in legislation and it would not improve or increase the attention given, under the guidance of the NEB, to one of many very important functions that the NEB had.
I turn to the question of the appointment of Mr. David Young, who was already an adviser to my right honourable friend in certain respects and in relation to the EIEC, and whose terms of reference have now been broadened. I did in the end follow the tenuous thread, if I may so call it, by which the noble Lord connected it with this Bill, but I wish to say clearly that this in no way affects ministerial responsibility for the administration of the provisions of this Bill. This is an unpaid advisory post. We have learnt in the
1072
period during which we have had advice from Mr. David Young that it is very valuable advice he gives and that his width and range of knowledge, arising out of his contacts over a lifetime, is indeed much greater than I had understood initially. I therefore hope we shall not once again in this House—we were recently debating another appointment—in any way cast aspersions on a devoted British citizen who is giving of his advice freely, and I can say personally that we are finding it extremely helpful. With regard to INMOS, I think that in previous debates on the Bill I have said all that I can possibly say.
I believe that the Government, and indeed the NEB, would have been irresponsible not to allow certain negotiations to take place; irresponsible on behalf of the taxpayer, and more than conceivably irresponsible in terms of the development of British technology. I have said previously that we realise the need to make up our mind as soon as possible, and that we shall do. It is not really a question of making up our mind; it is a question of giving time for these negotiations to reach any conclusion not previously considered.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. My noble friend and I may have been guilty at previous stages of not explaining very clearly what we thought—and still think—is the answer to the noble Lord's point. Aid takes various forms, as the noble Lord, with his great interest in overseas matters, knows much better than I do; and aid overlaps with trade to greater or lesser degrees in the various categories on which it would be wrong for me to go into in detail on the Third Reading of the Bill. Requests for aid, the possibility of aid being given, and the possibility of the use of the aid trade contingency fund, will all arise in many ways as a result of both Government and official contacts, and as a result of the Overseas Development Administration. Here let me say that I am assured that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was of course fully consulted on the terms of the Bill.
As I understand it, there is nothing to stop any of those who have the best purview of the needs for, and possible advantages of, aid, calling on the NEB or agency subsidiaries to suggest that they should investigate certain projects. There is nothing to stop those subsidiaries from

1073
applying under any schemes that exist. We are trying all the time to concentrate the functions of the NEB and the agencies, and we are trying to remove the extra function of looking at an area about which they cannot know very much, and thus using their powers to divert activity overseas.
If the knowhow is spotted, or wanted, there are many methods by which it can be used. The judgment as to whether it should be used will of course depend upon the position of the subsidiary and the advice that the NEB gives it in terms of its priorities, situation, and overall position. If those responsible for aid believe that this would be very valuable, then there are methods by which it could be made more worthwhile for a particular subsidiary.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question in general, and I should certainly be prepared to follow up the matter with him, but for the moment I wish to assure him that what I have mentioned does not prohibit the use of knowhow that may be in the hands of a particular subsidiary. However, we do not want the NEB and the agencies actively considering more than the full range of functions—which in our view is still large—which we have left them under the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE (SAFETY) REGULATIONS 1980
5.25 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations 1980, to be made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, be approved. The proposal to make these regulations is prompted by the realisation that statutory intervention is necessary to reduce the fire risk presented by much of the modern upholstered furniture on sale to the public, about which for some time past there has been considerable concern. This concern has arisen primarily on account of the use of polyurethane foam as a filling material, although fire hazards are by no means confined to furniture containing polyurethane foam,
1074
and neither, therefore, is the scope of the proposed regulations.
Most of the upholstered furniture currently on sale is easily ignitable by a small source, such as the flame of a cigarette lighter or a match. Quite a lot of it can be induced to smoulder by a lighted cigarette and then to catch fire. Once flaming ignition occurs, the ensuing combustion of the furniture can present quite considerable hazards, and this is especially so if it contains polyurethane foam. At present about 90 per cent. of upholstered furniture does so. Once the furniture is alight, it can burn rapidly and fiercely, producing considerable heat and large quantitites of dense smoke and irritant toxic gases. As a result, occupants can be more quickly overcome than previously, and escape times have been drastically reduced—to as little as one or two minutes in some special cases. But for the speed and efficiency of the fire brigades, now often obliged to use breathing apparatus when dealing with fires in dwellings, the casualty figures would undoubtedly be susbtantially greater than they are.
