Lords Sitting of 3 February 1986

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

Royal Navy: Vessel Design Policy
Lord Paget of Northampton: 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 is their policy on the design of anti-submarine craft for the Royal Navy.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, vessels for the Royal Navy are designed by industry to meet the Ministry of Defence requirements.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be a little more communicative. Have there not been considerable disputes between the school that believes in the long and thin and the school that believes in the short and fat in design? Is there not a committee about to report? Has it reported? Is there not, indeed, quite a lot being done at the moment as to whether the old-fashioned designs should be retained or whether the modernists should be given a say? Can the Minister tell us something about it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, intends to present a report on this subject before long; but the Government are not in any way connected with that report and certainly have not seen it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the ships for the Royal Navy are designed by industry, could the noble Lord tell the House what the Royal Naval architects are doing in Bath?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. I had a feeling that I would be asked that question. The answer is that they, of course, set the specification in the first instance, in accordance, as I say, with the requirements of the Royal Navy, and they subsequently scrutinise the designs that are brought forward by industry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that submarines are now principally sunk by Sea King helicopters and surely all that is needed is a platform from which and on to which these helicopters may take off and land; and, also, a device for detecting the submarines in the first place? Might not the answer be a simple container ship pulling a towed array?
Lord Trefgarne: Sadly, my Lords, my noble friend over-simplifies somewhat.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not desirable that the introduction of helicopters on all occasions should be studiously avoided?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was hoping that my original Answer would do that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rely in part on newspaper reports, but is the Minister not disturbed that the report which is in the course of preparation, and which I understand is to be submitted to the Prime Minister in February, says that the report upon which the short, fat, ship was rejected is deeply flawed and in many critical categories totally inaccurate? In view of the fact that we are talking in terms of £200 million a ship and perhaps 12 ships in all, will the Minister not say something helpful about at least reviewing the policy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government examined the so-called S90 proposal a year or so ago and found that the proposal that was then being mooted had a number of serious shortcomings. Incidentally, the noble Lord is mistaken as to the cost. The cost of the Type 23, for example, which is the sort of vessel for which it was proposed that the S90 should substitute, is of the order of £110 million.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although he dismissed the supplementary question of his noble friend somewhat cursorily, in fact it contains an important subsidiary question? Is it not true that the use of merchant ships in wartime is an extremely important element of Royal Naval operations? Would it not be possible to include anti-submarine devices on merchant ships converted for the purpose?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend referred to the towed array and the possibility of towing that with a merchant ship. Unfortunately, I think that that would not be a practical proposition because of the background noise caused by the merchant ship. Indeed, that was one of the problems with the S90, too. As to the question of helicopters, to which my noble friend rightly attaches importance, there was another shortcoming of the S90. There was not room on the deck to accommodate one.

London Docklands Museum
2.40 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: 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 progress has been made towards the provision of a new museum in the London Docklands in association with the Museum of London, to present London's role as a port, industrial and commercial centre, upon which the Minister for the Arts sought the views of the Museum and Galleries Commission in 1980.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with financial assistance from the London Docklands Development Corporation, the Museum of London has been developing proposals for a Museum in Docklands in London's West India Docks. I understand that a Museum in Docklands Trust which will be responsible for fund raising and future developments is now being set up independently.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative and fairly encouraging reply. Is he able to tell the House what progress has been made in funding the new museum and whether the necessary approvals are being expedited, since developers tend to get impatient once they start work on a project? Will he seek to encourage the developers in this particular area to give their fullest support to the scheme so that this year, which appropriately is Industry Year, may see the founding of London's new Museum in Docklands?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that the new trust body will be seeking funds from a variety of sources and will be in discussion with the London Docklands Development Corporation and the local authorities concerned, and that the estimated cost of the development is some £7.5 million. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into the details of planning here. As regards the Government giving support, that is a matter for the trust but we welcome the proposal as an imaginative contribution to the redevelopment of the docklands.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principle of a museum is welcomed very much by the Docklands Development Corporation? The big question mark—and it is the oldest one in the world—is exactly what site it will be, what is suitable for the museum, and also, as the Minister has said, the whole question of funds. As to that, I understand that the Docklands Development Corporation will certainly make a contribution. The maintenance of the museum and so on is quite another matter, but the principle is accepted and that must be important.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the site is on the north quay of the old West India Dock—
Lord Mellish: I know, my Lords.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord asked me. The Docklands Development Corporation has indeed been very much involved in this. My information is that it has made funds available so that preparatory work can begin on collecting material, for instance, very near to the site where it is proposed that the museum shall be.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this museum is expected to attract about 400,000 visitors a year? Will the Government do all they can to help and encourage it, as it will also do much to redress the imbalance of the cultural provision between Docklands and the rest of London?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that the intention is for the new museum to be self-financing through an admission charge, trading activities and other things. Of course, we are watching this closely and sympathetically, because the Government have their part in the Museum of London.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his last remark about the admission charge is the only unwelcome news we have had on this subject so far? Will he say that it is his hope that the funding will be on a basis on which the museum will not be forced to have to charge the public for entry?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is the expressed intention, as I understand it through the Museum of London, for the new museum.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider repealing the Dock Labour Act, and thus prevent London's port becoming only a museum? Although this may not be quite the same question and therefore not answerable at this moment, will they consider it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that is getting a bit wide of the original Question.

