Lords Sitting of 28 January 1983

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

Guatemala: US Arms Sales
Lord Molloy: 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 representations have been, or will be, made to President Reagan concerning the sale of US military material to Guatemala.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have, on a number of occasions, expressed their concern to the United States Government over the supply of military equipment to Guatemala.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a most encouraging reply and I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will pursue even more strongly the making of these representations?—because President Reagan's resumption of the sale of arms to Guatemala constitutes a threat to Belize, and has been condemned by many of his own Congressmen, by human rights observers and is giving cause for grave concern to many people in our own country.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned Belize. The United States Government are aware of our concern over the implications for the garrison in Belize, and Her Majesty's Government are keeping in close touch with the Americans over this issue.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the Minister's reply is most important and reassuring, in view of the particular responsibilities that we have in that area. Can he say anything about the general policy of liaison between the United Kingdom and the United States on matters of common concern, especially on this aspect?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government understand that United States Government policy on the general question of military supplies to Guatemala is still under consideration.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in the event of an assault by Guatemala on Belize, could we be certain of United States support, as, in fact, we were when they supported us during the Falklands campaign?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, concerning such an occurrence, the British Government have agreed to consult with the Governments of the Bahamas, Barbados, Canada, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in order to consider what measures should be taken, in the event of an attack, or the threat of such an attack, on Belize, as the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government asked the United States to link their arms' deliveries to Guatemala to an undertaking by Guatemala to abandon its wrongful claim for sovereignty over part of Belize?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that I can add to what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, which is that Her Majesty's Government remain in close touch with the Americans on this issue.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend Lord Molloy on the encouraging nature of that reply, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether the Government consider that there is any moral difference between the American Government supplying arms to Guatemala and the British Government allowing their banks to lend to the Argentine money which, as the Prime Minister admitted yesterday, can be used to purchase arms which could be a danger to British forces?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that moral questions in general and the noble Lord's question in particular fall well outside the scope of the present Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1977 the United States struck Guatemala off its list for receiving armaments and that, therefore, they should do it again? Is he further aware that the American Anthropological Society, in a recent report to its own Government, reported on genocidal action in Guatemala? If such a regime should carry on like that with its own people, what price the people for whom we have responsibility in Belize? Therefore, will the Government please maintain the strongest possible pressure to stop American military aid going to Guatemala?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that I can add to what I have already said in reply to the noble Lord's questions. The only thing I would add on this final question is that we see the way forward as being by bilateral discussions between Guatemala and Belize, and we have endeavoured to use our good offices to this end. Indeed, we participated in the sense that we were present when such talks took place as recently as 24th January, and we also participated in the sense that we had bilateral discussions on that occasion with Guatemala.

Memorandum of Understanding: Ejection Seats
11.11 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 action they intend to take following the apparent breach in the Memorandum of Understanding designed to foster free and open trading between the US Government and Her Majesty's Government over the ejection seat issue in the F18 and T45 military projects.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has expressed his concern by letter to the United States Government, and will discuss the matter further when he visits the United States at the end of next month. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence is in close touch with Martin Baker, the company concerned, about the situation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that eminently satisfactory reply, further, will he confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the action of Congress in this respect puts the United States Government in clear breach of the Memorandum of Understanding of 1976? Will my noble friend also confirm that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, they are singularly unwise to do this, in view of the fact that we in this country purchase far more American military equipment than they purchase from us?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly believe that it is against the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding. As regards the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, at present the balance of trade is a little under two to one in favour of the United States. This compares with over four to one in favour of the United States when the memorandum was signed in 1975, and is a tribute to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom defence industry. Moreover, the full effect of significant United Kingdom orders, such as those for Hawk, AV8B and Rapier, has still to be felt.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many lives have been saved by the Martin Baker ejection seat?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, to date 4,988 lives have been saved by Martin Baker seats.

Falkland Islands Maps
11.13 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
468
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that answers given by Lord Skelmersdale on 1st December (col.. 1236) were inaccurate in that maps of the Falkland Islands were on sale in London before and during the Argentine invasion and that these maps were marked, "Published by the Government of the United Kingdom and printed for the D.O.S. by the Ordnance Survey" and were based on surveys by Royal Navy helicopters and by HMS "Endurance" and were not tourist maps.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government regard this as a serious and unwarranted charge. Had I been inaccurate in my answers I would have followed the time-honoured precedent of making a personal statement to the House. In short, my Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is, No.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not gravely mistaken in this matter? Should he not reconsider his Answer? Is he aware that I have here detailed cartographical information upon which the invasion was based? Is he aware that the Argentines could not have carried out the invasion without the material provided to them from Government sources? Will he not look again at his answers, which suggested that all that was available to them was tourist maps? Is it not the case that he would do himself greater credit if he were to admit that he made a mistake?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on 1st December last I understood that the noble Lord's original Question was fuelled by a report by one of the Members of another place who had visited the Falklands late last summer under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, claiming that a large number of British maps of the Falklands were left behind by the Argentines. The maps referred to by the Member in question have since been identified. It is a small map of the kind used to illustrate booklets—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I see sitting on the Front Bench opposite, will excuse me when I tell him and the House that the map in question is bound into his report, which I obtained from the Library this morning—or, alternatively, which tourists might purchase as a souvenir. Two thousand copies of it were sent to the Falkland Islands Government secretariat in June, 1978. It is possible that the Argentines found some there after the invasion.
As I obviously failed to make clear, large-scale maps of British origin were captured from the Argentine military during the repossession of the islands, but those maps, although clearly taken from a British original, had been reprinted in Argentina. I made the point at the time that this was in breach of copyright. It now transpires that these maps were withdrawn from sale on 5th April last, three days after the invasion, a fact I did not know on 1st December.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the purpose of asking Questions in your Lordships' House is to elicit information, and that he could have saved himself quite a lot of trouble, and indeed showing some rather unjustified indignation, if he had simply pointed out that these maps to which my noble friend referred were not, strictly speaking, ordnance survey maps? They are the maps of which

469
I have had copies. They are the big 1/50,000 maps, and they have been readily available. They were produced by the Directorate of Overseas Surveys, which has normally worked closely with the Ordnance Survey, and the Ordnance Survey have printed their maps. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord tried to lead the House off on this red herring about tourist maps. I do not know what he means by tourist maps.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept that this was a most unfortunate incident from which neither I nor, I do not think, anybody else on 1st December can claim any credit whatsoever. But, on mature reflection—and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has given me plenty of time, nearly two months, for mature reflection—I think that the worst charge I can face is that my answers on that occasion were unclear.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, surely Admiralty charts are available to anyone in the world for the safety of shipping?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but I still do not think that we are talking about Admiralty charts. We are talking about the land-based maps which were published, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, and as I said originally, by the Directorate of Overseas Surveys, and were printed by the Ordnance Survey.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are not ordnance survey maps and DOS maps freely available for purchase anywhere in the world unless an embargo has been placed upon them because of hostilities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand (but I am subject to correction on this) that the maps are available only in England and in the Falkland Islands. I do not think they are available anywhere in the world.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not think we want to spend much more time on this. The noble Lord might have a look at the 1/50,000 maps which were produced by Huntings. It all goes back to the work of the Falkland Islands Dependency survey. Whether or not they are generally on sale, there is no doubt that they are perfectly easy to get hold of. I have a couple of sets. I will let the noble Lord have one if he wants.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but I said that as far as I knew they were on sale only in this country and in the Falkland Islands. Whether, as I suspect my noble friend was suggesting, they could be bought in France or anywhere else, as I say, I doubt.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I will seek to place these maps in the Library so that noble Lords can see them and make up their own minds about them? Is he further aware that at long last we seem to have extracted something in the nature of an admission of error from him? Would it not have been rather better if he had done that in the first instance?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the normal course of events, if a noble Lord is unsatisfied with an Answer he gets from the Government, is to approach the Minister
470
concerned and have a talk with him. The Minister then frequently suggests a meeting with the officials who advised him in the first place. There is no doubt that I would have been perfectly happy on this or any other occasion to follow that procedure.

Canteens: Training Requirements
11.20 a.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the winding up of several industrial training boards, it is their intention to cease the practice of requiring companies to be subject to the requirements of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board for training of employees in industrial canteens.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (the Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, in November 1981 my right honourable friend announced in another place his decision to abolish 16 of the industry training boards. At the same time, he said he would review the position of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board early in 1983. We have, therefore, recently asked the Manpower Services Commission to carry out a review of training arrangements in all sectors currently in scope to the board.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, so far at it went, may I ask him to let his right honourable friend know that it would be wise if the practice of making people responsible to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board for their industrial canteens ceased because it has been ineffective in the past and has added unnecessarily to administrative arrangements, and that will be particularly so in the future?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I shall be happy to bring the attention of my right honourable friend to my noble friend's point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one must admit that the closing of industrial training centres is perfectly congruous to the Government's policy of ruining the British economy? Is he aware, however, that one day there might be another Government who will restore our economy? Therefore, should not some semblance of the industrial training boards and the centres be kept if only for that purpose; in other words, because we shall not be going downhill all the time and there will be a return to the need for industrial training boards for the benefit of the nation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Government are just as much concerned with good industrial training as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The point is whether these particular bodies are the most useful organisations to conduct such training.

Data Protection Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Data Protection Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clause 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 39.—(Lord Elton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Bill [H.L.]
11.23 a.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Vickers.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord AMPTHILL in the Chair.]
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Acquisition of British citizenship at commencement of 1981 Act or by birth or adoption.
—(1) A person shall at commencement become a British citizen if—

(a) That person becomes a British Dependent Territories citizen at commencement under section 23 of the 1981 Act (persons becoming British Dependent Territories citizens at commencement): and

(b) immediately before commencement either—

(i) that person was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had that citizenship by his birth, naturalisation or registration in the Falkland Islands: or

(ii) one of that person's parents, or a parent of one of that person's parents, was, or but for his death would have been, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who so had that citizenship: or

(iii) that person, being a woman, was, or had at any time been, the wife of a man who by virtue of subparagraph (i) or (ii) becomes a British citizen at commencement or would have done so but for his death.

(2) A person born in the Falkland Islands after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—

(a) a British citizen: or

(b) settled in the Falkland Islands.

(3) A new-born infant who, after commencement, is found abandoned in the Falkland Islands shall, unless the contrary is shown, be deemed for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) to have been born in the Falkland Islands after commencement; and

472

(b) to have been born to a parent who at the time of the birth was a British citizen or settled in the Falkland Islands.

