Lords Sitting of 13 December 1984

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

Hampstead Heath and Kenwood House: Administration
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they intend to make to ensure that on the demise of the Greater London Council, Hampstead Heath and Kenwood House continue to be administered for London by an independent and adequately financed authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, on abolition of the GLC, it is planned that responsibility for the administration of Hampstead Heath will be transferred to the boroughs in which it lies. Account will be taken of such transferred functions when the post-abolition financial arrangements for London are determined. The heath would thus be in the care of directly elected and adequately financed authorities.
Kenwood House is to be transferred, with its grounds, to the care of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, whose grant in aid will reflect the additional responsibilities of running and managing this property. I am sure the commission will wish to bear in mind the close relationship between the grounds and the heath in considering its future management of the property, and will wish to discuss appropriate arrangements with the local authorities concerned.
Lord Cottlesloe: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that, although his answer as regards Kenwood House will meet with general approval, his answer with regard to Hampstead Heath will spread a good deal of alarm and despondency?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his response in the first part of his question. So far as the second part of his question is concerned, I hope that, equally, the House will give weight to the idea of local boroughs looking after their own parks.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl clarify his use of the word "boroughs" when he talked of boroughs having the responsibility? Does that mean that Hampstead Heath will come under more than one borough and that there will be split authority over it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, although the majority of Hampstead Heath is within the borough of Camden, there are parts of it within the borough of Barnet and a small amount in the borough of Haringey.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, following the Minister's answers to the two noble Lords, may I ask whether he is aware that two of the three boroughs that will be looking after Hampstead Heath will be rate-capped next year? Can he give assurances that his department will provide continuing funds to preserve the present high standard of maintenance and conservation of Hampstead Heath? Further, do not the events that took place in another place last night reflect strong and passionate support for an elected authority for our capital city, which is the appropriate body to run Kenwood and Hampstead Heath together?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I must confess that I was wondering how the noble Baroness was going to get that over! In answer to her first question, the rate support grant will continue to equalise the rate poundage cost to ratepayers, providing a standard level of service which will include the parks provisions. Regarding the vote last night, that is a different question to the matter concerning the running of Hampstead Heath. I personally should very much like to see that done by the boroughs.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the local authorities administering Hampstead Heath cannot agree, who has the final say? I understand that such a situation has arisen already in Wimbledon.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, to start with, we shall of course be debating this subject when it comes to the House in the spring. Secondly, there is a residuary body which will be set up to iron out such problems.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I warmly support the spirit of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, as one who, I am sure along with many of your Lordships, has enjoyed the amenities of Hampstead Heath for many years? May I ask the noble Earl a particular question arising out of his Answer? If a number of borough councils —in this case, I believe, three—are to be responsible for Hampstead Heath, who will decide whether such events as the excellent series of open air concerts held on the part of the heath surrounding Kenwood will continue, and who will be responsible for their continuing finance?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which is taking on Kenwood House, is intending to keep the concerts going. It wishes to maintain the present standards and even try to improve them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister say whether consideration has been given to much the simplest way of solving this matter; namely, that Camden, which has the largest part of the heath, should run it and that those parts that belong to two other boroughs should be transfered to Camden by the local government boundary commission?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that sounds delightfully simple in this House, but I can assure the noble Lord that if he went to Barnet he would have a very rough reception.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, when my noble friend replied about the concerts, did he mean the lakeside concerts or simply the ones in Kenwood House? The question of the lakeside concerts is very important.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was referring to the lakeside concerts, and certainly my reply was directed to them.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I return to the point that the Minister made—that the vote last night was on a different subject? It was not a different subject, because this is an absolutely prime example of something for which an elected authority for London must be responsible.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point, and I hope that she will also accept mine when I say that Hampstead Heath could well be run by the local authority and its borough, which in this case is Camden.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the boroughs concerned, Barnet and Camden, are not on speaking terms?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords, it is quite difficult to get a response from Camden.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in that case, is it not clear that there ought to be some authority that can bang their heads together; namely, some sort of elected authority to cover the strategic matters of Greater London?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I hope that when we have an opportunity to debate this matter, perhaps at Committee stage, Parliament will be able to do just that.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that in a recent debate I asked a question similar to this concerning Hainault Forest, where there are two golf courses in three separate local authority areas and a wild forest with a large number of verderers and park keepers? Is he saying that the cost of all that is to fall on those particular authorities and not on London as a whole?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I do not have the answer to the question on Hainault Forest. I remember that the noble Lord raised that matter last time. Whereas I have walked over Hampstead Heath and paced the acreage, I am afraid that I have not yet done so in Hainault Forest.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in relation to the reply that the noble Earl gave me, if we are to wait for further debates, why are the Government bringing forward a statutory order next week to abolish the GLC elections?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that that is another question which can wait until next Tuesday.

Environment Protection
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to protect the environment, in addition to the Food and Environment Protection Bill.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have a record of achievement in this area of which we are proud; but we shall do more. The progressive implementation of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, our commitment to introduce unleaded petrol by 1989, and the significant increases we have announced in funding for the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are among the many examples of our approach in different sectors of the environment; and we shall continue to monitor the workings of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is nonetheless considerable disappointment among all those who care about the environment at the absence from the Queen's Speech of any reference to environmental policy, if only as an earnest of the Government's concern, apart from the reference to pollution which is covered by the Food and Environment Protection Bill? Is he further aware that there is equal disappointment at the delay in a response to the Countryside Commissions' report on the uplands, which was submitted last March and to which a response had been confidently expected before the end of the last Session? Is it not probable that but for that delay, there would have had to be a reference in the Queen's Speech to environmental policy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should feel that way. We have actually published today the response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report. Also we have published today our answer to the review of disposal of radioactive waste at sea—the Holliday Report. I should also like to welcome the taking place at this coming week-end of the meeting of the Summit countries on the subject of the environment.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, may I follow that with one more supplementary? While it is satisfactory that there may be legislation through a Private Member's Bill to protect SSSIs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, is there not an equal and urgent need to halt further losses of moorland in the uplands, and of marshes through drainage in the lowlands, by amending Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the related financial guidelines?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, these are subjects which are being monitored. As the noble Lord says,