Sadler's Wells Theatre: Financial Assistance
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 whether they have any plans to assist the Sadler's Wells Theatre to overcome its financial problems.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter for the theatre itself and for the Arts Council, which has been asked to replace the GLC funding of Sadler's Wells. The Arts Council is considering ways in which Sadler's Wells can be helped, but it would be contrary to its declared policy for it to fund a building as distinct from a performing company. Negotiations are continuing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister but I am disappointed in that reply. Is the Minister aware that in 1984 the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and as late as September 1985 the right honourable Minister in another place, reassured Sadler's Wells by saying that the GLC allocation to it had been taken into account when giving the extra money to the Arts Council? Are we now to understand that those ministerial reassurances are meaningless, because that is what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend and his predecessor both considered the implications of abolition of the funding of Sadler's Wells and indeed of the other receiving theatres. The £25 million which has been allocated to the Arts

891
Council specifically for post-abolition funding has taken account of this.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sadler's Wells is a theatre of historic and national importance and that the opera and ballet which it has been responsible for originating has made an outstanding contribution to our national life? While I am normally in sympathy with government policy to leave the Arts Council to make its own judgment about the distribution of its very large funds provided by the Government, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Arts Council can sometimes be quite capricious about its grants, and that in this case it is really vital that adequate funds should be provided to keep this theatre going? Will he therefore reconsider his Answer and consider giving the Arts Council some firm advice about a substantial grant to Sadler's Wells?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend has a great admiration for Sadler's Wells. It does indeed play a vital part in the cultural life of London and the nation and naturally my right honourable friend is concerned about the future of the theatre. However, it is essentially a matter for the Arts Council to work out the possibilities and it is in consultation with Sadler's Wells and other interested parties. My right honourable friend is keeping in close touch with developments and has every confidence in the Arts Council's desire and ability to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: But, my Lords, has the Minister not been told that the Arts Council has written to the governors of Sadler's Wells saying that it has no intention in future of funding what it calls a receiving house—an extraordinary phrase to use in respect of such a theatre? It appears, therefore, not only to have failed to shoulder the responsibility which the Government placed upon it, but to have changed its policy so as to remove not only the substitution of the GLC grant but its own grant as well. The Sadler's Wells Theatre is therefore in the frightful position that it will have to close down on 17th May unless something is done. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to look urgently into this question to see whether funding can, in the circumstances, be taken upon the budget of his own department, and if the Arts Council is unwilling to act as a conduit in the matter to find some other means of making sure that this historic and valuable theatre does not have to close down?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course in asking that question the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is referring, in essence, not only to Sadler's Wells but also to the other receiving theatres which are to be found on Merseyside and in the North-east. It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of its grant and it is its policy to fund bodies and not buildings. But useful and constructive discussions are going on between the council, successor authorities and other bodies with a view to securing the future of all the buildings I have mentioned outside Greater London. I believe that it is going to be possible to find a solution within Greater London.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, although it is for the Arts Council to do what it can with its grant, as the noble Lord said, is it not for the Government to see that it has an adequate grant? Is the noble Lord aware that there is a shortfall of some £10 million between what the Government are giving now and what the GLC gave before?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there really is no shortfall. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, the Government are indeed making £25 million available to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding next year. It is reasonable that the rest of the GLC and metropolitan counties' spending should be taken up by successor authorities, which after all are going to be relieved of substantial precepts in regard to arts giving.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his remarks imply that the Government are prepared to contemplate the closure of Sadler's Wells? Does he not agree that the closure of a theatre which has given us the Royal Ballet and so many other activities would be a national disgrace and that this could not happen in any other European country that believes in support for the arts?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if Sadler's Wells was to close, no one would regret it more than the Government.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister explain something which I do not understand; or have I got it wrong? Is it not correct that Sadler's Wells makes a return to the Government which is greater than the grant it is given? If that is the case, does it not seem absolutely stupid to refuse to give it that opportunity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not furnished with the answer to the noble Baroness's question. In other words, I am not aware that what the noble Baroness says is the case. What I am aware of is that we are talking about grant-aid which must fall to the Arts Council. The Government have made a very major allocation to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding. The Arts Council, as I have told the House, is now in negotiations on this matter and I think we ought to see how those negotiations proceed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to say that there is no reduction is a quite uninformative statement? We have been told and promised that the changeover from the GLC will not produce a reduction, yet here it is producing a reduction of a major national asset. Is the noble Lord aware that, quite apart from having been the foundation of the ballet which is one of the glories of our artistic work here, Sadler's Wells was going hard in the time of Garrick and long before that? It is a national asset. Will the noble Lord agree that it is no good just saying everything is all right when it perfectly clearly is disastrous?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe there is not a shortfall, and I have explained the reason for that. I also do not believe, on behalf of the Government, that

893
it is not possible to find within Greater London for the Sadler's Wells Theatre a solution to a problem which is being faced outside London—in the North-east and on Merseyside—with results being achieved.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I just draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Sadler's Wells Theatre cannot be described as exclusively a receiving theatre since it acts as an entrepreneur for foreign dance and drama companies? Is the noble Lord aware that several of them are arriving this year, including the Chinese Ballet, which is due to arrive at the time that Her Majesty the Queen is going to visit China in the autumn; and that it would be a national disgrace if there were no theatre for it to come to?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, it is far too early to talk about the cancellation of the Chinese Ballet visit. As I have said, the Arts Council is looking for a solution which will enable Sadler's Wells to remain open.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not feel that the Minister dealt clearly with my remark about ministerial reassurances. There is no doubt that the Sadler's Wells Theatre Company was clearly told that its needs were taken into account in the grant which had been made. What has happened between that statement and the present day, because suddenly, in November, it was told that it was not getting the money? Are we to understand that these ministerial reassurances do not mean anything?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I add to what I said to the noble Baroness at the beginning of this exchange when I replied that the £25 million allocated to the Arts Council specifically for post-abolition funding took account of the assurances? The Arts Council of course has a long-standing policy of not funding receiving theatres, and it announced recently that it planned to adhere to that after abolition. But the Arts Council also made it clear that it was prepared to come to arrangements with successor authorities in the areas affected whereby in determining its support for other arts bodies in such areas the council would take account of the authorities' support for the receiving theatres. That is a matter in which the Arts Council is responsible; but so are other people as well, including the local authorities concerned. I think that with these negotiations it is better now to wait and see how we go.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the abolition of the GLC has removed the one local authority which is capable of supporting what is not just a local theatre but a national theatre?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord perhaps will not have noticed that the local London borough council, Islington, has for next year a grant which is £11 million more than it received in the year before. I should have thought that if Islington Borough Council is prepared to have a look at its priorities and use its money sensibly it could play its part in assisting Sadler's Wells Theatre.