(4) Where after commencement an order authorising the adoption of a minor who is not a British citizen is made by a court in the Falkland Islands, he shall be a British citizen as from the date on which the order is made if the adopter or, in the case of a joint adoption, one of the adopters is a British citizen on that date.
(5) Where an order in consequence of which any person became a British citizen by virtue of subsection (4) ceases to have effect, whether on annulment or otherwise, the cesser shall not affect the status of that person as a British citizen.")
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee will be aware, the majority of the Falkland Islanders are already British citizens. They acquired that status on 1st January under the British Nationality Act 1981 because of their close ancestral connections with the United Kingdom. But a small number of islanders, about 400, did not become British citizens. This was because they did not have the required connection through a parent or a grandparent born here. This minority of islanders became British Dependent Territories citizens on the strength of their connections with the Falklands. The aim of my Bill is to put them in the same position as their fellow islanders by conferring British citizenship on them.
The Committee will recall that, during the debate on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Elton kindly undertook to provide Government assistance with the drafting of amendments. I wish to thank him, and I understand that the following amendments are supported by the Government. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the amendments which stand in my name replace the original clauses with new ones. To that extent, your Lordships have before you what has all the appearance of a new Bill. It may be helpful, therefore, if I say something about the measure as a whole.
The changes are not great and are mainly for technical reasons. There has been no material change of intention. The Bill as amended would preserve in essence the intentions of my original Bill while ironing out as far as possible any departures from the scheme provided by the British Nationality Act 1981. The amended Bill seeks to provide as nearly as practicable that the Falkland Islanders will be in the same position as regards citizenship as if their connections with the Falklands had been with the United Kingdom.
The Bill provides that a person who became a British Dependent Territories citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 on 1st January 1983 will become a British citizen if he or she or a parent or grandparent was born, registered or naturalised in the Falklands. A woman who is a British Dependent Territories citizen will acquire British citizenship if her husband acquires it under the Bill. This will cover the vast majority of people who are British Dependent Territories citizens by reason of a connection with the Falkland Islands. It is not intended to include anyone whose ancestral ties have been deliberately broken. Those apart, any who are not covered will have only a fairly remote ancestral connection with the Falklands. It would, I understand, have taken an extremely complex Bill to confer British citizenship automatically on all such people. However, if such a person or his or her parent has settled in the Falklands, the Bill will give the Secretary of State power to register that person as a British citizen.
If enacted, the commencement date will be 1st January 1983, the same as the 1981 Act. Anyone born in the Falkland Islands on or after that date will be a British citizen if at the time of the birth one of the parents was a British citizen. I should explain that in this context "British citizen" includes a person who acquires that status under the Bill. He or she will also be a British citizen if either parent was settled in the Falkland Islands. This is equivalent to the provision in the 1981 Act under which a person acquires British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom.
The Bill does not introduce any general provisions to register or naturalise people in the Falklands as British citizens. Instead, all the 1981 Act's provisions relating to the acquisition of British Dependent Territories citizenship by registration or naturalisation will remain in force in the Falklands, including those giving entitlements to registration in certain circumstances to children born in a dependent territory who do not acquire citizenship at birth. The Secretary of State will have power to register as a British citizen any person who becomes a British Dependent Territories citizen by registration or naturalisation in the Falklands or on the grounds of a connection with the Falklands. The Secretary of State's general power under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act to register any minor as a British citizen will continue to be available.
The Bill sets out which people who become British citizens under the Bill will be citizens by descent. The effect of its provisions is that anyone who acquires British citizenship by birth, registration or naturalisation in the Falkland Islands will be a British citizen otherwise than by descent and this is very important—those persons will therefore be able to pass on that citizenship to their children. It does not matter if the person was previously a British citizen by descent under the 1981 Act. Nor does it matter whether British citizenship is acquired at commencement or afterwards. All British citizens by reason of birth, naturalisation or registration in the Falklands will have the same right to pass on their citizenship as have British citizens by birth, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom. The Bill does not make specific provision for the children born outside the Falklands to British citizens otherwise than by descent to acquire citizenship. This is largely covered, I understand, by Section 2 of the 1981 Act. I believe that, if my amendments are agreed by your Lordships, the Bill as so amended will make proper and adequate provision for the citizenship of the Falkland Islanders, which I am sure all would wish.
Clause 1 sets out the persons who will become British citizens at commencement and makes provision for the acquisition of British citizenship after commencement by birth or adoption in the Falkland Islands. So far as people born before commencement are concerned, the aim is, so far as is practicable, to confer British citizenship on all those who, on 1st January 1983, became British dependent territories citizens under Section 23 of the 1981 Act by virtue of their connection with the Falklands. Under the proposed Clause 5(2) of the Bill, commencement date will be 1st January 1983, so that the persons affected will be deemed to have become British citizens on the
474
same date as that on which they became British dependent territories citizens.
Therefore, broadly speaking, the people concerned, about whom we are talking today, have the same kind of links with the Falklands as the people who became British citizens at the commencement of the 1981 Act have with the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) deals with persons who automatically became British dependent territories citizens under Section 23 of the 1981 Act at commencement on 1st January 1983. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I should like very briefly to welcome my noble friend's readiness to amend the Bill so thoroughly in order to ensure that it achieves all that she and Her Majesty's Government wish it to achieve. She has correctly explained the effects of the Bill as they will be if your Lordships' Committee accepts the amendment, and I am glad to advise your Lordships to agree with it. As we come to further amendments, it might save time if your Lordships will take my silence to indicate a similar advice on each of them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We on this side of the Committee wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for the very thorough way in which she has pursued this important matter since the debates on the original British Nationality Bill; and we entirely support her. We are also grateful for what I might call the amende honorable by Her Majesty's Government, in deciding not only to afford the noble Baroness such technical assistance, which she may or may not have needed, but also to have facilitated the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
We on this side rather thought that in the course of the Second Reading debate on the Bill the noble Lord opposite was far more concerned to establish the validity of the initial proposals in the original Act than the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness. At the time one almost gathered from him—it was perhaps only an impression—that in his view the new Bill proposed by the noble Baroness did not represent any vast change at all in Government policy. At least, that was the impression that he gave.
But the act has now been done, or will be done. In perhaps a few months' time, or maybe even in a year's time, we shall know with greater exactitude the real effects on the minds of the Argentinian Government of Her Majesty's Government's original decision to exclude these worthy people in the Falklands from full British citizenship. Undoubtedly it was one factor that was taken into account. After all, one cannot, on the one hand, claim to support the paramountcy of the wishes of the islanders, and express one's determination to stand by them through thick and thin, while at the same time, through the arm of the Home Office, decide that they shall not be granted full British citizenship.
It is not for me to speculate on what might or might not have gone on in Cabinet when the British Nationality Bill was originally considered by it, which I presume it was. I should rather have thought that at some time somebody would be alerted to the Falklands implication of the Bill itself and would have passed some comment on the matter in Cabinet. I cannot believe that it was taken in isolation——
Lord Elton: I do not want to be in any way discourteous. The noble Lord is entirely free to hold what opinions he wishes about the antecedents of this Bill, but there were opportunities to discuss the point that he is now making both in the debate on the report on the Falkland Islands and at the Second Reading stage of the present Bill. Therefore, would it not be helpful if we were to proceed to consider the amendment before the Committee, which is Amendment No. 1, without considering the context further?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, I am aware of the inconvenience to the party opposite of having these matters ventilated, but what I have been saying is a perfectly proper observation to make, and one which, had the noble Lord been sitting in opposition instead of being in Government, he would have pursued with some vigour. So he must not complain if I exercise the same degree of vigour as he would have done in the circumstances.
Lord Elton: All is fair in politics, as in love and war, no doubt. All that I am seeking is the convenience, not of my party but of your Lordships' Committee. This is the Committee stage of a Bill, and I thought that we ought to consider the amendments to it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, I entirely agree, and I shall not detain the Committee for long. But I think the point has to be made that history will pass a verdict on the provisions of the original British Nationality Bill that affect the Falklands, as indeed I hope it will pass a more optimistic judgment about the decision to support the noble Baroness on this occasion. We entirely agree with the noble Baroness's amendments, and we shall support them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: From this side of the Committee I should like to congratulate my noble friend on having brought her measure to this point and on having secured the technical assistance of the Home Office, which will no doubt result in the Bill being framed in adequate and proper legal form. I believe that my noble friend is to be congratulated, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give some indication that Her Majesty's Government's assistance to the measure does not terminate at this stage but that, on the contrary, if your Lordships' House passes the Bill in its amended form, proper steps will be taken to secure its passage through another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, with his usual quickness, pointed out at a previous stage, I was one of those noble Lords who voted against my noble friend's amendment to the British Nationality Bill itself. Thus I appear in the role of redeemed penitent. There is—the right reverend Prelate will confirm this—more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 just persons who need no repentance. I wish to indicate that repentance and also the somewhat worldly considerations which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, knows perfectly well motivated me and several others of us. Had my noble friend at that stage carried the amendment which the present Bill now carries, it was at least probable, we were led to believe, that not only would it have been rejected in another place but so would
476
have been the amendment in respect of Gibraltar, which your Lordships' House had previously carried.
Therefore, having cleared both my conscience and any anxieties on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—I have known him so many years that I should hate him to have any anxieties about my consistency—I should like to wish the Bill a speedy passage, and in particular to seek, as I am sure I shall be given, the assurance of my noble friend on the Front Bench that Her Majesty's Government will see that it reaches the statute book as quickly as possible. I only need further to remind your Lordships, if it be necessary, of the fact that the second-class citizenship given by the original measure to the islanders was featured in the advertisement which a number of Argentines placed in the national press during the recent war.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Question is, That the original Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the next amendment is to leave out Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think the noble Lord will find that I am correctly saying that the Question is, That the original Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
On Question, Clause 1 disagreed to.
11.40 p.m.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
("Acquisition of British citizenship by registration.
—(1) If—

(a) an application is made for the registration as a British citizen of a person who is a British Dependent Territories citizen by virtue of section 23 of the 1981 Act (persons becoming British Dependent Territories citizens at commencement); and

(b) that person or a parent of that person was settled in the Falkland Islands either immediately before commencement or, in the case of a parent of that person who died before commencement, immediately before that parent's death,

the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause the person to whom the application relates to be registered as a British citizen.
(2) If—

(a) an application is made for the registration as a British citizen of a person who is a British Dependent Territories citizen by virtue of registration or naturalisation under the 1981 Act; and

(b) either—

(i) that registration or naturalisation was effected in the Falkland Islands in pursuance of arrangements made under section 43 of the 1981 Act (exercise of functions of Secretary of State by Governors and others), or

(ii) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the naturalisation or registration was effected wholly or partly by reason of a connection which that person or some other person had with the Falkland Islands,

the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause the person to whom the application relates to be registered as a British citizen.")
The noble Baroness said: Despite some of his words, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donnington, for the great co-operation he has given,