395
some people hold the opinion which he has just expressed. I have not yet seen the draft of the Private Member's Bill, and until I have done so I cannot comment on a particular section.
Baroness White: My Lords, we entirely appreciate the point just made by the noble Earl that he cannot directly comment on the details of the Private Member's Bill, and while some of them were referred to earlier this week in this House as being probable, may we have his assurance on the following matter? We hope that the Government will take a sympathetic attitude towards amendments, in addition to the closing of the three-month loophole (which is the main objective), if a reasonable consensus can be found between the voluntary environmental organisations and the agriculture and other interests involved. As one example, would the noble Minister agree that the Forestry Commission might well be required to take on responsibilities towards environmental conservation, which are carried by water authorities but not as yet by the Forestry Commission?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I fully take the noble Baroness's point. Of course the Government will look at all the issues which are raised in the Private Member's Bill. However, I am sure she would not expect me to be able to give a carte blanche, as she has said. But of course we are not going to close our eyes only at Clause 28.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the financial guidelines to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred are fundamental to the implementation of the Bill, and that there is widespread concern among local authorities, conservation groups and the parks authorities about the operation of the present guidelines? For example, is the Minister aware that Suffolk County Council have estimated that it would cost them between £6 million and £8 million to protect their vulnerable countryside under this Act? It is obviously beyond their means. Can the Minister assure us that these guidelines will be looked at and that next time they will be put before Parliament for scrutiny?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I equally hope the noble Baroness will welcome the increase in grant in aid to the Nature Conservancy Council and to the Countryside Commission, in the recent announcements, as a good step forward.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Earl inform us how far Government thinking supports the suggestion which was recently made informally by Mr. William Waldegrave at Newcastle that we should establish an independent environmental protection agency in Britain?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not read my honourable colleague's statement but it sounds very wise.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that there is growing public concern and public awareness about these matters arising out of the exchanges that have taken place? Would he bear in
396
mind that this arises from two incontrovertible, contradictory facts which have become public knowledge? The first is the continuing loss to agriculture and other development of features in the countryside which are traditional to our landscape. The second incontrovertible fact is the overproduction of a number of agricultural products: grain, milk and various kinds of meat.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am only too well aware of the debate on this subject, going on in the country. I assure the noble Lord that we listen very carefully to all the comments.

Post Office Mail: Complaints
3.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many complaints the Post Office has received annually during the past five years regarding letters which fail to reach their destination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Post Office receives complaints at various levels about aspects of the mails service but records of these are not maintained.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat uninformative reply? May I ask whether he would care to comment on the fact that POUNC find that complaints, which are only the tip of the iceberg, particularly in the London area, are on the increase? Can he say whether any action is contemplated to reverse this regrettable trend?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that the POUNC figures from which the noble Baroness probably reaches her conclusion refer to August and September of this year, where certainly the performance was below the target which the Post Office itself sets. I can tell the noble Lady that between October and November of this year the figures are impressively better and fall very little short of the target of 90 per cent. delivery on first-class mail.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many complaints have been received from recipients of letters who found they were opened before they received them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no, I cannot.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he would use his influence to persuade the Post Office to publish the quality of service statistics which are regularly reported to the Post Office board? Would not these figures be of immense interest to noble Lords and to Members in another place?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the quality of service is reported upon in the annual reports of the Post Office.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, in view of the allegations made by the CND, can the noble Minister give an assurance that none of this failure to deliver is due to censorship carried out without authority by the Post Office? Can he also tell us what if any authority there is for opening the CND letters?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that assurance. In the file in my hand I have a six-page letter from the personal assistant to the chairman of the Post Office explaining what has happened. I understand the CND have cooperated with the Post Office in investigating their complaint and have found that while the service was not all that could be desired, there was nothing wrongful in the terms in which the noble Lord posed his question.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us whether the universal introduction of the postal code might remove the large number of complaints that are still extant, and if so when the Post Office intend to do it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there are 67 mechanical letter offices in use now. It is hoped that the remaining number of 14 will be in use by the end of 1985. It is estimated that then there will be an improvement to the target that the Post Office have set. However, I should remind my noble friend that there are some 10,000 million letters sent per year—something like 35 to 36 million per day. To achieve a delivery rate figure of 87 per cent. of the target is quite a considerable achievement.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the postal codes are not put into the telephone books? This would lead to their greater use in quite a number of cases.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, exactly why; but I understand there are certain security constrictions with regard to what goes into telephone directories.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how these efficiency checks are carried out by the Post Office? Is he aware that when I complained about the non-delivery of letters, of which I had evidence, two months later I received a reply which said that the Post Office had checked that all letters had been delivered. But I remain totally unconvinced.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the checking is done by sampling methods.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the loss of quite a proportion of the letters is probably due to that monstrosity, the ball pen, and the fact that calligraphy and handwriting seem no longer to be taught in British schools?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the misdirection and loss of mail is ofter caused by undecipherable writing on envelopes and packages. There are 124,000 postmen who have the job of reading these. It is perhaps no more than a matter of
398
human error that, on occasions, some get misdelivered.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Post Office gave the CND £100, I think, as compensation for damaged letters, will the Government consider some form of compensation for individuals where it can be proved that the loss of a letter has resulted in financial loss or other damage?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this is entirely a matter for the Post Office, who run the operation. I understand that information with regard to compensation is available in leaflet form from most main post offices.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the Post Office investment requirements, which are very necessary to achieve the desired level of modernisation, are not being restricted in any way by Her Majesty's Government's restrictions on its borrowing powers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that that is a little wide of the original Question, which was concerned with complaints. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord puts down a specific question, I shall be in a position to reply to him.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if there is a question of compensation for letters that do not arrive, is there any possibility of compensation for the vast numbers that do arrive that we would rather not have?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I share the feeling that I think lies behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I very much share his sentiments.
Lord Plant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from some minor difficulties that have been mentioned, we have the best postal system in the world and that at this time of the year the House would want to place on record its thanks to postal workers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that question. I endorse what he says. In answer specifically to his question, yes, we do have a postal service which, by international comparative standards, is extremely high on the list, although the noble Lord will appreciate that comparisons are not always exact. The Post Office will have an enormous task in the next few weeks. I am glad that the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to express the hope that those who serve us most days in snow, ice, fog and all inclement weather as well as in the sunshine are also able to do their job satisfactorily and to get away to their families to enjoy a happy Christmas.