Age Discrimination in Employment
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: 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 whether they will introduce legislation which would make age discrimination illegal, as is already the case with race and sex discrimination.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am deeply concerned that skill and experience should not be wasted. But to seek to interfere in employers' decisions about whether, in their particular circumstances, to recruit an older or younger person, would run counter to our policy of reducing the administrative and legislative burdens on business in order to encourage the provision of jobs for people of all ages.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that rather unsatisfactory Answer. Is he aware that being old is getting younger all the time, and that now men of 40 are made redundant and are then faced with advertisements which say, "no one need apply if they are over 40"? The Americans have a law of this kind. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to look again at the possibility of introducing some age discrimination legislation, particularly in relation to employment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish to assure your Lordships' House that I am becoming increasingly aware of age. Nevertheless the Government have decided that, in the interests of seeing as many jobs grow as possible, it would not be in that interest to introduce legislation that would discriminate against age.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it not a little unfortunate to state any definite figure which implies that one has reached old age? Some of course do not wear as well as others. For instance, some, like myself, become slightly senile at a particularly early age; but others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, go on with their full powers to a much later age. Therefore it seems to me unfortunate to give any definite figure.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I think we all feel that this is so much a matter of individual performance and individual ability that it should be left to individual employers and employees to decide.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that qualifications coupled with brightness is the appropriate thing rather than no qualifications and dimness?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question that is to be made in another place on British Leyland. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Hooper, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on teachers' pay and responsibilities.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 10 [Conditions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 9, leave out ("that no") and insert—
(" (a) that no cat or dog shall be used under the licence unless it has been bred at and obtained from a designated breeding establishment; and
(b) that no other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I may be brief. In the discussions in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the question of the source of dogs and cats used in experiments. He said that there was concern that stolen pet dogs and cats found their way into laboratory experiments. The proposed amendment to Clause 10 which he then suggested was too restrictive; it provided for measures to prevent the possibility of stolen pets being used, but it allowed the Secretary of State no possibility of providing an exemption from the controls where the particular circumstances warranted it.
At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, returned to the matter, but this time with a proposed amendment that would have allowed the Secretary of State discretion to relax the requirement in individual cases. I said then that the Government had the utmost sympathy for his objective—as we always have—and that we would look closely at the drafting with a view to bringing forward an amendment.
The amendment I am now proposing is in fact identical to the amendment proposed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, except in one respect. It adds the words "and obtained from". So, unless an exception is allowed, the cat or dog must not only have been "bred at" a designated breeding establishment but also "obtained from" the designated breeding establishment. This is a further tightening up, which I believe gives effect to the noble Lord's intention.
I also want to repeat what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If an exception is allowed—and it can only be allowed in a small minority of cases and for convincing reasons—the applicant will have to demonstrate with as much certainty as is possible in any human situation that the animal is not a stolen pet. It will not be good enough for the applicant to say that he believes that in good faith. It is intolerable of
896
course that stolen pets should be used in laboratories, or that the public should be led to believe that they will be used. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I tabled an amendment about this subject at both Committee and Report stage. I am very grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment. As the Minister has indicated, it is an improvement on my amendment but is very close to it. I know that it will be warmly welcomed by many people, and in particular by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which, as the noble Lord knows, was most concerned about this matter. I thank the Government very much indeed.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to add a word because I had my name down to the earlier amendment as well. I wish to thank the Minister very much indeed for having accepted the point and for bringing it forward, in the form of Amendment No. 1, in such an excellent way. I welcome it and I cannot wait to tell all the old ladies who take their dogs to the park where I take mine, who will also be delighted to hear about it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [The Animal Procedures Committee]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("eleven") and insert ("twelve")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it may be convenient to the House if I deal jointly with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Amendment No. 3: Page 12, line 22, after ("members") insert ("other than the chairman")
Amendment No. 4: Page 12, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("of those")
These three amendments are related, and together their effect is as follows. The first amendment alters Clause 19(2) so that the Animal Procedures Committee would comprise a chairman and at least 12, rather than 11 members. And the second and third amendments alter Clause 19(3) so that the chairman is no longer counted among the members for the purpose of determining the composition of the committee under Clause 19(3)(a) and Clause 19(3)(b). Clause 19(3)(a) would then require that of the members other than the chairman at least two-thirds must have the medical, veterinary or biological qualifications mentioned in Clause 19(4). And Clause 19(3)(b) would require that of the members other than the chairman, at least one must be a barrister, solicitor or advocate.
Noble Lords will recall that during our discussions at Report my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested that Clause 19 should be amended to that effect, so as to emphasise the fact that the chairmen of the Animal Procedures Committee may with benefit be drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. I said at Report stage that I would consider the noble Earl's helpful suggestion. I have done so. I think that it is a good suggestion; it is one we should adopt, and these amendments are the result. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. I made a suggestion concerning Clause 19, perhaps rather improperly, without putting down an amendment. I believe that the proposed arrangement is a great improvement. I hope that the Home Office will find that it is more useful, because the qualities of a chairman are so different and so unique. They do not apply to everybody in any category. It means that the chairman does not need to be in any one of the three separate categories that are laid down in Clause 19. I hope and believe that that will be a useful change.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Guidance, codes of practice and statistics]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 5, and end insert—
("( ) In all criminal or civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved on Report by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, and was withdrawn. It is a subject that comes before your Lordships for, I am sorry to say, a third time: at Committee stage, on Report, and now on Third Reading. It provides specifically that where codes of practice are relevant to an issue before the court—whether it be a criminal or civil court—then they shall be admissible evidence. That is an eminently reasonable position to take. I cannot believe that any judge, upon learning that codes of practice exist that are relevant to the issue before him, would not be anxious to consult those codes of practice.
The codes of practice can of course be of assistance to, or to the disadvantage of, either party to a dispute. On the one hand, it could be said to the defendant, "You knew about the codes of practice. You chose to disregard them. You must now take the consequences". On the other hand, the defendant or the accused person might say, "I scrupulously observed the codes of practice. What more can you expect me to have done?"
After the Committee stage, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in which he set out the reasons why he felt this amendment was not appropriate. I am bound to say that he was, I believe, being a little rash, because we do not know yet what the codes of practice will contain. They will not all be Home Office codes of practice; they may be other people's codes of practice that are adopted by the Home Office. Having stated that for what it is worth—and I am sorry to quote the Minister's words
898
for a third time, but this is an important point—the noble Lord wrote:
"It is in any case unnecessary since there is nothing in the Bill which bars the admission of codes of practice as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, and if they are relevant to an issue arising during proceedings they could be taken in evidence".
That appears to be a statement of general principle. My complaint is this. Let us either accept that there is a general principle that codes of practice are admissible in evidence or let us have a specific clause in all the Bills to which it could apply.
It is no use having a specific clause in, for instance, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to such effect and then leaving out such a clause in this Bill, when the general principle can apply in either case. All one does then is to confuse people, if one inserts only in selective cases a specific clause although there exists an underlying general principle. I do not mind terribly much which way it goes, but if we are to have specific clauses for heaven's sake let us have one in this Bill because it applies here. On the other hand, if we are to accept a general principle, well and good, but let us stop putting specific clauses to this effect into selected Bills. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said on Report that codes of practice might be relevant for an offence under the Protection of Animals Act. They might be relevant, but, after studying the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, during the debate on codes of practice, one wonders whether they have any legal relevance. He expressly said that a type of code under Clause 21(2) of this Bill is without legal significance. The noble Lord the Minister seemed to think that it would be sufficient punishment in such a case to revoke a licence or certificate, but one could think of situations where that is not sufficient. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has told your Lordships that the principle of this amendment has been discussed at Committee stage and on Report but that the noble Lord the Minister was not sympathetic. The trouble is that the principle contained in this amendment is, in fact, contained in most of the Acts of Parliament which authorise the issue of a code of practice. If that is so—and if I am wrong no doubt the Minister will correct me—why should not this Bill incorporate the common type of provision enabling the prosecution to rely on the codes of practice to the extent indicated in the amendment? Why should the courts have to rely on an assumption that the principle will apply?
If the Government are still opposed to the amendment—and I have not seen the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, received from the Minister—the Minister should spell out to the House in greater detail why it is inappropriate to incorporate the amendment. The principle has been a live issue in Committee, on Report and today. If the Minister is unable to see his way clear to accept this principle, I am fairly sure that it will be a live issue in another place.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I put my name to an amendment to this effect on Report and I support this