477
for the fact that he was thinking of bringing the Bill in himself, but that he very kindly let me continue to do this because I had worked rather hard before his intervention on the original Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his magnificent words. I have never known anybody to be so kind and generous and repent so publicly. I never heard him do it in the other place. Indeed, this House must have had a soothing effect on him.
Clause 2 deals with registration as a British citizen at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It introduces two provisions under which a British dependent territories citizen may be registered as a British citizen. Subsection (1) concerns a person who became British dependent territories citizen under Section 23 of the 1981 Act.
Clause 1 does not give British citizenship automatically to every possible category of person who might have become a British dependent territories citizen under Section 23 by reason of a connection with the Falkland Islands. The people who do not qualify under Clause 1 are mainly those who were registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies outside the dependent territories and have a connection with the Falkland Islands through a paternal great grandfather or an even more remote ancestor in the male line. Such a person's ancestral links with the Falklands would not, therefore, be very close, but if he or a parent has established closer connections by settling in the Falklands, the Secretary of State may register him as a British citizen under subsection (1). To be eligible, the person or his or her parents must have been settled in the Falklands immediately before commencement of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Cases in which this Act produces British citizens "by descent".
—(1) A person who is a British citizen by virtue of the application to him of any provision of this Act but not otherwise shall, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, be a British citizen "by descent" if, and only if, being a person who became a British citizen at commencement, he would not be a British citizen by virtue of this Act but for subsection (l)(b)(ii) or (iii) of section (Acquisition of British citizenship at commencement of 1981 Act or by birth or adoption).
(2) A person who is a British citizen by virtue of the application to him of any of the provisions of the 1981 Act as well as being a British citizen by virtue of the application to him of any provision of this Act shall, for the purposes of that Act, be a British citizen "by descent" if, and only if, being a person who became a British citizen at commencement, he—

(a) would have been a British citizen by descent if this Act had not been passed; and

(b) would not be a British citizen by virtue of this Act but for subsection (1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of section (Acquisition of British citizenship at commencement of 1981 Act or by birth or adoption).").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which a person who acquires British citizenship under the Bill at commencement becomes a citizen by descent.
The transmission of British citizenship to children born abroad to a British citizen parent is governed by Section 2 of the 1981 Act. In general, citizenship is passed on if it is held, in the words of the Act:
478
"otherwise than by descent". The 1981 Act sets out in Section 14 which British citizens are by descent; generally speaking, such citizens cannot transmit their citizenship to their children. Any category of British citizen not mentioned in Section 14 is a citizen otherwise than by descent and can transmit.
The aim of Clause 3 is to ensure that people who become British citizens under the Bill because of their connection with the Falklands will be on the same footing as regards transmission of citizenship as all the people in Britain and elsewhere who became British citizens under the 1981 Act because of their connection with the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I rise on a very small point of obscurity but at the end of the sixth line of this new clause it says:
"but for subsection (l)(b)(ii) or (iii) (of section".
and what the section does is to insert the heading as usual in italics. Would it not be helpful if the number of the section were inserted? Perhaps this is something which could receive attention at Report stage. As it stands, I think it will give those who genuinely wish to find out what the law is a little bit of difficulty, whereas if the number of the section were given it would be helpful.
Lord Elton: It will be given in the final print, but it does not have a number and therefore the number cannot appear on the Marshalled list.
Lord Renton: I see. But I do not think that my noble friend has quite taken the point. This is a reference to something that is already established. If it is to be put in at a later stage, well and good. But I thought it might have been put in at this stage. However, I accept what my noble friend says, as long as it will be dealt with later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions. 1981 c. 61.
—(1) In this Act—
"the 1981 Act" means the British Nationality Act 1981;
"commencement" has the same meaning as in the 1981 Act, that is to say the beginning of 1st January 1983 (that being the day appointed under section 53(2) of that Act for the commencement of all except sections 49 and 53 of that Act);
"the Falkland Islands" means the Colony of the Falkland Islands.
(2) The following provisions of the 1981 Act shall apply for the purpose of this Act as they apply for the purposes of that Act, namely—

(a) section 41 (regulations and Orders in Council), so far as it relates to the making of regulations;

(b) section 42 (registration and naturalisation: general provisions), so far as it relates to registration;

(c) section 44 (decisions involving exercise of discretion);

(d) section 45 (evidence);

(e) section 46 (offences and proceedings);

(f) sections 47 and 48 (legimated and posthumous children); and

(g) section 50 (interpretation).

(3) In the following provisions of the 1981 Act, namely—

(a) section 37(1)(a) (by virtue of which a person who is a British citizen under that Act has the status of a Commonwealth citizen);

(b) section 40(2)(a)(i) (deprivation of British citizenship of a person registered as a British citizen under that Act); and

479

(c) section 51(3)(a)(ii) (meaning of "citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies" in certain contexts),

for the words "this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983".").
The noble Baroness said: The final two clauses of the Bill contain mainly technical provisions which are needed to bring the Bill into effect and to ensure it is consistent with the 1981 Act where appropriate. I do not propose to go into great detail on them. If there are any points that noble Lords wish to make perhaps they would do so afterwards.
Clause 4(1) is self-explanatory. It simply gives the meaning of expressions used in the Bill. In subsection (2) this is done by incorporating certain provisions of the 1981 Act. Subsection (3) would insert a reference to this Act in certain other provisions of the 1981 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Citation provision for retrospective effect, and extent. 1981 c. 61.
—(1) This Act may be cited as the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983; and this Act and the British Nationality Act 1981 may be cited together as the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983.
(2) This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January 1983 (that is to say at commencement as defined in subsection (1) of section (Supplementary provisions)); and accordingly, subject to subsection (3), where the requirements of any provision of section (Acquisition of British citizenship at commencement of 1981 Act or by birth or adoption) for the acquisition of British citizenship were satisfied in relation to any person at commencement or at any time between commencement and the passing of this Act, that person shall be treated as having acquired that citizenship at that time.
(3) Nothing in section (Acquisition of British citizenship at commencement of 1981 Act or by birth or adoption) shall confer British citizenship—

(a) on a person in respect of whom a declaration of renunciation of British Dependent Territories citizenship was registered under the 1981 Act at any time before the passing of this Act; or

(b) on a person who at any time before the passing of this Act was deprived under the 1981 Act of his British Dependent Territories citizenship.

(4) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
(5) This Act extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and to all dependent territories: and it is hereby declared for the purposes of section 3(3) of the West Indies Act 1967 that this Act extends to all associated states.")
The noble Baroness said: This needs no further explanation, I understand. Subsection (2) provides for the Bill to be deemed to have come into effect on 1st January 1983. It also ensures that a person born in the Falklands between 1st January 1983 and the date the Act is passed will be a citizen from birth. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 6:
In the title:
line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 2 and insert ("provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by persons having connections with the Falkland Islands.")
The noble Baroness said: In regard to the Title, the Long Title is changed to an Act to,
480
"provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by persons having connections with the Falkland Islands."
This Title describes the provisions of the Bill exactly. The previous Title could have been understood to have excluded automatic acquisition of British citizenship and referred to "citizens of the Falkland Islands," a status which does now not exist.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time and referred to the Examiners; it was ordered that the Bill be printed.
Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Pig Industry Levy Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Marriage Bill [H.L.]
11.50 a.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before the House today is designed to amend the law of England and Wales and the law in Northern Ireland relating to the formalities of marriage. If your Lordships agree to, it and if it is accepted in another place, it will, in certain carefully defined circumstances, enable marriages of specified catergories of persons to be solemnised at their place of residence. The Bill should be seen in the context of the present marriage law and it may save later confusion if I start by reminding your Lordships that the marriage laws of England and Wales, on the one hand, and those of Northern Ireland, on the other, are quite separate and distinct. In England and Wales, the solemnisation of marriages is confined in general to register offices, churches and chapels of the Church of England and the Church in Wales and to other places of worship registered for the solemnisation of marriage.
There are a few exceptions to this general rule. For example, it does not apply to Quaker and Jewish weddings or to marriages solemnised on the authority of a special licence granted by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury under the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533. Nevertheless, the general principle is that facilities to marry are restricted to prescribed places, and there is a good deal to be said in favour of it. The arrangement ensures that weddings take place in buildings which are known and recognised in the community, as places where marriages can lawfully take place and which are under

481
the control of responsible bodies who will see that the requirements of the law are observed. This helps to avoid clandestine marriages. The requirements as to place of marriage are, of course, supported by additional requirements for the prior giving of notice of marriage and the registration of marriages after solemnisation. Those who know the parties are thus given the opportunity to draw attention to any lawful impediment to the proposed marriage and, in the case of minors, for the parent or guardian to give or withhold his consent.
In Northern Ireland the law relating to the formalities of marriage is rather different. As in England and Wales, civil marriages must be solemnised in register offices. Marriages according to religious ceremonies (apart from those of Jews and Quakers) must generally take place in churches or other buildings registered for the solemnisation of marriages. But marriages solemnised according to the rites, forms or ceremonies of some denominations may be authorised by the appropriate church authorities to take place anywhere. The Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, for example, may grant special licences where one of their members is a party to the marriage, while Roman Catholic marriages are subject to little legal formality as regards solemnisation. Such authorisations, however, may not be considered appropriate by the church authorities in particular cases.
Despite the difference in the law of Northern Ireland, the issue remains the same as that in England and Wales: many marriages are restricted as to the place where they may be solemnised. That then is the context in which I ask the House to examine the Government's proposals. Desirable as I believe them to be as a general rule, the restrictions on the place of marriage have been found to bear hardly on certain categories of persons who wish to marry; hence the Government believe that a limited amendment of the law should be made.
The first category to which the provisions apply is that of disabled persons who are housebound and who, because of their continuing illness or disability, cannot go or be taken to an authorised place of marriage. Such persons may be living in their own homes, in a residential care home, in a hospital or in a nursing home. They may be suffering from any condition from severe physical disability or agoraphobia. The Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970, which applies only in England and Wales, already affords some relief in the circumstances of housebound persons who wish to be married. However, its use is fairly narrowly limited, being available only to persons who are shown to be seriously ill and suffering from an illness from which they are not expected to recover. It is also the case, as I have mentioned, that in suitable circumstances the most reverend Primate may grant a special licence under the Act of 1533 for a marriage to be solemnised according to the rites of the Church of England in any place in England or Wales, which would include a housebound person's home. However, this procedure is not in practice always appropriate; for example where the parties are not members of the Church of England or one or other of them has a former partner still living.
482
This Bill would widen the categories of circumstances in which a housebound person could be married in the place where he or she is living. At present he or, more probably, his or her future spouse, has to give notice of marriage to the superintendent registrar (or, in Northern Ireland, to the registrar) of the district or districts in which the couple reside. To qualify for the new facility under the Bill he will now need to furnish information additional to the normal particulars then required in all cases. This will comprise a medical statement in a form to be prescribed by regulation. In the statement the doctor will have to say that it is his opinion that by reason of illness or disability the patient ought not to move or be moved from his place of residence and that the position is likely to remain the same for at least the following three months. This medical statement must be signed by the doctor not more than 14 days before notice of marriage is given to the superintendent registrar in England and Wales or to the registrar in Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt that the House will regard this part of the Bill, enabling severely disabled people to marry in their own homes or in the hospital, or other place in which they are living, as a humanitarian measure. It meets with the approval of the main voluntary organisations who are concerned with and provide care and accommodation for severely disabled people. It is supported by the medical profession and by religious denominations in England. I therefore commend to your Lordships' House these proposals for alleviating the difficulties faced by some disabled people in arranging to marry.
I should now like to turn to the provisions of the Bill about the marriage of detained persons. When it comes to getting married, prisoners and persons detained in mental hospitals face a similar difficulty. In order to be approved by the ecclesiastical authorities or registered by the Registrar-General as a place where marriages may be solemnised in accordance with the law, a church or other building must be a place of public religious worship. Prison and hospital chapels are not public in this sense and may not therefore be used for the holding of marriage services, while civil marriages must take place in register offices.
At this point I should remind your Lordships of an international obligation which is relevant to the marriage of detained persons. This is contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 12 of the Convention guarantees to men and women of marriageable age the right to marry. Clearly the mere fact of the imprisonment or detention prevents a detained person from exercising that right fully. The European Commission on Human Rights has recently considered two cases which raise the question of how far the rights guaranteed by Article 12 of the convention would apply to prisoners. The commission's opinion was that the right to marry was, in essence, the right to form a legally binding association between a man and a woman and that this right should not be denied on the grounds that, as one partner was detained, the couple would not be able to live together. The commission concluded that the imposition of a substantial delay before a prisoner could exercise his right to marry, as would often happen if a prisoner had to wait until the end of his sentence, was a violation of