The number of fires in which upholstered furniture is first ignited has not, in fact, increased in the United Kingdom in recent years, but has remained steady, averaging about 2,200 a year. This is no doubt mainly due to the fact that the widely used combination of synthetic fabrics over polyurethane foam is not prone to ignition by cigarettes. However, deaths in such fires have increased threefold from 30 or so a year in the early 1960s to around 90 a year, and over the same period non-fatal injuries have more than doubled from around 170 a year to an annual total approaching 400. Furthermore, in 1976, the last year for which complete figures are available, while upholstered furniture was the first item ignited in only 4 per cent. of all fires in dwellings in that year, such fires accounted for 13 per cent. of all deaths and 10 per cent. of all casualties.
In a report entitled Fire Risks of New Materials by a committee of the Central Fire Brigades' Advisory Councils, published in November 1978, the view was expressed that changes in fire and toxicity hazards now constitute a serious problem and that it is likely, in mere terms of volume, that upholstered furniture has

1075
the largest single potential for contribution to these hazards. One of the committee's recommendations was that,"
"regulatory authorities should ensure that materials, or formulations of materials, are not used or sold for certain purposes when their fire behaviour makes them unacceptable, according to the appropriate test method, for those purposes".
It is against that background that Her Majesty's Government are introducing these safety regulations which represent a first step in dealing with this problem.
The proposed regulations will apply to all upholstered seating furniture designed or suitable for domestic use, subject to the exclusions set out in Regulation 3. The exempted categories include secondhand furniture, furniture intended for use wholly or mainly as a bed, furniture for use out of doors or intended for export, music stools, small furniture with no back or arms—and here we take the examples of stools and pouffes—and upholstered furniture which might be described as "bespoke" furniture, of which the covering material is specified by the customer in the particular circumstances described in the regulations. The regulations will not apply to furniture which is re-upholstered on behalf of the owner because, clearly, no supply of furniture takes place in these circumstances.
Furniture first supplied in the United Kingdom on or after 1st October 1980, and also furniture previously supplied to own-brand dealers, will be required, whenever it is supplied or offered for supply in the course of a business, to comply with the requirements prescribed in Regulation 4 relating to warning labelling if it does not satisfy the tests for resistance to ignition by smouldering cigarettes and by a simulated match flame which are set out in British Standard 5852, Part 1, as modified by Schedule 1 to the regulations. From 31st December 1982, Regulation 5(1) will prohibit manufacturers, importers and own-brand dealers from supplying or from offering to supply furniture which does not satsify the smouldering cigarette test.
Each item of furniture required to bear warnings will be required by Regulation 4 to bear two labels. One is a display label which must be fully visible at all times when the furniture is exposed for supply
1076
by retail sale, and the other label is a permanent and durable label which can be on the base of the furniture or become visible when a detachable cushion is removed; or, indeed, it can be on the cushion. The purpose of the display label, of course, is to make consumers aware, when they are selecting or choosing new furniture, that the pieces bearing the label are ignitable by cigarettes or matches, or possibly by both. If, nevertheless, they buy such furniture, the permanent label which they will see from time to time will act as a reminder of the need to ensure that care is taken with smokers' materials. Regulation 4 specifies the wording required on the labels and also describes the hazard symbols required on one side of the display label. The labels are very neatly illustrated in Schedule 2 to the regulations, and perhaps your Lordships might care to glance at the illustration.
Full and careful consideration has been given to all of the many views expressed by the 150 or more interested bodies consulted by the Department of Trade about the content of the proposed regulations. The initial proposals, as set out in the consultation document which was sent out by that department on 1st June last year, would have required all upholstered furniture to be resistant to ignition by both cigarettes and matches after an initial limited period during which warning labelling would have been a permissible alternative. However, consultations have shown that mandatory compliance with the match standard would have created considerable difficulties throughout the furniture industry, as, among other things, time is needed to develop an adequate range of upholstery materials capable of satisfying this standard. Furthermore, there is little doubt that, of the fires attributed to the ignition of upholstered furniture by smokers' materials, most are caused by cigarettes rather than by matches.