School: Parental Influence
3.23 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to make a statement on the findings of the Green Paper on parental influences at school (Cmnd. 9242), now that the consultative period is ended.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government hope shortly to conclude their consideration of the way ahead in the light of the responses to the consultations and will make an announcement as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the adverse comments that have been made on the Green Paper, whether he will be prepared to recommend to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the findings of the committee which I had the privilege of chairing some time ago, and their implementation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would not hesitate to agree with the noble Lord that a lot of the replies were hostile. But, of course, the Green Paper made proposals on many matters other than a parental majority on governing bodies. It should be noted that very many respondents agree that the present arrangement for school government could and should be improved on Green Paper lines and that there should be scope for parents to involve themselves more in their children's education.
I have paid my congratulations many times to the noble Lord and the committee that he chaired so admirably. His committee has provided a very useful background. It has been of considerable value in opening up discussion in detail on the complex issues that the Green Paper addressed. I know that my right honourable friend has considered what the committee reported. I do not think that the two are in any way incompatible.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that local education authorities were given a very short time at a very inconvenient time to respond to the Green Paper which arrived on chief education officers' desks in the summer after the last governors' meetings of the year had taken place and also after members and officers had had their last committee meetings before the autumn, by which time the responses had to be back at the department? Would the noble Earl not agree that it is irritating, to put it mildly, for people to be hurried into making a response and then have to wait for a considerable time for Ministers to make up their minds as to how they are going to respond? The noble Earl has given no date as to when we can expect the Ministers' response. Exactly the same happened with the youth service review. Surely, local education authorities and voluntary bodies could be treated with a little more consideration by Ministers in the Education Department.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the closing date for written comments was over four months after the date of publication. A very considerable number of
400
responses, some of them quite detailed—I understand that some 77 local education authorities responded—were received by or shortly after the date set. In my view this shows that the period allowed was quite adequate for those responding to consider the proposals fully before doing so.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that parents' associations themselves peferred the proposals made in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to those made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that there were a number of different replies. As I have said. I make no secret of the fact that a number of the replies were hostile to the Government's proposals.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask whether we can expect legislation in this Session? There was nothing about this matter in the Queen's Speech but it is implicit in the Green Paper that there is to be legislation.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can go no further than what I said in my original Answer about the Government's response.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Standing Orders (Private Business): Amendment
3.27 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended, as follows:
Standing Order 1:
No. 1 Line 71, leave out "1" and insert "2".
No. 2 Line 73, leave out "National" and "Development".
Standing Order 3:
No. 3 Lines 9 and 10, leave out "the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (if the House thinks fit so to order) and".
No. 4 Line 13, leave out "their" and insert "his".
Standing Order 29:
No. 5 Line 8, leave out "the Environment" and insert "Transport".
Standing Order 30:
No. 6 Lines 5 and 6, leave out "Trade and at the Department of the Environment" and insert "Energy".
Standing Order 31:
No. 7 Line 6, leave out "Trade" and insert "Transport".
Standing Order 32:
No. 8 Line 12, leave out "or catchment board".
Standing Order 33:
No. 9 Lines 4 to 6, leave out "or a board of conservators constituted for the conservancy of the river, or of a catchment board,".
No. 10 Line 11, leave out "or board, or each of them,".
Standing Order 34:
No. 11 Line 9, leave out "the Environment" and insert "Transport".
Standing Order 39:
No. 12 Line 6, after "Trade" insert "and Industry".
No. 13 Lines 6 and 7, leave out "the Department of Industry,".
No. 14 Line 9, after "Energy," insert "the Department of Transport,".
Standing Order 42:
No. 15 Lines 3 and 4, leave out "catchment".
No. 16 Lines 4 and 5, leave out "board of conservators or catchment board".
No. 17 Lines 8 and 9, leave out "or board".
Standing Order 43:
No. 18 Lines 7 and 8, leave out "or catchment board".
Standing Order 45:
No. 19 Line 19, leave out "printed".
No. 20 Line 29, leave out "printed".
No. 21 Line 30, leave out "the Environment" and insert "Transport".
Standing Order 46:
No. 22 Line 4, leave out "Department of Trade or".
No. 23 Lines 4 and 5, leave out ", or each of such Departments as the case may require".
Standing Order 132:
No. 24 Line 7, leave out "Department of the Environment" and insert "Secretary of State for Transport".
No. 25 Line 9, after "Department" insert "of Transport".
Standing Order 139:
No. 26 Line 11, leave out "Department of the Environment" and insert "Secretary of State for Transport".
No. 27 Line 23, leave out "Department of the Environment" and insert "Secretary of State for Transport".
Standing Order 140:
No. 28 Line 4, leave out "the Department of Trade or" and leave out "Department of" and insert "Secretary of State for".
Standing Order 175:
No. 29 Line 2, leave out "29A" and insert "29".
No. 30 Line 44, after "25A" insert "and", and leave out "and 29A".
Standing Order 176:
No. 31 Lines 4 and 5, leave out "the London Transport Executive or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries".
Standing Order 178:
No. 32 Line 3, leave out "or Provisional Certificates".
Standing Order 179:
No. 33 Line 3, leave out "or Certificate".
No. 34 Line 4, leave out "or Certificate".
No. 35 Line 6, leave out "or Certificate".
No. 36 Line 11, leave out "or Certificate".
No. 37 Line 17, leave out "or Certificate".
No. 38 Line 20, leave out "or Certificate".
Standing Order 185:
No. 39 Line 3, leave out "or Certificates".
No. 40 Line 7, leave out "or Certificates".
No. 41 Lines 16 and 17, leave out "or Certificates".
No. 42 Line 19, leave out "or Certificates".
No. 43 Line 20, leave out "or Certificates".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are purely formal amendments to bring the Private Bill Standing Orders up to date. Most of them are concerned with such things as bringing up to date the names of departments and statutory authorities. I can, of course,
402
explain them in more detail if any of your Lordships so wish. Otherwise, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Highland Regional Council (Uig Pier, Skye) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Lochmaddy and East Loch Tarbert (Improvement of Piers &c) Order Confirmation Bill
Read for a third time, and passed.

Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I got involved in this matter through Mr. Keith Speed, the honourable Member for the Ashford divison of Parliament, in whose constituency I have a residence. Mrs. Hill and Mr. Alan Monk are constituents of Mr. Speed. From the amount of post I have had about this Bill, one would think that there was going to be an ugly rush of mothers-in-law wanting to marry their sons-in-law. If I had been in a position to marry my mother-in-law, I know who should have worn the trousers. Fortunately, I was not in that position. I do not think that the writers of these letters really understood that this is a Bill—it is a Private Bill—for only two people; it is so that Mrs. Hill and Mr. Monk may marry.
Mrs. Hill was born on 13th May 1935. I do not think that it is particularly important to read out these birth dates, but I suppose I should. Mr. Alan Monk was born on 5th January 1955. Mrs. Hill is therefore 20 years older than Mr. Monk, if my arithmetic is correct. That is neither here nor there. Mrs. Hill is the mother-in-law of Mr. Monk. Mr. Monk married Mrs. Hill's daughter, Janette Sandra Rusher, who was born in July 1959. Miss Rusher then became Mrs. Monk. This is very involved. Mrs. Hill's husband at that time was a Mr. Terence Rusher.
Mrs. Monk walked out on Mr. Monk and left him with responsibility for the children. These two people, Mr. Monk and Mrs. Hill, wish to get married, but there is one obstacle in the way. Under the 1949 Act there is a technical bar to their marriage. It has nothing to do with affinity in blood that there is a technical bar; the bar is under the 1949 Act. But under the 1965 Act there have been one or two occasions when fathers-in-law have married their daughters-in-law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a report that he brought out this year, said that, if there was just cause, this

403
technical bar could be dispensed with; and there have been one or two occasions when fathers-in-law have married their daughters-in-law. But, as far as I am aware, there has never been a case of a mother-in-law marrying her son-in-law.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I think the House might be slightly misled. I chaired the committee in question, and I should like to say that the Archbishop has not in fact yet expressed a view on it. If the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, it would be to mislead the House to give the impression that the Archbishop has in any way accepted that report.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thought that in the Church report the Archbishop has said that, if there was just cause, exceptions could be made.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships, but my information is that the group set up by the most reverend Primate issued a majority report and a minority report. That is the essence of the matter.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, there have been one or two cases where fathers-in-law have been allowed to marry their daughters-in-law.
I should like to point out, and to prove, that there is a just cause here for these two people to be married. Mr. Monk was left with two young children aged five and four, when his wife walked out, and the court gave custody of the children to him. It is very difficult for a young man who is under 30 to look after young children. He had few relations who could take on this task.
Mrs. Hill, who is the grandmother of these two children, said she would help. Mr. Monk then brought the children over to Mrs. Hill's house, where they are being brought up at the moment. The divorce went through in April 1983. Mr. Monk has custody of the children, and he had no one to look after them. He brought them over to his former wife's mother's house, where they are now being brought up. Mrs. Hill has been a very unfortunate lady in regard to her marriages, because she was in a divorce and she has been widowed twice. Both her husbands died of natural causes and she devotedly nursed them through their illnesses.
Mr. Monk and Mrs. Hill are now living together in the same house as husband and wife. They want to get married, for two reasons. One reason is that they are very fond of each other. The other reason, which is of extreme importance, is that they want to bring the children up in a stable home. Apparently the children look upon Mrs. Hill as their mother, and they call her "mummy." They are a young age and it is very important for them to be brought up in a stable home. I hope that that can be made possible by Mrs. Hill and Mr Monk being allowed to marry. As regards the Church, I understand that the wedding cannot take place in church but apparently the local vicar has said that if the Bill becomes law he will bless the wedding.
I do not think that I can take the matter any further. I could tell your Lordships a great many dates—for example, when Mrs. Hill was widowed, the cause and
404
so on—but I do not think they are relevant. I appeal to your Lordships to give this matter a fair hearing so that the parties can get married. I pointed out that there is no blood affinity. For a long time you have been allowed to marry your cousin. You are now allowed, under a recent Act, to marry your deceased wife's sister, and there might even be a blood affinity in that case. However, there is no blood affinity in this case. I agree that marrying your cousin is not quite the same situation as that which we are discussing at present, but I hope that your Lordships will give a favourable answer to this request. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would hate there to be any misunderstanding, and I am sure that the noble Viscount will well understand me when I say that when he rises we are always used to laughing with him, but never at him. I would therefore hope that if the couple whom we are discussing this afternoon happen to be present in any part of your Lordships' House, or if they are represented, they will know that your Lordships always regard matters of this kind with the utmost sympathy and the utmost understanding, and always with the utmost consideration.
Having said that, let us consider the situation. We are talking about two human beings: a lady aged, I believe, 49, and a gentleman aged 29. The gentleman was a van driver for many years. He has been unemployed for the last couple of years—and I mention that because it is relevant to something that I shall say to your Lordships hereafter—and very recently he has been endeavouring to make his own way in life by setting up a little business of his own. Unfortunately there was a divorce, and two children of that marriage—the husband having obtained custody—are now staying with the husband, with whom your Lordships are dealing this afternoon, and with the mother-in-law. Indeed, the children were taken there immediately the parties separated. It is one of those civilised families, because I am informed that the mother of these two children visits the house every week and they have Sunday lunch together. The mother has expressed herself—certainly to the media, which is my only source of information in this respect—as being very much in favour of a marriage taking place between her mother and her former husband. There is no doubt about it, that the children regard this lady with the utmost affection.
There is no doubt about the fact that the parties have lived together in complete amity, forming a little family. So your Lordships will well understand that it was to their great disillusionment that, having decided to get married and having approached the registrar, they were told that there was a law which dates back to Henry VIII—not a great expert on the propriety of marriages—and that under that legislation, which has been re-enacted since (or, at least, the provisions of which have been re-enacted), there is a prohibition against the marriage of a woman and her son-in-law, and that the only way in which that prohibition can be lifted is by a decision of Parliament in both Houses. That is the matter that your Lordships are now considering.