483
Article 12 of the convention. I should perhaps make it absolutely clear that this does not mean that prisoners have either the right to live with a spouse or the right to receive conjugal visits.
The Government have accepted the commission's findings but, as things stand, prisoners are not able at present to marry in a prison established in England and Wales. Consideration had therefore to be given to making arrangements for a prisoner who wishes to marry to go to a convenient church, chapel or register office. Sometimes this is not difficult because the prisoner can be given temporary release for the wedding; but in many cases arrangements have to be made for the prisoner to be escorted by staff both to and from the place where he can marry.
Your Lordships are well aware of the fact that the prison system in England and Wales is under severe pressure. To prevent the workload becoming unmanageable, both for prison staff and in some cases for the police who would have to make security arrangements for the ceremony—and these can be considerable in the case of notorious or dangerous prisoners—significant restrictions still have to be imposed on the circumstances in which prisoners marry. The arrangements we propose are very much less restricted than previously. Essentially, a prisoner will normally be allowed to marry if he is not expected to be at liberty within the next six months, either on completion of his sentence or on the pre-release employment scheme or on home leave. It is generally assumed that an unconvicted or unsentenced prisoner will be in custody for only a short period, but he normally will be allowed to marry if he remains in custody for four months. Exceptions can, of course, be made if they are justified.
Under the Bill, marriages may be solemnised in a prison or hospital where a party to the marriage is detained. These provisions therefore will enable both the burden on the prison service and on the police of making arrangments for weddings outside prison to be substantially reduced, and at the same time better enable us to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. As with the housebound persons category, notice in respect of the marriage of a detained person will have to furnish additional information to the superintendent registrar or, in Northern Ireland, to the registrar. This will consist of a statement, made in a form to be prescribed by regulation, in which the prison governor or hospital managers will state the establishment where the person concerned is detained and indicate that the authorities in charge have no objection to the proposed marriage being solemnised in the prison or hospital as the case may be. This information will be similarly provided by the corresponding authorities in Northern Ireland to the registrar.
Let me now turn to detained mental patients. In the Government's view the arguments in support of giving additional facilities for the marriage of prisoners apply equally to persons detained for substantial periods under the mental health legislation. Neither category has ready access to authorised places of marriage under the present law and both are entitled under the European Convention on Human Rights to the exercise of the right to marry.
484
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has consulted the medical profession on the proposals contained in the Bill in so far as they will apply to persons detained in a mental hospital. These consultations were carried out with representatives of the special hospitals, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Health Service. Corresponding consultations have taken place in Northern Ireland. The view that clearly emerged was that in principle facilities should be made available for the marriage of detained patients in the hospital in which they are living, It was however recognised that the practical operation of any such arrangements would need to be handled carefully having regard to the circumstances of long-term patients in mental hospitals.
I should like to make it abundantly clear to the House that it will not be open to hospital managers to refuse to provide a statement of willingness to have the marriage of a detained patient in hospital solely on the ground that those responsible for the patient's treatment believe it will be better for the marriage not to take place, any more than they can enter such an objection if a patient at present wishes to marry outside the hospital. The only grounds for objecting will be, as at present, that the patient does not have the necessary mental capacity to understand the nature and purport of the marriage ceremony. Most detained mental patients do have this capacity; but where they do not, it will be open to the doctor in charge of the patient's treatment, or anyone else concerned, to enter at the appropriate time a caveat with the superintendent registrar of marriages for the district in which the hospital is situated under Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1949. There is corresponding provision in Northern Ireland. This will give the grounds of objection to the marriage.
It would then fall to the superintendent registrar or the registrar general in Northern Ireland to decide, on the basis of the evidence furnished to him, whether or not the marriage should be allowed to proceed. The arrangements for the entering of a caveat are available in relation to all proposed marriages, whether the parties are at liberty or in detention, and attention is already directed to them in notices that are publicly displayed in register offices throughout the country.
Turning now to the Bill itself, in relation to England and Wales the main purpose is set out in Clause 1 in which the categories of housebound and detained persons are defined. Subsection (7) of that clause gives effect to the more detailed procedures and amendments of the existing law contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
I do not propose to trouble your Lordships' House with a detailed exposition of all the changes proposed to the 1949 Marriage Act set out in Schedule 1, some of which are rather technical in character. But noble Lords may be interested to know that what is proposed is no more than a modification of the existing procedures in England and Wales. Its effect will be that, after notice of a proposed marriage has been given and after the period of public inspection of the notice has elapsed, the superintendent registrar may, on application by the parties, issue his certificate authorising the marriage to be solemnised between the

485
named persons at a specified place of marriage. That place will, in these cases, be the place of residence, whether at home or in a hospital or prison, of the housebound or detained person.
As with marriages under the present law, such a marriage may take a number of forms. It may be by civil ceremony in the presence of the superintendent registrar of the registration district in which the marriage is solemnised or it may be according to the forms, rites or ceremonies of a religious body. Where the marriage is according to the rites of the Church of England, the officiating clergyman will himself register the marriage in the marriage register books of the parish in which the place of marriage is situated. In other cases where the marriage is by religious forms, the minister will use the form of service of the parties' denomination, and the marriage will thereafter be registered by a registrar of the registration district concerned. The usual fee of £16 will be payable for the attendance of the registrar, and I expect that the churches will follow their usual practice with regard to the payment of marriage fees to ministers.
Special fees will be payable in cases where it is necessary for a superintendent registrar to go to a prison or hospital or, in such rare cases, where he has to go to a private home, in order to be given notice of marriage. A similar fee will be payable for his attendance at the solemnisation of a civil marriage at a person's place of residence, whether at home or in a hospital or prison. These special fees are required to cover the cost of providing this special service away from the superintendent registrar's office. In each case, they will be of £20. I should explain that ordinarily a superintendent registrar performs his duties, whether it be the receipt of notices of marriage or attendance at a civil ceremony of marriage, only in his office.
Clause 2 of the Bill sets out consequential amendments with which I need not trouble your Lordships' House atthis time. The provisions relating to Northern Ireland are set out in Clauses 3 to 11 and Schedule 2 and achieve a similar result using slightly different means; they are necessarily separate and distinct provisions because the law in Northern Ireland is different from that here.
Clause 3 introduces provisions relating to marriages of housebound and detained persons on the authority of a licence issued by the registrar general in Northern Ireland. This is a new authorisation for marriages in Northern Ireland, where at present there is no common form of authority corresponding to the English superintendent registrar's certificate. Not all forms of marriage may be solemnised on the present registrar's certificate in Northern Ireland. Clause 4 sets out the procedure for the issue of a licence by the registrar general and provides for the transmission of the necessary information from the registrars to whom notice of marriage is given under Clause 3.
Clause 5, in making provision for the forms of marriage ceremony which may be used, closely follows the requirements of the present law, except that the clause contains a more general requirement for the presence of the registrar of the district in which the marriage is solemnised; the registrar will register the marriage in his marriage register book immediately after solemnisation. Marriages solemnised according
486
to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church will not require the presence of the registrar because such marriages involve a different system of registration under the existing law which does not require registration in any marriage registers immediately after solemnisation. Schedule 2 gives effect to certain detailed procedures under the present marriage law, with appropriate modifications.
Your Lordships will notice that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. The provisions in the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 already suffice to allow religious and civil marriages to be performed anywhere in Scotland.
The Government believe that the provisions of this modest Bill will be helpful to a number of people whose personal circumstances, for one reason or another, are substantially different from those of most of the community. It will also enable the United Kingdom to meet more fully its international obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights. I tried to keep the length of my introduction shorter than it has turned out to be, but it is a rather complex and, for some people, a very important measure and I do not think I should have told your Lordships less than I have. I hope I have engaged the sympathy of your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Elton.)
12. 11 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he is the recipient of not only the sympathy of this House but its appreciation for the way he has dealt with a very useful, humanitarian but nevertheless somewhat complex measure. It is a delight, if we have to meet on a Friday, that we should deal with matters which are non-controversial, as they are this morning, all three of them. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I welcome this particular measure, which is indeed a humanitarian one. I have little, if anything, to say in regard to those who are housebound or who are in a hospital or an institution and are therefore deemed to be detained under the provisions of this Bill. It obviously is a most kindly thing that those who are, by reasons of health, unable to visit a place of worship or a registrar's office will be accommodated now by a doctor's cerificate saying that the condition is likely to last for some three months in the case of somebody who is housebound; and therefore the registrar will, with great humanity, attend at the usual place of residence—which, in the case of the individual concerned, usually means the home—so that the marriage can be solemnised there in accordance with due form.
My only question in regard to that aspect of the Bill concerns the fee, which I see is set down in the Bill and was indeed referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton; it is a special fee for attendance of £20. The Bill says that "the registrar is entitled to receive"—I believe that is the wording—the sum of £20. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with that softness of heart that we know he has, saw that those words were included so that in cases of special hardship there could be either a waiver or a reduction of that fee. One