The conclusion has therefore been reached that the open flame test, which is the match equivalent test, should not, in these initial regulations, be made mandatory, and that labelling of furniture which does not pass this test should continue, without any time limit, to be an acceptable way of complying with the regulations. It will thus continue to be possible for the time being to use most of the existing upholstery fabrics, parti-

1077
cularly those made from synthetic or man-made fibres, without any changes being made either to the fabrics or the furniture, since the majority of them in their present form pass the cigarette test. There are some who are of the opinion that there should be a similar concession in regard to the cigarette ignition test, but after a great deal of thought about all aspects of the matter it has been decided that this simply cannot be justified. It will be necessary, therefore, in order to meet the requirements relating to resistance to ignition by cigarettes, for furniture covered by cellulosic fabrics such as cotton and viscose rayon to be suitably modified—for example, by having the fabric treated by a durable fire-retardant process where this is effective or by varying its fibre content—but it seems entirely reasonable and desirable for this comparatively small step to be taken in order to achieve a reduction in the considerable potential hazard presented by modern furniture, which, as I have indicated, leads to a number of fatal and, indeed, non-fatal casualties in fires each year.
It is realised that where some modification of upholstered furniture is necessary in the case of furniture which will otherwise fail the cigarette test, this may lead to some increase in price. Various methods of modifying such furniture are available. Some of these, such as the treatment or what is called back-coating of the covering material, can add 4 per cent. to 7 per cent. to the cost of an average-priced suite, but other methods are available which result in virtually no increase in cost. Moreover, only about 20 per cent. of upholstered furniture will need any modification in order to satisfy the cigarette test. Whether or not furniture should be modified where necessary to pass the simulated match flame test, or alternatively bear the prescribed warning labels, will be at the discretion of the manufacturer or importer concerned.
Many who are opposing the proposed regulations have argued strongly in favour of freedom of choice for consumers. The Government, too, believe that consumers should have freedom to choose what they buy, but we cannot accept that this justifies the continued marketing of products which, as in the case of much modern furniture, present a very considerable and relatively easily reduced fire hazard. I
1078
accordingly ask your Lordships to approve the draft Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations which are before the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
5.37 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first of all, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his very clear explanation, particularly in the earlier stages of his speech. I welcome the order as far as it goes, but it is not far enough. In my view, the order is too modest by far. The danger from smouldering cigarettes on foam-filled furniture is slight compared with the danger of the deadly gas given off by such furniture in a fire such as took place at Woolworth's, Manchester, some 12 months ago. The causes of fires are varied. Apart from careless use of lighted cigarettes, electrical faults, lighted matches, and sparks from fire grates are some examples. I doubt whether a warning against careless use of lighted cigarettes in itself is sufficient. What is needed, my Lords, is adequate fireproofing of covering material and the banning of the use of polyurethane, and reversion to the use of flock felt. This latter, I admit, would have unfavourable repercussions on furniture prices, and may therefore not be practical. It would certainly be un economic.
Although the order calls for warning labels stressing the danger of lighted cigarettes effective as from October, it will not be illegal for manufacturers to supply furniture which does not pass the smouldering cigarette test until 31st December 1982. I would ask the noble Lord: Would it not be possible for this to be speeded up? Special security measures are needed to ensure that stocks of foam-filled furniture are held in adequately fireproofed areas in warehouses and shops. This is in addition to the order. I have some information that the Home Office unit responsible, a working party, is in fact looking into this; but this, again, is a very urgent matter.
Bearing in mind the fact that foam-filled furniture is now in use in many thousands of homes, would it be possible for advice to be issued on the fireproofing of the covering material of such furniture?

1079
Alternatively, could the manufacturers be persuaded, through a publicity campaign, to make available supplies of fireproof coverings to replace existing covers so that people who have some foam-filled furniture—and I happen to be one of them—will be able to take some steps towards ensuring a greater degree of safety? We are dealing here not only with a modest order on the supply of furniture but with a hidden danger that exists already in our homes. I do not want to overstress the subject, but that is a fact.