405
Having regard to the interests of the children, the fact that the parties have lived together in complete amity and indeed with great affection for this period of time, and having regard, too, to the very proper—I almost said "old-fashioned"—desire for their relationship to be sanctified by marriage, I have little doubt that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, and, if I know your Lordships aright, also your blessing when you give that Second Reading.
I should like to add a few words about the problem that is set before a legislative body such as ours when considering—not for the first time, because there have been a few applications in recent years—the necessity for this enabling Bill procedure. It has two grave disadvantages. The first is the publicity that of necessity is given to the private affairs of two human beings, and, possibly—and even more unfortunately—the publicity that is given to the children. The second disadvantage—and this is why I mentioned earlier the fact that the prospective husband whom we are thinking of today has been unemployed for a couple of years and is now starting on his own—is the costs involved. When talking to the press the parties said that the costs in this case had been estimated at some £1,300, and rather pathetically, your Lordships may think, there was the added comment, "If we have to sell our home we are still going to go through with it because we so badly want to marry each other".
There have been attempts to legislate in your Lordships' House and in another place, but something has always occurred which has prevented a Bill going upon the statute book which provided that, in cases where the parties were over a certain age—and I am not going to mention the age because I can remember a debate about what that age ought to be—and after an investigation by an appropriate tribunal in private, such marriages should be permitted when they do not relate to an affinity of blood. Possibly, if the parties who are concerned with the Bill now before your Lordships have done nothing more than contribute to the weight of evidence that Parliament ought now to have amassed to the effect that legislative provision should be made for cases of this kind, and if they have achieved their own happiness, then in my view, and I believe in your Lordships' view, they will have done much in having put their problem to a Member of another place and in having had their problem ventilated this afternoon when the noble Viscount moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, courtesy demands that a member of the House of Bishops who is a Member of your Lordships' House should convey some views on the present business before the House, and I am grateful that my first words should he spoken under such an obligation of courtesy.
It was a generous gesture on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in February 1982 to withdraw his Marriage (Step-parents and Stepchildren) Bill after its Second Reading in this House, in response to the expressed concern of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that there should be a thorough and careful study of the present law bearing on the marriage of persons connected
406
through affinity; that is, through marriage, but not by blood. If I may put so sensitive a matter lightly for one moment, that is a matter which might be seen as traditionally being an interest of Archbishops of Canterbury: how many hours of tedium have been relieved down the centuries in the parish churches of the realm by the sheer human interest of Archbishop Parker's Table of Kindred and Affinity, which is annexed to the Book of Common Prayer?—a table which, it must seriously be added, stood unrevised until amended by statute during this century.
The present most reverend Primate was true to his word. At his invitation the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, chaired a group of leading persons in the law, theology, the social sciences and anthropolgy on this matter. In May of this year the group's report No Just Cause: The Law of Affinity in England and Wales: Some Suggestions for Change, was published.
In courtesy to your Lordships' House, I report this result of the most reverend Primate's initiative; and your Lordships might at this point therefore wonder whether, in consequence, something might be said this afternoon as to where the Bishops stand on the matter of marriage of those connected through affinity.
The most reverend Primate's sense that this was a complex subject, touching deep instincts in people, was confirmed by the fact that the group, while in agreement on certain central issues, has produced majority and minority reports, with much in common in their recommendations, but yet with significant differences. On the matter, for instance, of any abolition of the existing legal impediment on marriage between a parent-in-law and a child-in-law, the majority recommended that this impediment should be removed; the minority, that it should be retained.
How, then, does this report No Just Cause stand in the mind of the Church of England, or more specifically in the mind of the bishops? It is not possible to answer that question yet. The House of Bishops had the opportunity, and was most grateful for it, of a sustained discussion of the report with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, shortly after it was published. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed himself as wanting to listen to any public debate which might arise from the publication of No Just Cause or indeed from the passage of the present Bill through Parliament. It is expected that there will be a further discussion in the House of Bishops early in 1985, in order that that house might consider formulating its own corporate view of the various recommendations in the report.
I have here the privilege of expressing in your Lordships' House the considerable gratitude felt by the bishops to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for this report. It is the first substantial study of the subject in over 40 years. I hope that No Just Cause will be studied widely; the very fact that variance is indicated as between recommendations makes it the more constructive reading. If I may speak personally, I valued the dialogue within the report itself on the potentially very sensitive question of the limits on religious comment on the state laws of marriage, and the raising at the same time of the question of what distinctive contribution the Christian tradition could

407
and should be offering to elucidate the principles on which our general law of marriage is built.
As a bishop, I would be concerned with all that might strengthen and support marriage and the family, with full respect of course for the individual as part of that. The report has identified a number of important issues. But all this remains to be weighed and considered, and this will take time; meanwhile I am conscious that this afternoon's business is not upon the question of general legislation, but upon a Bill for two particular people.
Perhaps I may acknowledge my appreciation of that important distinction in the last comment which, with the tolerance of your Lordships, I should like to make, recognising that this falls within the area of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The report No Just Cause addresses itself to the question of amending the general law of marriage and to the desirability in particular of removing certain existing impediments in respect of affinity. I believe that it is possible in principle to be uneasy about a suggestion to remove a particular impediment from the general law of marriage as it stands, and yet at the same time not to wish to impede a personal Bill to remove the impediment so as to enable a particular man and woman to marry one another. In my view one can be cautious on constructive principles on the first front; that is to say, in the matter of any possible legislation by a general Bill—cautious, because one sees one function of the law as being to express and to articulate certain givennesses in human relationships which it might be important to keep seriously before people. One could wish at the same time to acknowledge that individual circumstances can be extremely complex in ways that a personal Bill may take into account.
However, to adopt such a stance towards a personal Bill should not then be taken as conceding the major principle in terms of general legislation if a general Bill touching the point at issue were later being considered.
Perhaps I may close with the assurance to your Lordships that the House of Bishops has this matter very seriously before it and earnestly desires to make a constructive contribution to the public debate on the general topic.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am more glad than I would usually be that it has fallen to me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely on his maiden speech, on a subject perhaps more peculiarly appropriate to the maiden speech of a bishop than are many when right reverend Prelates make their first speeches in your Lordships' House. I should like also to thank him for the generous tribute to the report No Just Cause, which I had the honour of chairing at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
That report will, I expect, be discussed much more fully at a later date when, as I hope, the question of legislation comes up because, as the right reverend Prelate has reminded us, my noble friend Lord Lloyd withdrew his Private Member's Bill in order that this investigation should be carried out and that the Church should have the opportunity to rethink their
408
attitude towards the marriage of affines. Therefore, I do not propose this afternoon—and it would not be appropriate—to explain at any length the points made in that report, except in so far as they are relevant to the matter before your Lordships' House today.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there was a majority and a minority report. I, as chairman, signed the majority report. The majority opinion was that there was no case for the continuation of barriers to the marriage of people who were not related by blood, and in our view those barriers should be removed in regard to not only step relations, but also relations-in-law.
I do not intend to argue the case this afternoon. I would only remind your Lordships that it is now 20 years since it became legal to marry not only—as the noble Viscount said—your deceased wife's sister, but also your brother's divorced wife. In other words, you can legally marry your sister-in-law while her husband, your brother, is still living.
It seemed to us, apart from all other considerations, that once the law had accepted that position, it was logically extremely difficult to draw the line anywhere else, and that if you accept the marriage at that level between brother and sister-in-law, why should you refuse to accept it, as in this case, between mother and son-in-law, or father and daughter-in-law? Therefore the majority came down in favour of the abolition of the prohibition on the marriage of affines. There was one reservation which is not relevant in this case and to which I shall not refer.
The minority report opposed this. As the right reverend Prelate said, the members of the minority report were not in favour of approving marriage between in-laws. They were in favour, in certain circumstances, of approving marriage between step relations, although circumstances were more narrowly defined than in the case of the majority report.
The majority report based its view on the natural liberty to marry—a liberty which, in our view, should not be obstructed unless there are extremely strong reasons so to do.
I would say that both the majority report and the minority report had the support of a learned cleric. We had two very learned clerics on the committee, and it may not altogether surprise your Lordships to hear that one of them supported the majority report and the other supported the minority report; and what were laymen such as the unfortunate chairman to do in the face of so strong opposition between such learned clerics. It was not of course the first time in the history of these matters that clerics have been opposed.
A strong argument—and I think it applies here—is that, after all, we are today a country in which our citizens hold varying cultures, varying religious views, and it would surely be inappropriate to base our laws on religious teaching of any one particular church, although I know that there will be Members of your Lordships' House who will not accept that argument.
As a supporter of the majority position, which was in favour of removing obstacles to marriage, removing the prohibition to marriage between in-laws, I must ask your Lordships' House to support this case this afternoon, the personal details of which have been so ably explained to us by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is the first case of its kind