899
amendment today. The only explanation I can think of for the fact that these precise words crop up in some Acts of Parliament, including some passed last year, but not in others is that there is a disagreement between parliamentary draftsmen. If that is the case, it will be difficult to sort out the matter.
It would appear to me that from the point of view of the people who will be operating this legislation, as the noble Lord said, the codes of practice could be taken into account by the courts whether or not these words are in the Bill. If that is the case, and the noble Lord said that in his letter, surely it is sensible from the point of view of the people operating the legislation that that should be made clear in the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, it seems to me that an amendment of this kind is absolutely essential. It has been pointed out, and quite truly, that the code of practice has no legal significance; in other words, ignoring it does not in itself constitute an offence. On the other hand, the question arises: what does constitute an offence? Various courts may have different opinions on this subject. Surely a code of practice is a unifying guide to what is and what is not an offence.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. It has not only been discussed at three stages of the Bill but the principle has been discussed in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In that debate the Government were asked that there should be uniformity throughout statute law on codes of practice, so that the reader and the user of Acts of Parliament would know exactly where they stood in relation to any particular code of practice.
At the moment the statutory position in regard to codes of practice is, as I think that debate showed, highly unsatisfactory. It cannot be right that the form of words which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, proposes to insert in this Bill should not be inserted whereas similar provisions are inserted in other Bills. It may well be that, despite what the noble Lord the Minister says, a court of law would say that the codes are not admissible as evidence because this form of words is not incorporated in the Act. We have the Minister's word for it, but without this form of words I do not think that we can be sure that in practice that is what will happen if a court of law has to consider whether a code of practice is, or is not, admissible.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, once again we confront this question of the use of codes of practice in evidence. At Report stage we had a very useful discussion on this matter arising from an amendment proposed, as he said, by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. During that discussion the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to the detailed debate on the subject of codes of practice initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. That debate had taken place on the preceding day, 15th January, and I said that I would examine this matter again in the light of that debate.
900
That debate provided a clear illustration of the variety of codes of practice and the variety of their relationships to the legislation under which they are issued. That is the nub of this matter. At Committee stage and at Report stage reference was made to codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Food and Environment Protection Act. All of these Acts make provision for codes of practice, but that does not mean that the Bill which we are today considering should do so in identical terms.
There is a clear difference between the codes of practice issued under the Acts to which I have referred and the codes of practice which will be issued or approved under this Bill. In the former case, the codes of practice are directly linked with, or relevant to, offences contained in the main provisions of the Act. That is not the position in the case of codes of practice issued or approved under this Bill. The codes of practice which we shall issue or approve under this Bill will be a guide to good practice in the care and use of laboratory animals. They complement, but do not amplify, the other provisions of the Bill. The codes are most unlikely to be relevant, and therefore admissible in evidence, in relation to any offence created by the Bill.
I said in our earlier debates that if codes of practice are relevant to an issue arising during civil or criminal proceedings they could be taken in evidence, and that has just been repeated. We think that the most likely situation in which this may arise is in proceedings for causing unnecessary suffering to animals, under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, or the comparable Act of 1912 for Scotland. No specific provision is required for this.
May I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that it is our intention that prosecutions should be brought against offenders under the 1911 Act in appropriate cases. We shall not rely alone on the power to revoke licences in the more serious cases.
In the light of the concern which has been expressed and reiterated today, and in the light of our further examination of what took place on 15th January, and notwithstanding the letter which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, we will consider sympathetically the idea of an amendment to the Bill in another place, along the lines suggested.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham also raised at an earlier stage, and certainly in correspondence, the question of publication of codes of practice. That concern was certainly raised at Report. Since it is an important and related point perhaps I may be permitted to say now that the omission of any reference to publication is in no sense a sign that we see the code of practice as in some way a secret document. I can assure your Lordships that nothing could be further from the truth. It is our intention to adopt the codes of practice which are now being prepared by the Royal Society and these will be printed and distributed for sale by the originators. A requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a code would obviously clash with this. However, I can assure your Lordships that were we to issue any other code of this sort we would make arrangements for it to be available for purchase.