Now that the Government have taken some modest action, for which I praise them, perhaps they will take immediate steps to go further into this important matter which is already receiving publicity, and welcome publicity at that. But this publicity, in turn, gives a great deal of anxiety and worry to many people about their comfortable furniture which they thought was very safe but which they now know constitutes a deadly hazard.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, I have already given notice that I was going to ask for certain information. I know nothing about furniture except that I sit on chairs and sofas, but I am told that those in the industry do not consider at this stage that the order is in any way adequate. They claim that it is the chemical which is sprayed over the foam which causes the dangerous fumes; that this is the danger and not the flammability of the furniture itself. I wonder whether the noble Lord in his reply would deal with this.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I hope that I am allowed to intervene for a moment. Many of my friends who are doctors and who know about these things have told me time and again that when people die in a fire, it is not the actual fire which kills them but the deadly, poisonous fumes. This is particularly so with children and with old people; and, after all, there have been many fires in old people's homes. These people have died from these poisonous fumes. I did not know about this at all until I heard that the danger was in this horrible poisonous filling. It seems to me that until we have laws which will prohibit the use of these fillings in our soft furnishings,
1080
there is not much hope of great improvement.
5.43 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for what he had to say about the regulations and for his kind words about my presentation of what I think the House will agree is quite a complicated chemical subject. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, believes that the measures laid out in the regulations are a trifle modest, but I hope he will not think that the Government are standing still in any way or that the Home Office are standing still at all. I stressed that these regulations represent a first step in dealing with this whole problem of fire in the home—and particularly where it is concerned with soft furnishings.
The point that I should like to make—and I hope it will go some way towards assisting the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—is that I understand that there are some recommedations in a Home Office report which is taking this problem of fire in three stages. Research has been done to improve what is known as the "fire performance"—but I think we should call it resistance to fire—of upholstered furniture. Both the manufacturers and the research organisations are giving top priority (as represented by the regulations that I have attempted to set out to your Lordships) to reducing combustibility or ignition from cigarettes or matches. That is the first priority; to prevent fire from breaking out. The next priority—which we take very seriously and regard as very important—is to reduce the rate of development of a fire once a fire is started (be it by match, by flame or, more commonly, cigarettes) so that the combustion does not expand. With this priority we are looking to reduce the rate of production of smoke and toxic products. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to smoke and fumes. I understand that the most dangerous fumes—and the cause of death in these fires in dwellings which are attributable to upholstery—are those containing carbon monoxide. I am given to understand that flock and other forms of filling have nearly as high a combustibility as some of the more modern foams

1081
and that cotton waste and some forms of horsehair have a certain tendency to catch fire if the first stage is passed. But, at the second stage, we note that the danger from fumes and carbon monoxide which can cause death or severe injury is much greater with some of the modern forms of foam. I would stress that latex, which has been in use for 30 or 40 years, has been seen to give off serious carbon monoxide fumes and other fumes like bromine. I will not go into that; your Lordships will appreciate that this can be dealt with by the specialist agencies. I am not a scientist, as your Lordships will appreciate.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked why the regulations could not be speeded up. I will attempt to answer at this stage by saying that we should like to consult further over what can be done, but we believe that a two-year gap is as much as we can expect from the trade in supplying new furniture. However, I take the noble Lord's point. We will look at what he has said, and if we can do anything further we will write to him. I am afraid that I am not able to go deeper into the chemical toxicity matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. We shall study his comments and, if I have not given adequate replies, then we shall study the chemical formulae and the illustrations in the regulations and try to put his mind at rest. I hope that that has covered most of the points.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord did not reply to my suggestion about supplies of fire proof loose coverings—I think that is the technical expression used by the housewives—for furniture already in the possession of people in their homes.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I suggest that this is a matter which the department can consider. I suspect that it might require considerable discussion with the manufacturers and the research organisations. I understand that this is part of a great parcel of subjects being discussed with the organisations. Perhaps I can make a note of the noble Lord's particular query as to loose covers and fireproofing them and reply to him later. I hope that will be suitable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ST. CATHERINE'S HOUSE: PUBLIC SEARCH ROOM
5.50 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to alleviate the congestion in the public search room at the General Register Office in St. Catherine's House. The noble Lord said: As is customary, my Lords, when the occasion demands, I declare an interest: I earn my living largely as a genealogist and record agent and thus am a frequent visitor to St. Catherine's House. There have been times over the past 10 years when I have spoken on matters relating to registers, records and archives of one sort or another. I had hoped that this time correspondence or the odd word here and there would have meted out now; but here I am back on my feet once again.
First, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have stayed to listen and those who are speaking, in particular to my noble friend who I know has taken so much trouble in preparing the Answer to this Unstarred Question, which is about extremely uncomfortable conditions in the search room at the General Register Office in St. Catherine's House. I will first outline the background and recent events that have caused this great congestion; secondly. I shall try to explain why it has happened. Thirdly, I am going to ask for something to be done.
I am sure that your Lordships will need no telling that the general registration of births, marriages and deaths began on 1st July 1837. The office of the Registrar-General was set up in the part of Somerset House situated by the Strand. As time went on, there were two search rooms. On the east side of the entrance were the indexes of births; on the west the indexes of marriages and deaths. The search rooms had galleries with shelving going round the walls and counters. The offices of the Registrar-General and his staff occupied some fine rooms, well-apportioned with very decorative ceilings.
The status quo remained for the rest of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century until about 1970, when there was a campaign, which was started mainly by the Evening Standard, to free this part of Somerset House for art exhibitions. In particular at that time it was thought that

1083
there was going to be a permanent theatrical exhibition—which was later abandoned—instead of the rooms being used just as offices by civil servants. That disregarded the fact that they had been there for some 140 years.
The Government at that time were sympathetic and moved the offices of the Registrar-General, or, as it has now become, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, to nearby St. Catherine's House on the corner of Aldwych and Kingsway (formerly Television House) which is a large and very expensive building. I am not going to pretend that these two search rooms did not become very crowded at times. However, only the people who wanted to search went up in the galleries. Others, such as children, stayed downstairs. Also, I must admit that, with others, I fought very hard for the public search room of this office to be retained in London when it was mooted that the department would be dispersed to Southport.
Before I leave the first part of my mild oration on the history, I shall reiterate a fact that is well known to your Lordships. I am sure people from all over the English-speaking world knew that either their or their forebears' birth certificates were lodged at Somerset House, and many thought—mistakenly—their pedigrees as well. The connotation "Somerset House" sounded very suitable, and those who looked further saw photographs of this splendid building. If they read the history of it they became more and more intrigued. With secular buildings such as Buckingham Palace and possibly the Palace of Westminster, Somerset House almost spelt out "England".
I must move away from this theme and identify the groups of users and explain the development of the congestion, if that is a way to explain it. The public who visit this search room are split basically into two groups: the first being those who wish to purchase their own birth and marriage certificates for one purpose or another, and those who wish to see the death certificates of their immediate forebears. These people may wish to send their legal representatives or agents. By and large, the group that I have described remained the same in number; and, without my tongue in my cheek,
1084
that is principally what the public search room is for, and the Government's responsibility. One cannot forget when talking about the people using this, that the Salvation Army undertake tracing missing relatives or missing husbands and do so much good work.
The other group comprises social historians, demographers, medical historians and epidemiologists, economic historians and, finally, family historians and genealogists. It is the last-named group of people whose interest has mainly caused this explosion.
The number of people who wished to trace their family history or find out where they came from has been growing steadily for a number of years; but this has accelerated in the past five or so years and especially recently, for one reason or another. One is because of the media: namely, a television programme called "Roots"; and, more recently, a programme by Mr. Gordon Honeycombe on BBC2 which has been repeated on television. This programme has created a great deal of correspondence, and many viewers watched it. When he was televised at St. Catherine's House the room was entirely empty. I felt that somebody had slipped up there because it gave a very false impression.
One cannot put the blame—if "blame" is the right word—on the media for the reasons why genealogy has understandably become so popular. There have been special projects in schools and further education classes. There are now organised family history societies from all over the country who do much to further the subject, in addition to more established societies, such as the Society of Genealogists and the College of Arms.
The interest has exploded not only here but all over the English-speaking world. Here I can say one has absolutely no blame on any Government or any Government department, in particular the General Register Office. The latter, I know, has been very concerned with the present situation, and the staff there has been working under extreme pressure, always with a smile on their faces. I do not know how they manage it. The public search room is open on Mondays to Fridays from 8.30 to 4.30. There used to be times when one could recommend

1085
people to come when it was quieter. However, now it is permanently like, say, Sainsbury's on a Saturday or Piccadilly Circus, or something like that.