409
that we have had since No Just Cause was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I hope that your Lordships will support this Second Reading.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I reflected for some considerable time before deciding to speak in this debate; but as I studied the issues involved, the argument against this Bill became so compelling that I could see no alternative to making a brief intervention. As your Lordships are aware, the law does not permit a man to marry his mother-in-law. Therefore one might expect there to be exceptional circumstances if this Bill were to become law. It is of course for your Lordships to judge whether exceptional circumstances exist in this case; but for my part I cannot see that there is anything fundamentally exceptional about the case before us.
I should say at this point that I have never met either Valerie Mary Hill or Alan Monk, although obviously I have studied in some detail the papers provided by the Personal Bills Committee about this case. It always worries me when I see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, getting up opposite me and speaking in the other direction, because I always admire his undoubted debating powers, and I find his arguments well marshalled and stimulating. However, I should not wish your Lordships to be over persuaded by what he said on this occasion. It is the facts that one has to look at very closely.
Then there is the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her committee entitled No Just Cause. This report enjoys neither the force of law nor the authority of the Church of England, as the noble Baroness made clear earlier in the debate. As your Lordships are aware, there was a majority report signed by six members of the committee, and a minority report signed by three members of the committee. I must confess, my Lords, that I found the cogent argument and balance of the minority report recommending the retention of the impediment on marriage between parent-in-law and child-in-law the more persuasive of the two arguments.
Commenting on the report, The Times had this to say on 31st May of this year—and here I quote:
"The cardinal principle is that no individual may look for potential sexual or marriage partners within the family".
A little further, on when referring to the majority report, The Times leader continues—and here I quote again:
"The majority mistakenly put all its emphasis on another principle, the natural liberty of choice of marriage partner; but it is a far lesser principle than the safeguarding of the family's integrity".
Finally, I am persuaded by holy scripture that this proposed union is not in the best interests of either party involved, or society in general. Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 14, states that it is wicked for a man to marry both a woman and her mother, and perhaps I might add that this is one of only four instances in which the death penalty is ordained for marital offences, thus emphasising the wickedness of the union between a man and his mother-in-law.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would permit, as he always
410
does, a certain courtesy? I tried to make it clear in the course of what I said that I naturally respected the religious beliefs of anyone connected with this problem. I therefore expressly said that I hoped there would be legislation at all events removing this matter from Parliament to the privacy of a tribunal. I did not say in the course of my speech—it would not have been proper for me to have done so from these Benches—that I was in favour of the removal of the prohibition.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, as always, I must thank the noble Lord for making the position clear, and I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have expressed understanding, indeed sympathy, with the two people concerned with this Bill. Whatever happens to the Bill in your Lordships' House, I hope that they will find happiness for the rest of their lives.
I wish to say why I believe it would he wrong to give this Bill a Second Reading. When previous personal Bills on this general subject came before your Lordships' House the phrase that sprang to mind was, "the thin end of the wedge". But this is not the case with the Bill before us. Whatever sympathy and understanding one has with the two people concerned, I have yet to be convinced that this is really an exceptional case. What appears to be the aim of the Bill is that the root principle behind the law should be waived for Mrs. Hill and Mr. Monk. That principle is that the possibility of a marriage between a man and a woman who are closely related, either by kindred or affinity, is undesirable and should be excluded by law.
I, too, should like to quote from the article in The Times of 31st May 1984, in which it was said:
"the ban on marriage within prohibited degrees of affinity has impressive credentials in religious tradition".
Christian tradition, scripture and practice support the ban. I understand that the same applies to Judaism and to Islam. Almost all other European countries maintain a general prohibition, although some allow for exceptional cases.
It is only three and a half years since the last time that a general abolition of the ban was considered by the House. It was then defeated by 125 votes to 79. Since then, the only significant development has been the very useful report No Just Cause from the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. However, as has been made clear, this report has not yet been considered by the General Synod, and therefore it is a long way from being adopted as Church of England policy.
I found that the most persuasive part of No Just Cause was the minority report signed by three out of the nine members of the group, including the Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford. The three members argued that the prohibitions were not just Christian morality as an abstract concept. They accepted the view that scripture and Christian tradition were friends, and not rivals, to moral reasoning. They saw a danger to family life in the proposals of the majority. They believed—and I