901
I need hardly add that it would negate the purpose of the code if it were not available to the scientific community or to anybody else who wished to consider it. I can assure the House that we fully understand the concern that lies behind the amendment which we have been considering, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be satisfied that we take his proposal seriously and will try to meet it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I have understood him correctly? The code of practice will in fact be public information. I understand that he will not lay the code before Parliament but I take it that he will make it available to the Stationery Office. So that document is available, and while it cannot be used for a prosecution it could be used for relevant evidence in the course of a prosecution. Do I understand that correctly? If so, that seems to me to cover the major issue that we are discussing today.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, that is what I hope we shall be able to achieve; but what we have to look at clearly is precisely how we draft an amendment to meet the concern which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think the concern of my noble friend will be met. The code will be laid before Parliament; Clause 21(4) refers to that. I hope that my noble friend is satisfied.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, rather like the Chancellor in his Budget speech, the noble Lord kept me in some suspense until toward the end of his speech. However, he then said some very reassuring words which enable me to withdraw this amendment, notwithstanding that every other noble Lord who has spoken has come down on my side in this issue. Of course the key word is "relevant", and the judge will look at the codes and will take notice of them only to the extent that they are relevant. If the noble Lord the Minister is right in saying that in most cases they will not be relevant then the judge will not need to trouble himself with them. However, I am much obliged for what the noble Lord the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 15, line 31, after ("being") insert ("or may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the clause dealing with powers of entry and the position where a magistrate is satisfied on oath that an offence has been or is being committed and may therefore issue a warrant. This amendment seeks to nip in the bud offences which the magistrate is satisfied may be about to be committed. There is a precedent for this form of words in the famous Trades Descriptions Act, and the powers of entry under that Act, and no doubt there are numerous other precedents. I think we need to give the police power to persuade a magistrate that an offence is about to be committed and so have a chance to nip it in the bud. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this amendment raises at Third Reading an issue which has not been considered before during our discussion on this Bill. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to ensure that the provisions of the Bill concerning the issue of a search warrant should adequately cover all the circumstances in which the issue of a warrant might be appropriate. However, this is a technical matter and one which requires some quite detailed consideration. It has not been raised before, and I should therefore like to have the opportunity to examine it and come to a considered opinion. I shall then write to the noble Lord. I hope that this suggested course will be acceptable to him and that in the light of this he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Airedale: Yes, my Lords. Again, I am very much obliged, and I am very willing to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("with or without an inspector appointed under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal jointly with the two related amendments, Nos. 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 8: Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) A warrant under this section may authorise a constable to be accompanied by an inspector appointed under this Act and shall require him to be accompanied by such an inspector if the place in question is a designated establishment.").
These two amendments alter Clause 25, the clause which provides for the issue of search warrants authorising a constable to enter a place where an offence under the Bill is thought to be taking place or to have been committed. These amendments would alter the clause in the following way. Where the premises to be entered are an establishment designated under the Bill, then the police constable executing the warrant must be accompanied by an inspector, and where a non-designated establishment is to be entered the search warrant may authorise the constable to be accompanied by an inspector.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, drew attention to the potentially very serious hazards that a policeman might face if he forcibly entered a designated establishment on his own. A variety of infections might be released into the community as a result, or infection could be taken into the establishment, with possibly devastating effects on the animals and the work in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised this matter again at Report and I said that we fully recognised the importance of this potential problem and that we would bring forward at Third Reading an amendment which would have the effect of requiring the constable to be accompanied by an inspector during entry under warrant to designated establishments.
These two related amendments fulfil that commitment. As I said at Report, we envisage that the search warrant procedure will only rarely be used. But clearly when it is used we must ensure that the risks of misplaced infection or other difficulties are minimised.