487
can well imagine, for instance, the case of a person who is an invalid or housebound who might think that the fee of £20 could be so easily spent for a happy wedding ceremony on something a little more essential than the registrar's fee for this particular visit. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help the House on that matter.
My second and, I believe, rather more important point refers to those who are detained: I am referring to those in prison. Again, this is a humanitarian measure but, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, we are complying with our international obligations under Article 12 of the European Human Rights Convention and indeed the finding of the European Commission in regard to these matters.
My point of concern there is that, as the noble Lord said, the usual place of residence is deemed to be the place where the person is at the moment of the marriage. In the case of a detained person this would obviously be a prison. I am used to seeing in rather unfortunate circumstances, normally on behalf of clients, their original marriage certificate. I say "unfortunate" because, as a lawyer, when one sees a marriage certificate it is normally to deal with the dissolution of the marriage and not the creation of it. I therefore remember that there is a portion of the certificate where one has to state the place where the marriage is solemnised. My fear is that, if it be at a chapel or in some other part of a prison, those words will be there for children to see, possibly in the case of a father or mother who has turned over a completely new leaf, having gone through a marriage ceremony. Certainly in the case of children. I would hate to see a form of marriage certificate which, when a marriage certificate has to be produced, tells the sad history for all time. There are many occasions when a child may have to produce a marriage certificate or to refer to it for various purposes, and I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to see recorded on that marriage certificate the place where it was solemnised.
If I am wrong in thinking that this will be the position or that special provision is being made, I should be extremely happy to know about that; but I thought this was a proper matter to bring to the attention of your Lordships. Apart from those two matters, my noble friends and I welcome the provisions of this Bill, which, as I say, is a proper, humanitarian and very kindly measure.
12.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I should like to express my welcome to this Bill in general principle, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his exposition of it. It is clearly moved by compassion and seeks to meet the difficult circumstances which certainly the granting of a special licence by the Archbishop of Canterbury is inadequate to cover. But I must express, without wishing to be controversial, some hesitations over detail, in the hope that at a later stage some account may be taken of them and some possible difficulties and inconsistencies in administration removed.
The Bill seeks to comply with Article 12 of the Human Rights Charter, which states:
488
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right".
That is a statement with which no one can argue, but it appears that the interpretation of it is being made on strictly legalistic grounds, taking the first part of this statement:
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry",
stressing the right, and forgetting the second part, which implies the exercise of responsibility for and towards the spouse and any children, in accordance with national laws.
The question that must be raised is this: is it morally right to facilitate a marriage in conditions which inhibit the exercise of the responsibilities implicit in marriage and understood both by Church and state, and expressed in the Marriage Act 1949? It may well be that certain exceptional circumstances have to be allowed for, but it is important that this general principle should still be seen to be clearly recognised.
A second point about the nature of marriage itself is the genuineness of consent in some of the circumstances envisaged by the Bill. Even when there is no question of mental health involved, the artificial surroundings of an institution may make bonds between inmates which may not survive outside. In a mental hospital a doctor might be asked to facilitate the marriage of a patient, but would be reluctant to have the deciding voice. I wonder whether it would not be a great improvement in this Bill if the parts of it dealing with mental patients were omitted. The other situations are much more straightforward and easier to manage. If provision has to be made for detained mental patients, ought this not to be included in a separate Bill, where the very complex circumstances could be provided for? This might be regarded as being an anomalous exception at the moment, but better a separate Bill than have serious problems arising over these provisions. Certainly, I am aware of some people connected with mental hospitals who have great concern about what is involved, even with the careful provisions included in the Bill.
But I must turn to certain questions of ecclesiastical discipline which affect the Church of England in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to some of these already. For the Church of England, the parish church is regarded as being the most suitable place for a marriage and likely to provide a much more appropriate atmosphere than an institutional context. The Bill as drawn would enable prison marriages to take place regularly outside the context of the church building. What is the reason for this and how frequently is this exception likely to occur?
I am aware that some prison chaplains have great concern about this. They can see the need for exceptions being made for handfuls of extremely dangerous prisoners, and account must be taken of those strains on the prison service and the police force to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton. has referred. To what extent will the wishes of the couple about the place of marriage be regarded as being paramount? I wonder whether, through discussion, it would be possible to have some limitation on the frequency with which the marriage of prisoners takes place in prison

489
when there is not much opportunity given for marriage outside.
The general rule regarding Church of England services is that they may take place only with the leave of the person having the cure of souls in the area in question. This ensures some degree of control by the incumbent—the vicar or rector—over what is publicly done in the Church's name. An exception exists for institutions to which a person is licensed under the Extra Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, but this Measure, and Canon B41 made under it, specifically exclude marriage. So the general rule applies and, if the Bill were passed in its present form, hospital and prison marriages by a chaplain would still require the incumbent's consent. It is left unclear whether the incumbent's obligation, subject to safeguards, to marry parishoners in the parish church would apply to marriages under the Act in prisons or hospitals. If it does, the situation would be that he could refuse consent to the chaplain or visiting minister officiating, but could not refuse to officiate himself.
Some of the safeguards that exist to prevent the Church being compelled to officiate at marriages of which it does not approve—for example, of divorced persons—gain their effect by allowing the minister in charge of a church to refuse consent to its use. These would lose their effect when a church is not intended to be used anyhow. At the very least, an incumbent would be obliged under the Bill to countenance a prison or hospital marriage that had taken place, whatever the circumstances, by making the parish registers available for its registration.
When a special licence is issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the incumbent of the parish concerned has to give his consent to the use of the marriage registers and he may refuse consent. Certainly, if this Bill is passed, the Extra Parochial Ministry Measure will need to be revised, the General Synod will have to revise Canon B41, and there may be other changes necessary in ecclesiastical law.
What I wish to urge at this stage is that there should be careful discussion and consultation about these various complications before the Committee stage of the Bill, so that any amendments that are proposed may be brought forward by general consent, both on the part of the Church and on the part of those most concerned to bring this Bill into effect.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I added my name to the list of those wishing to speak on this Bill with more than usual reluctance, not only because the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, applies only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland—and who am I, as a Scot, to pontificate about what should be the formalities of marriage in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?—but also because the Bill, as well as being a sensible, humanitarian and, I imagine, uncontroversial measure, has been presented with admirable clarity, as one would expect, by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. In these circumstances, on the whole, it is better, unless one has some original wisdom to express, to hold one's peace.
490
The sole reason why I am not holding my peace is that in my later years, unlike my earlier years, I have become a strong advocate of the Anglo-Scottish symbiosis that was entered into in 1707. This partnership is often subjected to strains, not only from the Scottish end but sometimes from the other end as well, and I am tempted never to miss an opportunity to extol the benefits and attractions of this fruitful partnership.
It humbly seems to me that here the English have perhaps learned a little from our somewhat more liberal laws governing the formalities of marriage. I shall not enter into the history of that, but I should have thought, looking at our experience over the centuries, that what that has been may perhaps help to allay the anxieties that our other partners may have about clandestine marriages which were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. This is just an illustration of how the experience of members of the partnership can be helpful to all parties. I hope that it may have played a little part in the Government's preparation of this, I trust, altogether welcome Bill.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I, too, should like to add a few words of welcome to this useful and humanitarian measure, and to thank the Minister for the clarity with which, as usual, he has put a fairly complex matter before your Lordships' House. Although the matter involved is simple, the Bill is complex, because no measure affecting matrimonial affairs is anything except complex. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, introduced a debate a few weeks ago raving against the gobbledegookery of some draftsmanship. I would not go so far as to say that these 17 pages contain much gobbledegookery, but they get extremely near it. I can only hope that some of the poor people who are going to benefit from this Bill will be able to understand it slightly better than I have.
For example, I appear seriously to have misread Clause 5(1), which I thought at first—I hope I am right, but I fear I am not—goes to a very vital and major part of the marriage ceremony of this country, so I will read it:
"(l) A marriage to be solemnised on the authority of the Registrar General's licence shall be solemnised, at the wish of the persons to be married—
(a) according to such religious form or ceremony as the persons to be married see fit to adopt".
For many years, whenever this matter seemed appropriate, I have done my best in your Lordships' House to get some improvement into the civil service of marriage as it now prevails in this country. I had hoped that the clause in the Bill which I have just read out would have achieved this for me, but now I am not so certain.
I have always tried to get a little more dignity, solemnity and importance into the civil marriage ceremony. Those of your Lordships who have attended such a ceremony, either in a personal capacity or as spectators, will agree with me that in most cases it is a very arid and unimpressive ceremony. It has little effect on what should be one of the most important days in people's lives. For instance, no religious element is allowed to be

491
introduced into the ceremony. More people are now regularly getting married in registry offices than ever before, some because they are non-believers, others because they are believers but, because they have been through the divorce courts (even though we are now taking a more humanitarian view of that old, dreadful expression "the guilty party") they are not allowed to be married in a religious place. Therefore, though they would like to have their marriage blessed, they are not allowed to have that blessing.
Many people now have a ceremony of blessing in church after marriage in a registry office. That form of blessing is getting very near to a marriage service. Some people, I believe, can find a clergyman who is prepared to marry divorced persons in church, provided that no scandal is attached to their behaviour beforehand and provided that they can get round their bishop. But this is still a matter of confusion. Otherwise, no blessing is allowed and the service is, as I have already said, arid and unimpressive. To do them justice, some registrars—it is going to be difficult for them in this Bill to do it—manage to put on a brave show. They provide a suitable room, they wear suitable robes, there are flowers. The matter is well ordered. Parking facilities are properly laid on, arrangements are made for the guests, and so on. But, as often as not, it is a very, very squalid little service, to be got over with as hurriedly as possible.
The law which is referred to in the Bill is the Act of 1949—the one point which I am making in particular. As your Lordships will remember, all that is required by the law is these words:
"I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I [John Smith] may not be joined in matrimony to [Mary Brown]. I call upon these person here present to witness that I do take thee"—
I rather like the "thee" because it is a concession to those, like myself, who prefer a little ceremony—
"[Mary Brown] to he my lawful wedded wife".
And that is all it is. Hey presto! Mary—whether thou hast spotted it or not—thou art now Mrs. John Smith (although the newspapers and the media will refer to her as Mrs. Mary Smith, and then put her age in brackets afterwards). There are a few formalities to be completed—certificates, the register to be signed, and so on.
I have complained about this before and I complain about it now. The last time I complained about it I was set upon by the Institute of Population Registration, no less. They said, "Look, do something about it yourself. Redraft the form of ceremony. We will put it to the Registrar General and see if we can get him to approve it". It was much more difficult than I had imagined. Eventually I plucked up courage and went to see the Lord Archbishop, Lord Fisher, that great and good man of happy memory. Anybody who went off to tackle Lord Fisher did so with his courage in both hands. I said to him, "What is the objection to asking the registrar to call for a modest blessing on those believers who would like to have their marriage blessed? I think that this is a vitally important point". Lord Fisher said, "No, it is not possible because the ceremony does not take place on consecrated ground in a consecrated building". Taking a deep breath, I said, "But look, in the House of Lords, prayers are said
492
before every day's meeting, and we then go on to debate some very controversial matters. But we would hate not to have our, prayers said beforehand". In schools—unfortunately, in not enough of them now—prayers are said at the beginning of the day's work. If you attend a banquet—be it a modest territorial dinner in the local drill hall or a slap-up affair at the Mansion House—grace is said beforehand. A blessing in an unconsecrated building is called upon us and our activities. Therefore I had hoped that the Bill was going to carry out my wishes. I said to the Archbishop, who would not have any of these points at all—and this was a very rash thing indeed to have said—"Archbishop, if the bride or bridegroom were to sneeze in the middle of the ceremony in the registrar's office, could the registrar say 'bless you'?" The Archbishop of Canterbury showed me the door more quickly than the door has ever been shown to anybody before.
I shall be happy to know whether I am right. If I am not, I shall try to amend the Bill, though I realise that it is going to be a difficult task. However, after 41 years of trying to amend Bills as a Member of your Lordships' House, I never give up hope.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords. I, too, should like to be associated with the tribute paid to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his very clear exposition of the Bill. The formalities which are required for a valid marriage are not, in my respectful submission, lightly to be relaxed, but I agree with your Lordships that the noble Lord made a very strong—indeed, I think overwhelming—case for the limited relaxation which this Bill vouchsafes.
For many, many years, for centuries of our history, marriage could be brought about by a mere exchange of words of consent to marry, expressed in the present tense. It was those words, the present tense, that caused all the trouble. Young people in the throes of romantic love are not apt to be discriminating as to the tense which they use to express their meaning. So there was a constant spate of litigation, contention and scandal as to whether a marriage had in fact been brought about. The church used, as a matter of discipline merely, to insist that the exchange of words of present consent should be followed, even if not expressed, in an ecclesiastical building, a church. But that was merely a matter of discipline and did not either effect or affect the exchange of consent which constituted the marriage. The Roman Catholic Church dealt with that evil in the Council of Trent, but the Council of Trent did not apply in this country because it took place after the Reformation. In the 18th century clandestine marriages became a scandal. They were so often sham marriages—a form of rape, in other words. In Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753 formalities and publicity were required for the first time.
I do not want to be controversial about an uncontroversial measure, but I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, say that England had followed the more liberal Scottish attitude in relation to formalities. It was my impression that it was not until 1939, but that it was then that Scotland caught up with what England had done in 1753.