411
believe that this is the key to the whole matter—that some specific relationships in the family are free to flourish and convey benefit precisely because they are grounded on the assumption that certain roles preclude sexual expectations. The three members further said that to license marriage between stepparent and step-child, or between parent-in-law and child-in-law, would be to condone an assault on valuable family relationships.
The present law, with its prohibitions, has been considered down the ages to be beneficial to family life. It may well be that there should be provision for exceptions to be made in really exceptional cases, other than the unwieldy and unsatisfactory method of a personal Bill. But this is not an exceptional case. To agree to the proposal in the Bill would undermine this part of family law. At a time when family life is under more than enough strain, this is something that we should not do.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before coming to the heart of the matter, I should like to offer my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on such a delicate and beautiful maiden speech on a subject of immense delicacy, and in regard to which he was not in the position, if I may put it so, to declare a party line. We shall listen to him with great interest in the future, looking forward to the spirit of moderation and charity which infused his words.
This is also the first opportunity we have had in this House to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her remarkable chairmanship of the committee which produced the report No Just Cause. As one reads it one can hardly put it down. It is so beautifully drafted, and we are all greatly in her debt—as all of us knew beforehand we were bound to be at the end of it.
I find it most disagreeable, before the gaze of the public, to be called upon or even to have the opportunity to probe a private matter. But this is both a private and a public matter. If any of the parties to this affair are present, I hope that they will realise that all of us taking part in this debate are doing so after grave, and perhaps I might add prayerful, consideration, having greatly in mind the future happiness of the parties concerned in a situation which, from any point of view, is complex and difficult. I hope that if they are present they will take it from all of us that we are looking at this as simply and as sincerely as we can.
Both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard referred to this, in effect, as "only one case". But the difficulty is that here is a case which raises wide issues. My noble friend Lord Ashbourne has just quoted a very telling passage from The Times saying, in effect, that the principle of safeguarding the family is more important than the principle enunciated and given general acceptance of the fundamental right to marry.
The difficulty is that this verges on confusing what is often known as a step-parenting operation. In this case it is not step-parents but a mother-in-law performing the functions of a step-parent. The difficulty that some of us find is that in this particular situation that relationship is distorted.
412
It is important to get the outstanding facts quite straight. Mr. Monk, at 29, wishes to marry Valerie Hill, his mother-in-law, 20 years his senior, who has already been married three times. She has been twice widowed, very sadly, and is described in paragraph (5) of the Bill as a widow—though I am not clear from the papers before us whether her first husband, Terence Rusher, is still alive.
The first important factor is that Alan Monk obtained custody of the two children when his marriage broke up in divorce, his wife leaving him with the two children. As one might expect, and as is normal in such a situation, the loving mother-in-law (fond of her grandchildren and of her son-in-law, and distressed. no doubt, at the break-up of their marriage) offered to help him to look after these two children—Stuart, five, and Shelly, four. One can sympathise with the father. saying, "Thank goodness we have some way of looking after these children". This could have been and should have been a strictly "step-parenting role". if I may use that analogy. But within seven months the son-in-law and the mother-in-law were lovers and she now wishes to marry him as her fourth husband.
The declared reason for matrimony is that this is "for the sake of the children". I am not quite clear from what has been said so far how the children stand to benefit from this particular arrangement. They already are the legitimate children of a legitimate marriage. It must become confusing and puzzling to the children as they grow older to learn, if this Bill becomes an Act, that their father married their grandmother—for that is what is proposed. There is no question of consanguinity; it is purely a question of affinity. But the Bill declares in paragraph 8—and we are invited to confirm this if we pass it—that the legal impediment serves
"no useful purpose of public policy".
This is the difficulty in which some of us find ourselves.
If we give this Bill a Second Reading we are declaring that this impediment, which has not yet been abolished in law—its abolition has not yet even been recommended by the Church; indeed, on it there are divided opinions even between the moral theologians—serves no useful purpose of public policy. That is the principal question.
The tables of affinity are established to mark—and not only to mark but to defend—the outside boundaries protecting the desexualisation of the family circle within which sexual desires are morally incestuous. That is the difficulty.
In my submission, none of the following points should affect the issue of principle: the fact that sexual desires have been aroused and have been gratified; the fact that these two good people are living as common-law husband and wife; even what I would choose to call the sentimentality of the hard case which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and I want to call him "my noble friend" because I regard him as such—evoked, as he can do better than anyone else in this House.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I wonder whether he would pardon

413
this intervention. He was good enough to refer to me in the most kindly terms. When he referred to the benefit or detriment to the children, would he have thought that it was far better that the children go on growing up with grandma and father living together as husband and wife but not yet being husband and wife? Would he have thought that this was better for the children?
The Earl of Lauderdale: Thank you, my Lords, I am in a dilemma; we all are. Frankly, I cannot see that they benefit from what would be, in effect, a legal fiction that this is a valid marriage. What alarms me is that when the children are, say, 15, someone will say at school, "Is it true that your father married your grandmother?" I cannot think that that is to the benefit of the children. Obviously, it is a matter on which we have to judge. I always accept Lord Mishcon's corrections—when they are corrections—and views at any time.
We are invited to modify the boundaries of the family circle in principle. That is what we are asked to do in approving this Bill. I must say that I see no reason in public policy why we should do so, greatly as, on purely human sentimental terms, one would be eager to do so. I only wish we had a procedure for the private judgment of these matters, as the noble Lord has suggested. But I cannot really support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.26 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am very sorry for putting my name down to speak so very late in the debate. I merely want to say that I think the reason for the ban throughout the ages on marriage within forbidden degrees of affinity was purely to preserve the sanctity of family life; for example, to prevent a wife having to regard her mother as a potential rival, and so on. Pending a better way of dealing with these cases we have several times by means of Private Bills in this House made exceptions in the past. I believe that an exception should be made on this occasion if only for the sake of the children; because, in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has said, it seems to me that this couple have two alternatives. One is to continue to live together, as they are at the moment; the other one is to part completely and to break up the family, as it were. I cannot see that in any way this would be in the interests of the children. Therefore, I hope that this Bill will have a smooth path through Parliament.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hope that the House will grant me the indulgence of saying a few words at this stage. I am sorry that I was not able to put down my name on the list of speakers. I did not anticipate being here because the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a Member, was called at 2.15 and we were finishing off drafting a report to which I was submitting a number of somewhat controversial amendments.
I hope that the facts behind this Bill will be understood with some clarity. I was responsible some two or three years ago for bringing forward a Bill in relation to the proposal to enable two persons to
414
marry. I think it was the stepfather and the stepdaughter. The House passed it on the facts. After that, I had the privilege of putting forward a Bill which, in my view and in that of many others, would avoid this unhappy sequence of events of examining in public the personal positions of all the people involved.
I brought in a Bill suggesting that this was a matter that could be dealt with by some tribunal. There were certain legal objections raised but I pressed on with the Bill and had the support of right reverend Prelates in relation to the matter. But in the circumstances it was suggested that the best course would be, instead of my pressing on with the Bill, for the matter to be referred to a committee. On that basis, on the basis that action should he taken promptly, I agreed to withdraw the Bill and the committee of my noble friend Lady Seear was set up.
I should like strongly to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The facts, it seems to me, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun has just indicated, support the questions relating to the happiness of the parties concerned. It seems to me also that it is in the interests of the children concerned that this Bill at least should have a Second Reading at this stage. I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading and I support the arguments given so clearly and eloquently particularly by my noble friend Lady Seear.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as a matter of courtesy, may I start by saying that I endorse the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and should like to he associated with them. As my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has reminded us, in 1982 Parliament passed two personal marriage enabling Acts, one enabling John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare to marry, although they stood in the relationship of stepfather and stepdaughter; the other enabling Hugh Small and Norma Small to marry, although they stood in the relationship of stepson and stepmother.
The Government's view has not changed from that time and, indeed, remains as stated so succinctly by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in a debate on a marriage enabling Bill in 1980—that while it was entirely proper for a Minister to address the House on a personal Bill of this kind, the Government collectively adopted a neutral position on the merits of an individual case.
Underlying the need for a Bill of the kind your Lordships are discussing today is the much more general question of the principles which should govern marriage between affines. The Government follow closely the learned and informed debates that arise on the issues of principle and were particularly interested in the report of the group appointed by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, which included a majority and minority report.
It was of course a great pleasure for the House (and for me in particular) to listen to my old friend, if I may so term him, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ely, whose maiden speech was not only thought-provoking and delivered, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said, with a delicate touch, but also