903
The presence of an inspector, who will be able to provide specialised scientific advice, is the best way of ensuring that. I beg to move.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, may I repeat the thanks that I expressed to the noble Lord the Minister at Report stage and say that the amendments as they stand now meet my points entirely.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister cares to do a little tidying up at some stage, I would merely suggest that in the last but one line of Amendment No. 8 the phrase,
"to be accompanied by such an inspector"
could be improved by simply saying, "to be so accompanied".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is a good Bill. I have not the slightest doubt about that, and I wish to congratulate all those noble Lords who have contributed to bringing this Bill forward after many years of consideration and consultation. This Bill comes as close as could be to being a consensus. It represents the result of wide consultation and the bringing together of interests and forces in society which, in their day, proved almost irreconcilable but which of late have considered that co-operation is probably the better way of getting progress in this difficult subject.
There has been a good deal of compromise in it, as one would expect, but there have been no party politics. It is the fulfilment of a promise made by each of the three main political parties in the general election of 1979 that if any of them were elected to government they would take such action. It has fallen to the present Government to see it done.
3.30 p.m.
We have to thank the former Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. David Mellor, for their persistence in getting this Bill in the Queen's Speech for this Session and in bringing it forward so early. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his courtesy and patience in carrying the Bill through for the Government. It has been done in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill. The only person to lose his temper was me, and I apologise. It was one of those genuine misunderstandings between officials, and it emerged in the course of our debates. I got roused; the noble Lord was perplexed—and I quite understand, because he knew nothing about it. He had not understood that a conference had taken place that morning with other
904
Ministers and we had reached an understanding. I apologise for causing him that embarrassment. It all ended in a spirit of reconciliation, and I am glad to say that the subject of that dispute will not rear its head in the debate this afternoon.
The more I have listened to our debates the more certain I have been that this is a right approach to a difficult and complex matter. The aim has been to give the Home Secretary the power to control, and to impose upon him the responsibility of the controlling, all that is done to animals in our laboratories. In the past, Home Secretaries have not always welcomed the idea of having such responsibility placed upon them. But I am glad that it has been done, because only by the Home Secretary accepting that responsibility is this approach possible.
For the first time the Secretary of State will be responsible for making a judgment on the scientific merit of the work to be done. He will be obliged to weigh the likely adverse effect on the animals against the benefit likely to be gained from what it is proposed to do. It is that responsibility for the whole field of bio-medical science that Home Secretaries have naturally been reluctant to accept. But under this Bill it is imposed upon the Home Secretary.
Critics complain about the absence from the Bill of a schedule of prohibitions—a list of commandments, putting a stop to practices which are thought to be intolerable and should be abolished in our laboratories. A few examples are toxicity testing; the Draize test, which uses rabbits' eyes to test irritating substances; the testing of alleged trivialities such as cosmetics, household products and tobacco substitutes; and the much graver matter of the use of animals to test weapons. But in the course of our debates have we not seen the problems of dealing with the fine points of detail and the need for exceptions to the general rule in far too many cases? The use of statute law to control scientific and medical procedures is fraught with difficulties. That is why we have so much enabling legislation—codes of practice, statutory instruments and the rest—which is supplementary and subsidiary to the main statute law.
The charge is made that everything that is now done in laboratories can under the Bill still be done. I meet that charge by saying that although the Bill prohibits little, it controls everything. How that control is to be exercised is in the Bill; the criteria to be observed in permitting what is to be done are in the Bill, too. What is not prohibited by law under the Bill may nevertheless be curbed, curtailed or even stopped if the Home Secretary decides to use his powers under the Bill.
The Home Secretary is made the monarch of that province of the sovereign state of science. It will be for present and future Home Secretaries to make progress in the alleviation and prevention of pain and in reducing the use of living animals. It will be for Parliament to say what the public will not stand for, even for the benefit of man. There are professional men and women in this field who will be responsible for operating the legislation and who will be able to contribute to its success. There are professional men who, I think, will make all the difference with the goodwill that is now being put into the Bill.

905
But another question arises. How shall we know whether progress is being made and what difference the Bill is making to the use of animals—the number of them, their nature and the uses to which they are put? If your Lordships look carefully at the Bill you will see that the means of getting to know that are there, or, if they are not, they can be put there. I hope that that aspect will receive close consideration in another place.
The various animal welfare societies which were founded to campaign for a change in the law on the use of animals will find a new outlet for their activities. We want the voluntary bodies to come together to provide a responsible and vigilant oversight of and interest in what is being done. Nevertheless, I think that there are probably one or two ways in which we can give the assurances that some hesitant people are looking for in the Bill. I have one or two suggestions to make which I hope can be considered during the Bill's further stages.
The Bill is perhaps too neutral in its title and tone. Although the Long Title explains what it is about, the Short Title does not. This is a Bill for the protection of laboratory animals. It cannot be anything else. If that protection were not necessary, we should need no Bill at all. In many other countries, where there is no protection, there is no legislation whatsoever.
I remind the House also that when previous Bills designed for similar purposes have been introduced in this House and in another place, the protection of animals has been mentioned every time in the Short Title. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, introduced a laboratory animals protection Bill that went through all its stages in your Lordships' House on two occasions. Mr. Fry, a Member of another place, introduced the Protection of Animals (Scientific Purposes) Bill which was given a Second Reading and debated in the House of Commons in the 1979–80 Session of Parliament. I think that attention should be given in the further stages of this Bill to changing its Short Title to "Laboratory Animals Protection Bill".
We have also debated one or two other matters which have not been satisfactorily concluded and which should receive further attention. The procedures committee appears not to have full initiative to begin investigations and inquiries into particular matters. Clause 20(1) suggests that only with the consent of the Home Secretary could it go forward on matters that it wishes to go into. I believe that there should be powers of investigation which the committee can exercise on its own responsibility, provided only, perhaps, that it does not incur undue expenditure in so doing.
Clause 24 contains, I believe, a serious misunderstanding about the conditions of confidentiality imposed upon members of the procedures committee. Some people seem to be under the impression that, if any member of the committee leaks anything that he sees or discovers in the course of his duties as a member of the committee, he may be prosecuted and sentenced to up to two years' imprisonment. We are becoming very familiar with the technique of leaks and things that happen to people who make them, together with all the other
906
difficulties that one may get into through unauthorised disclosure. This looks rather as if members of the procedures committee are going to have a slice of the criminal law all of their own and sentences of imprisonment for breaches of it all of their own. I his, I am sure, is not what was intended. While confidentiality should be preserved, members of the procedures committee should have a little more freedom from the threat of prosecution than the Bill suggests.
We need a further termination condition in Clause 10(2)(b). We need also some relaxation of the condition that prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Scottish Act of 1912 can be undertaken against persons under this Bill only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
These are some matters that would repay attention in order to reinforce the purpose of the Bill and to remove some of the doubts in the minds of those who wish to give it their goodwill but have reservations about some parts of it. If that happens, we shall have completed an important stage in the long and painful history of the use of animals for the benefit of man. I do not suppose that it is any good suggesting that the human species is not worth the pain and the plunder that it demands for its own selfish ends. Man has sanctified his life under religious encouragement to justify putting his own interest first. But how this doctrine will make human life worth living in the future is not yet clear. I conclude by saying that this Bill is but a small step towards acknowledging claims of other species upon the divine spirit that man has long regarded as being a blessing reserved for himself alone.