493
I have only two more points. One is following up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to the form of certificate. I may be out of date, but I thought that one could now obtain a limited certificate of marriage. Whether it would meet the point made by the noble Lord, or whether it could be adapted in due course, is perhaps something on which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, can comment when he comes to reply.
My second point is on the caveat of the medical superintendent. It is not to be countenanced that a person who does not understand the obligations and nature of marriage should be allowed to be married, because such a marriage is void in law. On the other hand, it seems an extreme step to give to the medical superintendent the power to make a decision against which a person cannot appeal. I wonder whether your Lordships will wish to consider the possibility of appeal to a tribunal that already exists; a Mental Health Review Tribunal. Apart from those two points and the general necessity of maintaining adequate publicity and adequate formality to marriage, I venture to support this Bill.
12.42 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the Government for bringing to this House that which my noble friend Lord Elton has called "a modest Bill". I would also like to say that in 11 years of membership of your Lordships' House I have never before been able to participate in the passing of a Bill which in my view is not only welcome but which also expresses compassion, sympathy and understanding. Although it is a small Bill, it is a very important measure. I hope that in the two instances I am about to describe, I will be able to make known my views.
I wish to deal with the question of old people's homes and with detained people in prisons. Those of us who know a certain amount, as I do, about those in old people's homes will know only too well that friendships develop between people in those homes. Up until now, very few people have been well enough, even if they so wished, to go outside the home and develop the partnership into marriage. I have known old people who, despite their residence in an old people's home, died lonely people. As a result of this Bill, if a partnership does develop, when one partner ceases to live the surviving member of the marriage will be able to go on to have a partnership with a member of the opposite sex who will care for that person even more than is already done very well indeed by those who administer the old people's homes.
The right reverend Prelate asked how many marriages are likely to be forthcoming as a result of this Bill. All I can say to that is that, although I cannot tell exactly, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that if marriages are forthcoming as a result of this Bill, as I believe they will be, it will give a great deal of comfort and joy to couples in old people's homes who wish to cement their partnership.
I turn now to the case of people detained in prisons. I have experienced the hard work of being a member of the Parole Board for the past four years. I have read hundreds of dossiers on prisoners who come up for
494
release. I have been worried beyond belief at the number of common law wives who have not married, who have probably had children, and who are utterly unhappy at losing their boyfriend, who is also perhaps the breadwinner of the house. I am not one of those people who would ever think that a ring on a girl's finger will make her loyal to a man in prison. All I can tell your Lordships after four years of experience of the Parole Board is about the number of common law wives who, because they cannot marry their boyfriend in prison and cannot manage, are led astray by another man, and desert the man in prison. The number of such women is enormous. The man in prison feels lost and deserted. He feels he has no one else to go to when he comes out.
Apart from the question of marriage—and I personally believe that marriage would be right—there is the matter of the psychiatric problems suffered by the man in prison who does not know where his common law wife is, or what she is doing. This Bill will enable such young people—and older people too—to solemnise their partnership in life and to make their children part of a family. From all the dossiers I have read, I am quite certain that this will be a wonderful thing for these young people. However, I do query the matter of the address, and I would like the Government to answer this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned, in years to come none of us would like it to be seen in any certificate that our marriage was solemnised in prison. I am quite certain that the Government can get around this point. It is the only query I have, and I hope that the Government will be able to supply me with an answer.
12.48 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, had this Bill been an Act three months ago the sad experience which I witnessed need not have occurred. For that reason I welcome this Bill. I recently had the harrowing experience of watching a very old friend—a friend for more than 40 years—die a lingering death in hospital over a period of four months. He was dying of cancer. An operation was impossible and deep ray treatment did no more than just hold the position. He was so weak that he readily contracted other ailments, including bowel infection and pneumonia.
He was beautifully looked after by everybody concerned at Westminster Hospital—I must say that—but his one desire was formally, legally and officially to marry the girl who had looked after him for so many years. Although it was to my eye, as a layman, obvious that he was dying, that he knew he was dying and that he was shrinking before our eyes, the doctors refused to say that he was in extremis. They even went through a rather grotesque pretence that in a few days' time he could probably get up and go by taxi to the registrar's office for his wedding, and there was a lot of, I thought, cheery and quite misplaced bonhomie by a muscular Christian, who was the hospital chaplain, saying, in effect, "Get up and get out of bed". On the day that was fixed for the ceremony, to which he was to go by taxi, he was much worse, and only then were the doctors willing to declare that he was in extremis, that he really was dying. The registrar was sent for, and of course it was too late.

495
It is not for me to question the clinical judgment of the medical men concerned, but had this Bill been an Act at that time my friend, who was housebound in the terms of this Bill and had been for four or five months, could have had the registrar summoned in time. My friend could have gone in peace, and his fiancée could at least have had that last bit of comfort at the end.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I will be very brief. I welcome this Bill. I am advised in this by the National Schizophrenic Foundation, and in that respect I have misgivings on the mental health aspect of this in relation to marriages in mental hospitals, and very much sympathise with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby had to say. I would not go so far as he did in saying that it ought to be a separate Bill, and I would hope perhaps we might be able to introduce something into this Bill which would provide a greater safeguard against what one might call inadvertent marriage in the way in which the right reverend Prelate described it to us. I would hope that perhaps we might be able to improve the Bill in that respect.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had a short but I think a very useful debate on the policy and purpose of this Bill. It has been a debate which has clearly demonstrated your Lordships' sympathy with the difficulties encountered by certain categories of people who wish to be married under the law as it stands today, so I am grateful for the support which has been given to the proposals that the Bill contains. As my noble friend Lord Elton has explained, these proposals are designed to relieve hardship and to facilitate the individual's right to marry, and this is a right acknowledged in our adherence to the European Convention.
Perhaps I may now turn to the specific points that have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly asked about the fee; that is to say, the possibility of discretion to waive the special fee of £20. My Lords, the existing law in fact allows the local authority to authorise the superintendent registrar to perform his duties without payment of a fee, and the provisions of the Bill do not affect this at all. It might be helpful if I also said, with regard to ecclesiastical fees, that no decision has been taken by the ecclesiastical authorities about fees payable to clergymen for marriages solemnised under the provisions of the Bill, but it is probable that an appropriate fee will be prescribed in due course.
The noble Lord also asked, as did my noble friend Lady Macleod, about the question of the name of the prison, effectively, appearing on the marriage certificate. I can tell the noble Lord that this will not be the case. The postal address of the prison, with no mention of the fact that it is a prison, will be the address that appears on the documents concerned. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is being kind, as he always is, and is dealing with, I know he would realise, a very important point. Did he mean by that reply that although it will not be
496
"Her Majesty's Prison at Brixton, Jebb Road, Brixton", the address will be on the certificate as "Jebb Road, Brixton"? If it is, I can tell him that as far as I know it is about the only place in Jebb Road, Brixton, and is therefore easily identifiable.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope that not too many people who read the certificates will have actually been to Jebb Road, but what the noble Lord says is correct. The private address of the prison will be shown and the words "H.M. Prison" will in fact not appear.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby welcomed the Bill in principle and drew attention to a number of points with which I hope to deal. So far as the frequency of prison marriages is concerned, can I say that the circumstances will of course vary from case to case. The principal consideration which must be taken into account is one of security. The greater the threat to security—that is to say, the more likely the person is to escape, and whether he is a dangerous or perhaps violent criminal—the more costly will be the decision to escort him to a place outside the prison, and these are the cases that will most concern us. I do not think I can really say much more on that.
It is not possible at this time to estimate how many prisoners will wish to marry or how many marriages will be solemnised in prison—another point the right reverend Prelate raised-and how many in a church outside. The Government will need to balance the demands made on the prison service and the wishes of those seeking to marry.
Perhaps the most important point which the right reverend Prelate made was in connection with Article 12 of the convention. The European Convention has been interpreted by the Human Rights Commission as guaranteeing the right to enter into the legal status of marriage, rather than to carry out full marital responsibilities and duties, including the raising of children. In any event, it cannot be said at the time of a detained person's marriage that the detained person will never be released into the community to take up his marital responsibilities.
The measure before us does not prevent a clergyman licensed under it from solemnising marriages. This, I think, also was a point which the right reverend Prelate raised in connection with the extra-parochial ministry when he spoke just now. But his speech did raise various technical and recondite questions of ecclesiastical law which my noble friends and the officials will consider carefully before the Committee stage of the Bill.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in a general welcome to the Bill, talked about Anglo-Scottish symbiosis. I am grateful to him for his comments. I do not propose to get drawn into an argument between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, but nevertheless I am grateful for his remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, talked about what he thought might be gobbledegookery within the Bill. I certainly agree with him that it is legally a very complex Bill, even if the measures it seeks to put forward are fairly straightforward. The noble Lord suggested that the marriage ceremony as conducted in