415
paid tribute, very rightly, on behalf of the most reverend Primate, to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the role she played as chairman of the most reverend Primate's group.
I return to the fact that, so long as there is a measure of disagreement—and we have had a fair share of that in speeches from both sides of this House which prove that disagreement exists—the Government remain reluctant to depart from their original position in this respect, as in that concerning individual cases. Having said that, there are no special features which persuade the Government to advise your Lordships regarding this personal Bill.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that I cannot agree with what he said. Children surely come first. I understood him to say that when they grew up someone would come along and say to them, "That is not your mother: you were brought up by your grandmother". But if the present postion goes on and Mrs Hill and Mr Monk are living together, as there are children surely in a short time neighbours may talk; but in any case when they then go to school I am sure that other children will say to them, "That's not your mummy". I think that would be far worse, because children come first. Regarding the law, the law may often appear to be unjust and can be unkind. That is my opinion. As the noble Baroness said, since 1982 there have been two of these enabling Bills which have gone through Parliament and have become law.
If this Bill gets a Second Reading it goes back to the Private Bills Office and then to the other place. Could we not leave it to another place to give the final answer? I cannot see why we should not do so. Regarding the Church, we have had one or two Peers from different Churchs speaking. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale is a Catholic—perhaps I am wrong—
The Earl of Lauderdale: Anglican, my Lords.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I apologise: I always thought that my noble friend was a Catholic. I think another Peer is Church of Scotland; and the most supportive speech came from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who of course is a very human and very kind man. I imagine that the noble Lord—at least, so I am told—is a practising Jew. I think I am right in that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I say, for the information of the House, that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, having said that he is an Anglo-Catholic, I am an Anglo-Jew!
Visount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have always had a very great admiration for the Jewish religion, and I was very pleased that the noble Lord supported the Bill. But I am really in rather a dilemma. I would be loath to withdraw the Bill. I think we should put it to the opinion of the House, and therefore, my Lords, I will do that.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Brunei and Maldives Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EUTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1984
4.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the EUTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1984 be approved. It may be for your Lordships' convenience that I speak at the same time to the other two orders standing in my name on the Order Paper: the Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1984 and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1984.
The convention establishing the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation "EUTELSAT" was adopted at an inter-governmental conference in Paris on 15th July 1982, and has been signed by Her Majesty's Government. But it is necessary to make an order under the International Organisations Act 1968 to give effect to Articles IV and XVII(b) of the convention, which deal with the legal personality of EUTELSAT and certain fiscal privileges, before ratification by Her Majesty's Government.
EUTELSAT will be the successor to Interim EUTELSAT, which was established in 1977, and of which British Telecommunications plc is a member. EUTELSAT's status is defined in two texts: the convention to which the United Kingdom will be a party with your Lordships' approval, and the Operating Agreement which British Telecom has signed.
The draft order confers no immunity from jurisdiction on the organisation or its staff members. A separate protocol covering other appropriate privileges and immunities will be negotiated at a later date. The draft order confers only legal capacities, exemption from income and capital gains tax, and exemptions from customs and excise duties, the latter being limited to equipment related directly to work of the organisation.
I turn now to the order relating to the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. This only deals with exemptions from social security contributions for officials of the group who are neither United Kingdom nationals nor permanently resident in the United Kingdom. The draft order would enable the United Kingdom to give effect to an exchange of Notes between Her Majesty's Government and the group concerning social security arrangements. The group already enjoys certain immunities and privileges under

417
the International Lead and Zinc Study Group (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978.
The first meeting of the group took place in Geneva in 1960 to discuss problems arising from international trade in lead and zinc. The headquarters, originally in New York, moved to London in 1977. The London office currently employs seven people, of whom five are permanently resident in the United Kingdom. The draft order before your Lordships would therefore apply at present only to the two remaining non-permanently resident employees. Her Majesty's Government attach great value to the continued presence in London of the group's headquarters and to its work in providing a forum for inter governmental consultation on world trade in lead and zinc.
I now turn to the draft order on the Inter-American Development Bank. This draft order would exempt certain officials of the bank from social security contributions and also accord limited Customs and Excise provisions on first arrival in the United Kingdom for the bank's staff members who are neither United Kingdom nationals nor permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships may be aware that the bank currently enjoys certain immunities and privileges under an Order in Council made in 1976—the Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges Order) 1976. The bank was established in 1959 to promote the social and economic development of Latin American and certain Caribbean countries, including members of the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom joined in 1976 and is represented on the board of governors.
Since joining, Her Majesty's Government have committed nearly 500 million dollars to it, which is an indication of the importance that the Government attach to the valuable role fulfilled by the bank in the development field. The headquarters of the bank are in Washington. There is also a small office in London, providing direct contact with the City. The London office has a staff of two, of whom one is non-permanently resident and will benefit under the draft order.
The first of these three orders provides a very limited range of privileges; the second, social security provisions only; and the third, social security exemptions and Customs and Excise provisions. None accords immunity from jurisdiction either to an organisation or to its staff members.
I hope that your Lordships will signify your support of the work of these three organisations by approving the draft orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained the provisions of these orders with such clarity and persuasiveness that I would only detract from both if I said anything more than that the orders appear to be extremely acceptable, and I join with her in her praise of the organisations to which she has referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to

International Lead and Zinc Study Group (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1984
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that the order be now approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1984
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before five o'clock.