British Leyland
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, this might be a convenient time for me to repeat in form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question on British Leyland being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With the approval of the British Leyland board, discussions are in progress between British Leyland and General Motors with the aim of creating an international competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry and improving the long-term prospects for the constituent BL companies. These talks cover Leyland Trucks. Land-Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas operations. Discussions are at an advanced state but a number of important issues remain to be settled. Separate discussions are taking place with the Laird Group, who own Metro Cammell Weyman, about the future of Leyland Bus.
"As to the other British Leyland businesses, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to return them to private ownership as soon as practicable. Talks with other car manufacturers on a variety of potential business ventures are in

907
progress. Some of these are wide ranging but are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to tell whether these will lead to any potential equity stake, acquisition or merger."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated, in the form of a Statement, an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. The fact that it was issued in reply to a Private Notice Question means, of course, that we on this side have not had the advantage of seeing the answer in advance. It would seem that the forecasts so adequately outlined in the Financial Times of 31st January have been realised in the event. It appears that conversations are in progress between the board—with the Government's knowledge—and an American company, General Motors, and that it is quite possible, although we do not know yet whether this will eventuate, that an offer will be made to acquire from British Leyland certain parts of its existing business, described by the noble Lord.
We on this side of the House view with some misgiving this latest turn of events whereby it is, at any rate, highly possible—some may even say probable—that a very substantial part of the British truck and bus industry may be acquired by a multinational company with headquarters in the United States. Perhaps, after the recent and continuing Sikorsky deal in connection with Westland, we should not be altogether surprised. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, entirely neutral in these matters so long as the American company is seen to win in the end.
We on this side view any prospect of the sale of this particular component part of BL with the greatest dismay. We do not understand quite why the Government, apparently—I say "apparently," because the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—view it with such a general sympathy. It was only in October last year that the then Trade and Industry Secretary—they change quite frequently in that department, so it appears—was expressing his dissatisfaction with General Motors' performance in this country relating to the production of domestically produced vehicles, and was also expressing some dismay at the fact that, contrary to its original expectation, the most that Vauxhall, which is GM controlled, could do was to ensure that up to 46 per cent. of the components of its Vauxhall cars were being made in this country.
We hope sincerely that when the Government come to consider this matter they will not adopt the so-called hands off neutrality (which, of course, is nothing of the kind) apparently adopted in the case of Westland, and that they will consider the national interest very carefully before approving any kind of decision on the lines that at any rate appear probable from the noble Lord's Statement. They will, of course, refer, as the Financial Times does, to the massive over-capacity of the British motor industry. But the same applies to other industries. How can there be anything but general over-capacity when there are 14 million unemployed in Europe in the course of a deflation led by the United Kingdom that has deflated demand throughout Europe?
908
We hope that these matters will be taken into account. What we fear, and we are bound to express our fears, is that this is the beginning of getting rid of some of British Leyland's loss-making assets at the moment prior to privatisation itself and that it is an endeavour to clear the decks.
On the basis of what little information the noble Lord has been able to give us today these are matters upon which I venture to speculate. It may be that my speculations are wrong. It may be that the Government will study the national interest. We on this side of the House sincerely trust that after the sordid events of the past month or so the Government will do so.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the Minister for making a Statement in reply to the Private Notice Question in another place. But I am bound to say that the Statement is so brief that it gives us no information at all as to the reasons for the action that the Government are attempting to take. Could the Minister not enlighten us as to what has led to the decision to make, or to negotiate, this sale to General Motors? We can scarcely discuss this matter as it stands because we have no data on which to discuss it. Can the Minister also tell us how far these negotiations have gone; whether any alternatives were considered—a management buy out for example; or whether the staff have been consulted about the proposal to sell this part of British Leyland to General Motors?
The Minister in his Statement refers to further negotiations with other manufacturers. Are we to be told who these other manufacturers are? Are they other British manufacturers? Are they other American manufacturers, or are the Government—and perhaps this might be a wise move to take—thinking about a possible liaison (if they are to sell to other people) with companies inside the European Community? There remains a case for the development of an industry of this scale in relation to our partners inside Europe. But on the basis of what we have been told we are not in a position to know what is going on or to make any useful comment except as pure speculation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their receipt of the Statement which I have just repeated.
Perhaps I may answer the few questions which have been put to me. First, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I am surprised that he should view with dismay the efforts being made by the Government with British Leyland to secure a viable United Kingdom truck industry against a European background of over-capacity and falling sales. That is what we are trying to do in this case.
I answer the noble Baroness in the same way. Of course, the negotiations are in progress rather than at an end, and it will be necessary, with any proposals brought by the board of British Leyland together with General Motors to the Government, for the Government certainly to take into account the national interest, not least the continuance of a manufacturing presence in this country.