497
register offices in England and Wales is often (I think he used these words) arid and unimpressive, and unworthy of the occasion and its importance to the parties. Your Lordships will understand that it is an essential feature of a civil ceremony of marriage that it is entirely devoid of religious content. Indeed, this is a statutory requirement contained in Section 5 of the Marriage Act 1949.
The law provides ample opportunity for the holding of religious services of marriage for those who wish to have them. In practice, while superintendent registrars are encouraged by the Registrar General to ensure that marriage ceremonies in registry offices are conducted with appropriate solemnity and decorum, in keeping with the nature of the occasion, it is exceedingly difficult to embellish a civil ceremony without introducing forms that are indicative of a religious understanding of what is taking place.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the question of a medical superintendent invoking a caveat. It may be helpful if I say that anyone may put forward a caveat. It is up to the superintendent registrar and, ultimately, the Registrar General as to whether or not it is upheld. The noble and learned Lord also talked about the form of certificate, and I hope I covered that point—it was in relation to the address—when I referred to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mischon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, with her wide experience of the Parole Board and as a magistrate, kindly said that she thought this was one of the best measures to come before your Lordships in, I think, 11 years. I am grateful for the support that she gave to the Bill in what I thought was a most moving speech. I answered her point in relation to the address on the certificate when I spoke to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale, in a moving speech about a case of which he has personal knowledge, amply demonstrated the need for the Bill, and I shall certainly bear in mind his remarks. I am grateful for his intervention. My noble friend Lord Mottistone, on the mental health aspects, again spoke about something which was raised by the right reverend Prelate earlier, so I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what I said.
I have tried to answer the main points that have been raised in the course of the debate. There will of course be further opportunities in the later stages of the Bill's progress to consider more detailed aspects of the Bill as it goes through. These proposals augment the present procedures preliminary to marriage without disturbing the basic structure of the marriage law. In commending these proposals to your Lordships I should mention that there has been prior consultation with the Churches and the medical profession. These consultations have shown the proposals to have substantial support among those more closely concerned with arranging marriage ceremonies and with caring for the interests of the housebound and the mentally disordered.
This is a modest Bill, bearing on only a few individuals, but the Government make no apology for including it in a busy legislative programme. Your Lordships will, I am sure, welcome the opportunity to alleviate in
498
a small way the hardships suffered by those who are confined to their homes or hospitals by illness or disability; and I hope your Lordships will recognise the need to ease the burden on the prison service in its efforts to give effect to the right of prisoners to marry. It is therefore with confidence that I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
1.5 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so I must declare an interest in that I am a genealogist and a record agent.
This is the third occasion on which I have introduced this Bill. The first was in November 1978 and the second in July 1979. Owing to the fact that this is a late hour on a Friday I shall he as brief as possible. I am extremely grateful to your Lordships, both to those who remain here to listen and, especially, to those distinguished speakers who will be speaking. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who, I gather, has given his guarded blessing for this little Bill to go forward. In July 1979 he said that he would pursue this matter with his colleagues in one way or another. This he has done, and I am most grateful to him.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the custody of the registers of births, marriages and deaths from the Registrar General's office to the Public Record Office. General registration in England and Wales began on 1st July 1837 in pursuance of the Registration Act 1836. Members of the public had direct access to those registers until 1898. Since then access has applied only to the indexes; any further information has to be sought by purchasing a certificate. The current charge for those applying in person is £4.60, and, by post, about double that.
In the main, the indexes give only the names of the persons and the registration district in which the event occurred. From 1866 the death indexes have given the age of the deceased; and from 1912 onwards, in the case of births, the maiden name of the mother, and, in the case of marriages, the surname of the other party. I should mention here that the indexes give the address of the marriage (I do not know if I am out of order in mentioning this now) but often it is a very loose address with just the plain place and not always the parish in which the road is situated. For instance, to take a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one could have seen both taking place in Brixton, so it has not been necessary and would not be setting a precedent just putting the main place without a more precise one.
The certificates tell us much more: in the case of births they give the occupation of the father, the maiden name of the mother and the address at which the birth took place. For marriages, the occupations of the couple are given and the names and occupations of the fathers; for deaths, the age of the deceased, where he died, the cause of death and the name and address of the informant.

499
Your Lordships will now be wanting to know why it is important for this information to be available. Basically, the main reason is that in the last decade there has been an explosion of interest—that term is not an exaggeration—in family history or genealogy, not only in this country but in all parts of the world. It would be fair to say that tourism has benefited greatly from the many people coming to this country in order to find out more about their origins. The interest comes from people in all walks of life, both the very young and the most senior. Frankly, the wealth of interest has imposed a great strain on the Registrar General's department whose real mission in life in this instance is to issue certificates of births, deaths and marriages to members of the public for current legal purposes. People pursuing family history do not need certified copies of entry; they just want information.
There is one point that I have not mentioned on the two previous occasions; that is, the present difficulty in searching for people with a common surname. One can quote the inevitable Smith, but more particularly to patronymics, such as Jones, Williams, and so on, especially in the Principality of Wales where they abound. I have myself suffered in the past. Now, those people have to buy many irrelevant certificates or have many irrelevant entries checked in order to find the right one. This is extremely expensive, time consuming and a waste of money.
I now come to the Bill itself. Clause 1 amends the Public Records Act 1958 to include registers of births and marriages where they were previously excluded, where they have been in existence for 100 years or less, deposited in the General Register Office under or in pursuance of any enactment. There are numerous minor consequentials covered by this with which I need not bother your Lordships except to give one or two examples—namely, the Consular Regulations; regulations made under the Civil Aviation Act as regards births, deaths and missing persons on hovercraft, which might sound rather bizarre; and Moscow marriages from 1826 to 1856, and the Ionian Islands Acts from 1816 to 1858. There are many extraordinary matters like that. Your Lordships will notice that the registration of adoptions and stillbirths are still excluded and will appreciate that the nature of those documents make them particularly sensitive, and that the registers started only in 1927, so even if they were not excluded they would not become available until 2027 or 2028.
So far I have not mentioned that there is a great deal of important historical demographic work proposed to be done on these registers. Some economic and social historians are disappointed that the period will remain at 100 years, although I was speaking recently to a member of that notable body, the Cambridge Group of Population Studies and Social Structure, and I gather that the 1880s is quite a good cut-off point because that is when fertility began to wane and birth control became more apparent and also mortality declined. The trend of mortality decline has continued from that date. I have discussed this matter with many other groups and have come to the conclusion that it is better, because of the sensitive nature of these records, that the 100-year rule remains. However, subsection (3) allows for the period to be shortened
500
should the climate of public opinion change and should it be thought desirable, without resorting to further legislation.
I need say little about clause 2 except that it makes the necessary changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Birth and Deaths Registration Act 1953. Clause 3 is the citation and commencement clause. Your Lordships will notice that no date is given for the commencement. The reason for this is that many arrangements have to be completed and final decisions made for this transfer. This Bill, as I have said, is only necessary because the Public Records Act 1958 specifically excluded these records. I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend could tell the House of what plans he proposes. I gather that charges will have to be made, and, much as one regrets it I fear that it is inevitable that this operation will have to be self-financing in order for it to proceed at all. I shall not say any more about this at the moment and will reserve any further comments to when I wind up.
However, there is one further point that I should like to be made clear. Will these records become the sole agency of the Public Record Office and will the Registrar General relinquish his total responsibility over them?
In conclusion, I would again like to thank all those from whom I have received co-operation—that is, the officials from the Public Record Office and the Office of Population Census and Surveys. One sincerely hopes that the Bill might reach the statute book this Session. There is no telling, but it would be a great pity if it fails in another place. There are Members there who are taking an interest, so it only remains for us to hope and pray. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Teviot.)
1.15 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I would like to support the Bill. The modern law as to public records is contained in a statute of 1958. In that statute there is set up the Advisory Council on Public Records and of that advisory council the Master of the Rolls is, by statute, the chairman. For 20 years I have been chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records. This question has been considered time after time by the advisory council and on every occasion they have expressed their support for the Bill. Let me tell your Lordships one or two more things about it.
Of course, public records are really the records which are kept by Government departments and Government agencies and administrations and among those, as a matter of principle, all births, deaths and marriages—all these registers—should be public records. If they were public records under the general provisions of this statute, after 30 years they should be handed over to the Public Record Office and made available for public inspection. But there was an exception made in 1958 in regard to these registers of births, deaths and marriages. So the position is simply that a member of the public cannot go to the Public Record Office and ask to see these registers in any way. No historian, genealogist or other person can go and ask to see them; all someone can do is go to the

501
Registrar General's department. All that he will get there is an index with a few names and surnames and the place of registration.
Let us take as an example my own mother's surname which was Thompson. If a person wants to seek out and find out her date of birth and the like, it is almost an impossible task to find it from the index. He has to guess on several occasions where it might be and to ask for a copy of the certificate. That will cost him £4·60 if he looks at it, then and there, and if he has it sent by post it will cost £9·60. Before he finds out the information—in my case it was my mother's birth—goodness knows how many pounds he will have to spend. No wonder a genealogist like my noble friend Lord Teviot would say that all the genealogists and record agents are put to enormous expense simply because they can only look at the index at present.
Moreover, on the advisory council, of which I was chairman, there are historians—modern and old—and they are all unanimously of the opinion that it would be of historical interest and importance that they should have access, so as to see the trend of populations, the number of families, children and so forth over the generations. If these were made public records they would be put on micro film and made available in the Public Record Office for all to see. But I must point out that this is only for those who are more than 100 years old. It is only for those between 1837 and 1883. So none of your Lordships' will be able to go and look at any of the birth certificates of anyone now living, however old they may be, because the period will be only from 1837 to 1883. The Bill would propose that all those registers of births, deaths and marriages should be transferred to the Public Record Office, be put on micro film and be available to all those who wanted to search, for the many reasons that I have mentioned.
It seems to me—and the whole of the advisory council were unanimous—that this would be a very beneficial reform. Not only that, but it would need some expenditure, more extra work by the Public Record Office and the like. That would have to be catered for but it would not be a large sum in this sphere at all. Some historians think that it ought not to be limited just to that 100 years. But in my view limiting it to those—as my noble friend has—more than 100 years old from 1837 to 1883 is a beneficial reform. This is a most welcome Bill under which those registers more than 100 years old will become public records and available accordingly. I support the Bill.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I suppose that I, too, ought to declare a very minor, personal, potential interest. I use the word "potential" because I have just been appointed as a member of the advisory council of which the noble and learned Lord was such a distinguished chairman for so many years and of which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was a member. But there has been no meeting since my appointment, so I can speak my mind unfettered by the previous deliberations of the advisory council.
Happily your Lordships will be glad to learn that I have very little to add to what has already been said by the two previous speakers about this small but useful
502
Bill. I support it. It has a number of advantages which have been pointed out. Perhaps, briefly, I might mention those which strike me as important. First, as has been pointed out, it will make the older registers of births, deaths and marriages more easily accessible.
Secondly, welcoming as one obviously must, the notion that the cost will be very small and its operations will be self-financing, one hopes, it will almost certainly make access cheaper for the many citizens who are now interested in their more immediate forbears.
Thirdly, it will relieve the truly immense pressure on the search room of the General Register Office, a pressure which at times, is, I assure noble Lords, literally intolerable. Believe it or not, people have been known to faint in the crush to get at the later registers.
Fourthly, the Public Record Office already holds the old census records, so there will be a more sensible symmetry as and when the older registers of births, marriages and deaths are cared for by the same department.
Fifthly, as has already been pointed out, the Bill is basically an enabling measure, as Clause 3 makes very clear. I believe that this last point is especially important. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, pointed out, there is no prescribed operative date; this is left to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to bring in by order, embodied in a statutory instrument. It will be possible to prescribe different operative dates for different provisions and purposes. To my mind the importance of this flexibility is that it disposes of the argument, with which one is very familiar, along with Sir Humphrey Appleby and others, that the Bill is marginally desirable as a minor reforming measure, but, alas! it could create a call on scarce resources at a time of enormous economic stringency, and one again is straight back from "Yes, Minister" to Cornford and the doctrine of unripe time. It gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor liberty to decide on the operative date or dates and the phasing in of the new arrangement, no doubt—although, of course, it is not for me to say so—in consultation with interested colleagues.
Clearly, the General Register Office will need a new search room which will cost money. But, who knows—1 certainly do not—but that the rationalisation and reduction of the Government's London civil estate will throw up, if one might forgive the expression, the necessary space in an economical way? So despite my distaste for tinkering with organisational matters unnecessarily, after I confess, most of a lifetime spent in stirring this very pot, which seemed very necessary at the time, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will speed the Bill on its way.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am indebted—and no doubt your Lordships will be—to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for two things. First, because he has given some of us, who have enjoyed paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as one of our outstanding judges, an opportunity to recollect that he was, indeed, as he has told us, the distinguished chairman for 20 years of the Advisory Council on Public Records. Secondly, this debate has given the