At times the number of people who come to these search rooms is quite frightening, especially in school holidays and at half term. The last school half term was in February, and, apart from an alarm, for the first time in the office's history the doors had to be closed because of this congestion. It was from that date that I felt one must do something about the matter. Also in that week, on the Wednesday, I walked in the public search room at a quarter to nine. I was told that there were 78 people who had been queueing to come in from half past eight. They consisted largely of a coach party from Middlesbrough who had left that city at midnight the night before and had arrived in London at six. Some of them were far from young. Their stamina must be commended. It shows how tough people are in the North of England. They were still "going at it" at four o'clock in the afternoon!
I first wrote all this to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, because the suggestion was put forward to me about asking for the old search room at Somerset House, the search room, to be used on a temporary basis. I say "temporary" because to my certain knowledge this room is very little used since the Registrar-General left it in 1974. It still has the galleries, the shelving and the counter. In fact, one could go back in there and forget that one had ever left it. On a more permanent basis, I had the assurance that the transfer of hundred year old registers from the General Register Office to the Public Record Office could occur.
Your Lordships will recall that I have presented a Bill to enact just that on two occasions, but for economic reasons both attempts failed. But I have been told that, if this could be a revenue-producing function, it would be viable. But until I get a green light from the department concerned, I shall not pursue or reintroduce. The idea has been accepted in principle, and I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given me some assurance that he will try to see how this Bill might get through. My noble friend Lord Mowbray kindly explained to me by
1086
letter that the room in Somerset House I had asked for could not be used because it was being used as a store for works of art. I shall not press it, but I think it is quite appalling that such excellent rooms—and I would stress to your Lordships that I am not against the arts lobby at all because they do some wonderful work—right in the centre of London have been used so little in recent years.
Finally, I hope I have substantiated my argument and that my noble friend will be able to give me some heartening news. Action is promptly required from the Property Services Agency. On a happier note, I gather that the long-awaited air conditioning is now well in hand. Not to put too fine a point on it, the air is usually distinctly foetid. Also, I would say that family history is not just a hobby for dilettantes, but it is a subject which contributes greatly to the nation's invisible exports by bringing many thousands of visitors from overseas to this country every year solely for the purpose of visiting the places where their ancestors came from and also to trace them. They do not all do their research at St. Catherine's House, but it is the starting point for many of them. They, and those of us who regularly use St. Catherine's House, as well as the Registrar-General and his staff (so many of whom I have got to know personally over the years) deserve something better and urgently need more space.
6.2 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I consider myself singularly fortunate in having, somewhat recklessly and casually, put down my name to speak because I was going to St. Catherine's House at that moment and, by so doing, I have heard the very excellent and admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I have heard his account of the correspondence, which I did not know. I am really in the position perhaps of Burke's celebrated fellow candidate at Bristol whose speeches were limited to saying:
"I say 'ditto' to Mr. Burke".
So far as I am concerned, I say "ditto" to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I wish that my saying so could carry even additional conviction.
I am not quite to be numbered among the classes detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. On a previous occasion,

1087
I remember some years ago talking rather more widely about the provision of various accommodations for research, because in the course of writing and of historic studies I have had occasion to use various services in France, Switzerland and else-where. At the time when I became a Member of this House, I was completing two long biographies of Frenchmen which are not likely to bring in any money and which have involved my wandering round libraries and registries, checking dates and so on in various places. Of course, in Paris the number of organisations is really remarkable. Incidentally, in the Biblioteque Nationale, which is Mazarin's old library brought up to date, there is a very remarkable service. There is also a very elaborate laboratory service, newspapers, and so on. One does the research very largely on the same premises, using some of the specialist libraries for assistance.
I went there to try to rectify a piece of filial neglect. I had been rather casual about my family, not knowing much about the Hales, except my immediate family and I was confronted with a letter from Burke's Peerage saying that I had failed to inform them of certain dates they wished to publish and among them was the date of marriage of my parents. As I did not know that, I had to take the necessary steps to find out. When I recall that my father was a man of very great integrity and when I think of all that I owe to him, my own casual attitude to the questions we have been discussing earlier today seems quite scandalous; so that I had to go along and check up and give them the dates concerned.
My daughter went over on the day that the noble Lord put down his Question and I found the certificate of the marriage. My father was a very devoted member of the Church of England and he was married when he was 28 years of age at the parish church of Oldbury, with banns and so on. I hope I have now corrected a piece of neglect. Having seen the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I went again during this week and, having to inquire about something, I tried to find my grandparents' date of marriage. However, that was altogether too big a problem to solve in such a short time. It required a great deal of research; and the handling of books has to be done standing, which is not a performance for a man of nearly 80.
1088
But as my father's first name was Benjamin, I did find that I could get his birth certificate from the very first book to which I referred, and I have applied for that certificate.
I agree with every word the noble Lord said. I know it has not really been necessary for me to interpose, but I felt it might be still more courteous, having informed the noble Lord that I would be taking part, to come here. The Hales are an obscure family; rather a small family, but in many ways a united family. They spread to America in profusion and provided national heroes, national scientists and national novelists. I think the Minister may have some important things to say to us. I emphasise particularly the absolute necessity for air conditioning, and I hope that the advice which has been given by the noble Lord to the Minister will be successful.
I would add only a single sentence more: the several members of the staff to whom I spoke could not have been more helpful, more courteous, more good-natured or forbearing, when one thinks of the vast number of people who are needing information from them from morning until night.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Teviot on once again raising this important subject. His persistence in raising this matter of proper facilities for searching the Registrar-General's indexes of births, marriages and deaths has continued over a number of years, and has included one piece of legislation from which he might have some reward. I should also like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who found the importance of researching into one's family history.
Two distinct functions are performed by this search room. First, people have to go there because official and private demands for proof of birth, marriage or death cause them to need certificates. Others now attend because they want to trace their ancestors. I agree with my noble friend that the television and press media have made more pronounced this demand from people who want to find out about their ancestry. Therefore, more and more people are involved because of

1089
that kind of advertising. I would say that this activity is laudable, but not essential to the lives of the people concerned; but it is this area which has grown enormously.
On my noble friend's kind advice, I visited the search room yesterday to see for myself the conditions under which the staff and visitors worked. Having seen the conditions for myself, I should like to congratulate and pay tribute to the staff who, under pretty foul conditions, worked very hard to please everybody going in to do research. 1, too, have every sympathy for the staff and the visitors in the conditions under which they work, and I should say that by the end of the day, especially in hot weather, those conditions become particularly oppressive, because of the lack of air. There is nothing worse than working in an office or a factory which has stagnant, heavy air. The more you work, the less energy you can produce for yourself from that air. So the conditions are not at all pleasant.
I looked into the question whether, under pressure, the building might become unhygienic or unclean, but at the time I went in, which was about 11.30 a.m., I found it particularly clean. Even with all those people going through, it looked very tidy and the books were all in order. All in all, I could find no fault at all there. But I concede that, with many people in there, it would be surprising if the room did not get untidy in the afternoon.
My noble friend quoted some figures, and I thought that before I rose at the Dispatch Box I would find out how many people were there yesterday. At about 11.30, there were already 140 people going through, and the staff—who very kindly offered their services for whatever I wanted—told me that by 3.30 there would probably be 180. It is not a very big room and, with the racks of books and the desks, it was becoming quite full with 140 people in it, excluding the staff.
On previous experience, more than 200 people would be in at lunchtime and, as my noble friend said, on one day the doors had to be closed at lunchtime. On that occasion there were 200 people who were out for a day's holiday by coach. They flooded the area and nobody could move or breathe, but still the staff continued to work under such conditions.
1090
Yesterday I took note of the temperature, and at about 11.30 it was 78 degrees outside. But it is because the air is so static that it is an extremely uncomfortable atmosphere to work in. The room is deep and lacks natural ventilation; more and more people want to look at the indexes and, because of an accident of history, the Registrar-General is compelled to store more and more indexes there.
My answer tonight is in three parts. It covers what we are doing, what we cannot do, and what we would like to do if we could afford it. Your Lordships know that we have the problem of finding the money in these difficult times. My noble friend asked me about the Property Services Agency. That has, for a long time, been looking into the physical problems of the existing search room. It concluded, after trying palliatives, that air conditioning was the only answer to making life more bearable and more comfortable for those working there. After a number of alarms and excursions, the work has now started.