503
noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, the opportunity to give us a most dramatic account of people so crowded in the records office, as it at present exists, anxious to look at the records of their forbears, that they find themselves in a condition of complete fainting, with results—which I must immediately try to imagine—which call upon the energies of the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance people, and so on. If it only managed to avoid this sort of catastrophe, I suppose that this would be a useful Bill. But, to take the matter seriously, as has been pointed out, this is an enabling measure and I have no doubt at all that the enabling measure will be carried out with due care.
There are a couple of questions that those of us who are not experienced in the keeping of public records would want to ask. First, one remembers that the locality of the Public Record Office and its future has indeed been a matter of quite a lot of discussion. It may very well be that when one is dealing with public records of a rather rarefied nature it would not be an inconvenience to the average citizen, or even the professional person investigating matters like genealogy and so on, to go to some distant place far removed from the centre of London. But if this is to contain records so that one can look at the date of birth—as many of us would always want to do with great affection—of the mother of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and if indeed to do that one had to travel far out of the centre of the Metropolis, obviously it would be a great disadvantage.
Again, the layman asks this quesion—and if it be a foolish question the layman apologises. If the disadvantage at the present moment of the Registrar General's department is that the record contains only an index and so therefore one has to make various searches—especially if you are looking at a name which is quite a common name—please may the layman ask: how will this be put right when one has this series of certificates, and so on, in the Public Record Office? What is the system which it is envisaged by this Bill will operate by way of contrast to the index so that I, the simple layman, can walk in and find the certificate that I want without going through the present difficulties of looking at an index? If I may say so to your Lordships. I immediately feel that there must be some index, and how does the name of "Thompson", "Jones" or "Brown" become more easily ascertainable on the certificate that I want than it is at the present moment?
Thirdly, is it envisaged that as a result of this—and I am sure that those who have been thinking about this for some years obviously have the answer, and I apologise for putting this question—there will in some way be a reduction in staff of the Registrar General's department, and therefore if the Public Record Office has to take on staff it will not indeed be increasing the total establishment, if I may put it that way?
Last of all, may I ask this question, again with some simplicity. Is it envisaged by those who have tried to compute the cost of this that, even though one may need rather more work done in order to make a search much more simple, the resulting fee to the member of the public, or indeed the expert agent who is looking for the information, will not be more excessive than
504
the totality of the fees, about which we have heard, which are charged by the registrar when one search has to be made after the other? These are merely questions that I ask; they are not meant to be criticisms of what I have no doubt is a good Bill.
1.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I hope I shall not detain your Lordships too long. My noble friend Lord Teviot declared an interest as a professional genealogist, which of course was prudent. However, I should like to take the opportunity, which has already been touched on by other speakers, of thanking him for his long service to the Advisory Council, which is, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, not strictly an interest but is something in which he has played a notable part in the past. I should like to welcome the public spirit which has led the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, to undertake the mantle of this responsibility, and to echo what has been said about the long chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning.
This is, as my noble friend said, his third attempt. I hope this time it will be third time lucky, but we shall have to depend to some extent on another place to realise that hope. As my noble friend has said, the aim of the Bill is to provide for 100 year-old records of live births, marriages and deaths to be transferred to the Public Record Office from the General Register Officer and made available for public inspection on microfilm. That, to some extent, deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because at present all the records are held by the Registrar General, and I think it is only the indexes which are available generally to the public at the present time, for which they have to pay £4·60 for a copy of an entry from the Registrar in person, £9·60 on a postal application.
Under the present arrangements for the indexes, a reader buys a copy of entries which appear to be relevant by making the registers themselves available. The reader himself will be able to verify whether an entry is of interest to him. That is the advantage that he would get in respect of these which he does not at the moment possess. The argument is that the Registrar General's primary function is to provide access to current records. The "centenarian" records, which was the word used, I think, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when this matter was debated in, I believe, 1978, no longer serve that purpose. But of course, as my noble friend has pointed out, although they do not serve that purpose they are of general and great interest to genealogists and historians.
Like the 100 year-old census records, which, as my noble friend said, are already held by the Public Record Office, there is no fear that public access to the centenarian records will intrude on personal privacy, which is the reason why the current records are not generally available. It is, therefore, suggested by the Bill that the registrar's records might also be held, like the census records, in the Public Record Office. I think we accept that it is the natural home for the 100 year records, whose importance is now primarily historical. In order to make it clear, in view of something that was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning on

505
the Cross-Benches, the Public Record Office will be taking custody of the 100 year-old records and providing access. The Registrar General will enjoy the same right to recall them for administrative purpose as any other department enjoys under the terms of Section 54(6) of the Public Records Act 1958.
The proposal in this Bill was first agreed in principle by the then Registrar General in 1975, and it was accepted then that legislation would be required, but that the transfer should not be made until microfilms were completed. There was then no suitable vehicle for legislation, and the financial provisions had still to be worked out. The Advisory Council endorsed the proposal, as my noble and learned friend has said, and my noble friend introduced his first Bill in 1978. Then, after the election in April 1979, my noble friend reintroduced it, but generously then withdrew it to give an opportunity for the Government to look at the cost.
That opportunity was interrupted because at the end of 1980 we undertook a feasibility study into moving all the Public Record Office's records to Kew. If this had been done, there would have been no spare accommodation at Kew for the records as had been originally proposed until the new buildings were completed. In the event, however, last year in April it was decided that the cost of the new building required at Kew would be prohibitive, and the proposal was dropped. At the same time as that the Government reaffirmed their intention to provide for the housing and opening of the 100-year records by the Public Record Office. That remains my policy.
If I may say so, my noble friend was not overstating the case when he said that there had been an explosion of interest in family history. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, stirred our feelings by a description of the state of affairs in St. Catherine's House. I understand that the public search rooms have even had to be closed at times because of fears for public safety. The Record Office's census room is equally popular. The use of the census has risen by more than 200 per cent. in the last 5 years. The Public Record Office's 1981 handbook called Tracing your Ancestors has already proved a best seller and is already in its second print. This is, for the reasons given by my noble friend, a perfectly healthy development, but it makes it difficult to estimate future expenditure.
When I last spoke on the subject in July 1979, on the occasion to which I have made reference, I said that the Public Record Office expected 150 readers a day. That figure is now estimated at 720. The annual operating cost in 1979 was £213,000 a year. The estimate is now £1,300,000. The initial capital cost of buildings and equipment was put in 1979 at £300,000. If a new building were to be constructed, it might cost over £1 million. The capital cost of the necessary microfilm equipment alone is £300,000.
I mention these figures to show that the additional expenditure to which I shall be subjected is not a small proportion of the £7 million which is the present expenditure on the Public Record Office. No doubt the registrar may be able to transfer some staff provision to the Public Record Office, but he does not, in answer to one question put to me, expect to be able to make any savings on accommodation to reduce the net cost to the Exchequer. I must tell the House that there is no provision yet made in the Public Expenditure
506
Survey—which we all know by the horrible name of "Pes"—to cover the additional costs.
Inevitably, these costs, small as they may seem in comparison with some other sums we discuss from day to day, will no doubt have to compete with other demands from other departments, and indeed other demands from my own department. It may be that part of the cost could be met by fees. The registrar's current operation is self-financing through the income from the purchase of copies of certified entries to which I referred.
We shall have to consider whether and in what way fees might be charged so as to ensure that the service continues to finance itself. I hope that when we do that, the grisly spectre of museum charges, which so befogged my noble friend Lord Eccles in his period of office, will not raise its horrible head to oppose it. Responsibility for these records will more than double readership at the Public Record Office, so this is a major new task. I can only say that the service to readers will be better but it will not necessarily be free. The cost implications, within the kind of limits 1 have discussed, will be substantial.
The microfilms are now complete and we are considering the financial implications as a matter of urgency. A bid for public expenditure provision will have to be made at what Sir Humphrey Appleby would certainly call "the appropriate time". I hope we can make early progress, but I am grateful for my noble friend's foresight in providing for the timing of implementation to be at my discretion. I cannot of course pre-empt the time in another place, and I cannot therefore guarantee that time will be available there to consider the Bill. However, I hope my noble friend will be lucky—perhaps he will get it through on the nod—and it has certainly had a very fair wind in this House.
I must tell my noble friend that some doctoring will be necessary in Committee, I hope in this House, in spite of his sagacity in getting what was obviously a professional job done on the drafting of the Bill as it is before us now. Perhaps he will get in touch with us or we can get in touch with him, and I hope we shall be able to co-operate with him. In the meantime, I am happy to join with all others who have spoken in commending the Second Reading to the House.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his remarks. As for the question of doctoring in Committee, I have already been in touch with his department, or they have been in touch with me, and that will go forward, being quite understandable.
As for the place in which these records will be housed, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, it would be preferable if that were somewhere in Central London because it would be near other places of deposit. Obviously the question of cost must be looked into very carefully. One hopes that a new building would not be necessary, and one can think, for example, of large warehouses south of the river which could be converted, or one could suggest the original place of deposit of the Registrar General's records, Somerset House. Perhaps I am on slightly touchy ground here, but that was the building where the original registers were kept for about 140 years,

507
until some people thought that those splendid rooms should be handed over to the arts. They were, but the arts have not made use of them. That, therefore, is another place that could be considered, but that is a matter for consideration in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why things would be made easier with a common name. At present you must list all the entries in the index, put them in to be checked and then, a few days later, at great expense, get them all back again. If you are doing it yourself, you look at the lists in the indices and sit down with the microfilms, having taken them off the shelf, and you then read them. Suppose, as a hypothetical figure, £10 per day were the cost of searching. The present cost of certificates is £4.60, so there would be substantial savings quite quickly. I was grateful to the noble Lord for raising those points. As for a reduction in staff, it is not for me to answer on that, but I should not have thought there would be very much change one way or the other.
I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his remarks. He was a distinguished chairman under whom I was happy to serve for nine of his 20 years. I am sorry to have left that body, but nine years is a long time, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, to it. I am sure he will find it a very interesting experience.
If the Bill succeeds, this will be the first country in the world to unite its vital records with its public records, and it would be nice if we could be the first to do that. I think there is no more for me to say at this hour, except to commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before two o'clock.