Although there is little evidence of it at the moment—all I saw was one hole in the ceiling—that does not mean that a lot of work is not going on behind the scenes. There has been difficulty in finding where to put the pipes for the new ventilation system. So that work has started, and I gathered from the engineer in charge that there is a great deal of activity on the roof and in the basement, while this pipework is being put in place. The plant itself will be delivered in June and the work should finish in September. But in such a confined space, it is impossible to go any faster without unacceptable disruption. Work in the search room itself has to be carried on outside working hours and at weekends. This work will improve conditions for those who use the search room, including the Registrar-General's staff. We have decided to do this work, despite current public expenditure constraints, because the conditions are so intolerable. My noble friend has made a plea that the Registrar-General should be allowed, on a temporary basis, to move back into a search room in the north block of Somerset House which contains the Fine Rooms.
I hope that my noble friend will not be too disappointed in the next part of

1091
my speech. Your Lordships will recall that a previous government decided firmly that the north block should not be used for office purposes. That is why the Registrar-General went to St. Catherine's House in 1973. Since then, a number of exhibitions have been held, and later this year the Royal Academy is expected to mount an exhibition to mark the bicentenary of the first summer exhibition. A valuable collection will be on display. The Department of the Environment has looked carefully at the possibility of the Registrar-General and the exhibitions "cohabiting", but there are severe practical difficulties.
The west search room has to be used for a cloak-room during exhibitions because the east staircase is undergoing extensive repairs and the public cannot go up it. The east search room is used for unpacking and packing exhibits because the only lift is on that side of the building. It would be impractical to unpack in the west search room and carry exhibits across the only road access to Somerset House and through an east search room, full of people, to the lift. Nor is it practical to store packaging in a room used also as a cloakroom. But the major objection is one of security. These exhibits are each worth many thousands of pounds. The summer exhibits might be worth something in the region of £25 million. We could not risk taking these works of art to a building to which any member of the public has access. I am not including my noble friend; I know that he has access to it at any time.
Even if we did agree, we would be going back on what I thought was a firm desire of Members on all sides of this House, and in the other place, that these rooms should be used for the purposes for which they were intended. There are now firm possibilities that the suite might be used for a permanent exhibition. Desirable though genealogy is, I do not think that it should stand in the way, even temporarily, of the opening of these unique rooms to the public. It is a matter of balancing one objective against another.
I come to what I regard as the proper solution. My noble friend has reminded us of the legislation that he proposed, the
1092
effect of which would have been a transfer of records one hundred or more years old to the Public Records Office. Our practical reaction to this would be to move the old records to a vacant building adjacent to the present Public Record Office at Kew. The public would be able then to consult the indexes and to examine on microfilm the actual records, which they cannot do at present.
Some might suggest that a solution be found in Central London, but it would be inordinately expensive to extend the current search room or to find alternative premises in the capital, especially when there is an easier solution on the existing Government estate. Unfortunately, this solution is not without cost. I am advised that a certain amount of floor strengthening work in the building would be necessary, and microfilm readers would need to be purchased. The resources for this purpose, if the records were transferred to the Public Record Office, would have to be found by the departments concerned, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained during the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill on 3rd July 1979. But discussions are continuing on how this money might be found.
May I end, perhaps not having given a great deal of hope to my noble friend and to the wonderful staff in the General Register Office, by asking my noble friend to bear with us just a little longer. We agree with him that St. Catherine's House ought to be relieved. It is too small. It is attracting a greater number of people every day. We do not think that short term measures are the answer. In particular, we do not think it would be right to use the Somerset House search rooms for this purpose. We will pursue our discussions about financing a scheme at Kew as quickly as possible, remembering that the idea is to take the last one hundred years of records, from 1837 or thereabouts up to about 1937, out of the present conditions and house them at Kew. If that were to be possible, then I am sure that it would be easier to work in the existing premises. We will actively look at other possibilities, but I have to tell my noble friend that at the moment I cannot promise a great deal.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I think he men

1093
tioned a period from 1837 to 1937. If we are talking about 100 years of records, up to this year, then I think the relevant year would be 1880.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I would not argue with my noble friend. He is a greater expert on this than I am.