909
I should, however, correct the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, when he referred to the undertakings which the board of General Motors gave to my right honourable friend Mr. Brittan when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in so far as local content is concerned. At the time the conversation took place certainly the local content of Vauxhall cars was about 46 per cent. The company gave an undertaking that this would rise in 1986 to 60 per cent. There has already been an increase of 2 percentage points.
The noble Baroness referred to the alternatives. British Leyland had been discussing with a number of companies various collaborative arrangements, the best known of course being that with Honda. They continue to discuss with other car manufacturers the possibility of other collaborative arrangements.
So far as discussions with our European partners are concerned there is a continuing dialogue between United Kingdom based manufacturers and European manufacturers to see whether there is a basis for collaboration.
The noble Baroness asked specifically whether the staff of British Leyland have been consulted. So far as I am aware, no, since the discussions are very confidential. I cannot say at this stage where they might lead; and it would be imprudent I think for the commercial decisions of each of those two boards to discuss their proposition before they have come to any kind of mutual conclusion.

Teachers' Pay and Responsibilities
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on teachers' pay and responsibilities which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that, with assistance from ACAS, a provisional agreement has been reached between management and teachers on a settlement for 1985, an end to disruption, and assisted negotiations across pay and other conditions of service for 1986. The Government greatly welcome the prospect of a firm agreement of this kind along with the restoration of normal working in the schools. The disruption has not only damaged children's education. It has put heavy burdens on parents, head teachers and on many classroom teachers. We all want to see it end. I hope therefore that the provisional agreement will soon be formally adopted by management and teachers.
"The NUT is not at present party to this agreement. I nevertheless hope that all the teachers' unions will join in the negotiations that lie ahead for 1986. The Government accept the case for an increase in teachers' pay to recruit, retain and motivate the teachers needed for the high quality school education our children need and deserve, along with improvements in the pay structure and a clarification of teachers' responsibilities. The
910
Government have set aside additional resources for this purpose. I therefore hope that the forthcoming negotiations will soon make sufficient progress towards the Government's objectives to justify my releasing those resources."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. However, it is a non-Statement. It tells us absolutely nothing which we did not know before from the newspapers. I think that it understates the harm to education that has been caused by the dispute and of the loss of morale in the profession.
The cause primarily has been the Government's failure to provide adequate resources for the service. We had hoped that, a provisional agreement having been reached, the Secretary of State might have made a generous gesture and at least offered some money for the 1985–86 settlement if the agreement is endorsed. The local authorities are going to be in greater financial difficulties. May I therefore ask whether this is still a possibility? The Statement mentions no figures at all. May I ask whether there is to be any adjustment to the figures in the Government's expenditure plans for 1986–87, as the present figures do not allow for a percentage increase in teachers' pay of the size agreed to on 24th January last?
I should like to point out that it was the Labour local authorities which initiated the meeting with ACAS which led to this agreement, and that the Secretary of State himself has done nothing at any stage of the dispute, by either word or deed, to help reach a solution. He appears to have been sitting back and calmly surveying the dismantling and destruction of the State education system. We had hoped for some generous gesture at this point, and I hope that it is not too late for such a gesture. Perhaps the noble Baroness will convey our feelings to her right honourable friend.
4 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which I would describe as emollient and perhaps not entirely discouraging. However, I should like to point out that the NUT is mentioned in the second part of the Statement and I am not very sanguine that it will agree to the provisional agreement through ACAS. For certain reasons I do not think the NUT is likely to come into line. The amount offered in the proposed settlement for 1985 is not acceptable to the NUT. No money at all has been offered by the Government for that proposed settlement, and no mention has been made of the aspiration to approach the Houghton levels of pay, which all teachers ultimately hope to receive, nor of the aim or comparability with other professions at which teachers throughout the dispute of the last year have been aiming.
In the second paragraph of the Statement mention is made of "clarification of teachers' responsibilities". I believe that that is a much better phrase than "conditions of service". One of the points at issue between teachers and the Government has been the

911
use of the phrase "conditions of service". A great deal of what a teacher does is voluntary. Of course, it is not voluntary that a teacher should teach, should prepare for exams, meet parents and suchlike, but in the way of out-of-school activities a great deal is done by teachers which is entirely voluntary. Teachers are very resentful of the suggestion that these activities should be made mandatory.
I should like to commend the phrase "clarification of teachers' responsibilities", and I hope that in the forthcoming negotiations the Government will not hit too hard the idea of conditions of service. I believe that that would help in obtaining a final settlement. Apart from that, we have no further comments to make and we thank the noble Baroness the Minister.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I am sorry that the Statement was not up to their expectations, but I must emphasise that my right honourable friend is pleased that we have an agreement which holds out at least some promise of a settlement of the 1985 pay dispute, which will mean a return to normal working in the schools and constructive negotiations across pay, pay structure and duties and conditions of service. This is and must be the main thrust of the Government's role.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me some questions. One related to the availability of additional resources from the Government. In reaching the settlement some 10 days ago, the employers knew the financial background and the Government's position on local authority expenditure when they decided to make their offer, as indeed they did when they made their informal offer of an end-loaded 7.5 per cent. last October. They knew that the position was still unchanged when they increased their offer to 8.5 per cent. at ACAS, and it is for them to decide whether an increase of that order can be accommodated within their budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, in particular raised the question whether there were sufficient resources to maintain and improve educational standards, on the supposition that additional resources should be made available. The Government acknowledge, even if local education authorities take all steps open to them to secure savings and to improve efficiency and effectiveness, that it may be difficult to achieve in full the Government's policy for raising educational standards within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil. The noble Baroness also made a request to me to convey the feelings of your Lordships' House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I can certainly give the noble Baroness an assurance that I shall do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, expressed the fear that the National Union of Teachers would not agree to the settlement. We also very much regret that so far the National Union of Teachers has not been a party to the agreement. However, I understand that the union's executive has at least deferred going ahead with the one-day strike agreed at its conference last month. The union is also willing to abandon strikes if the agreement is converted into a settlement. That is something. We hope that the NUT will go
912
further and drop all disruption and join in the wide-ranging negotiations planned for 1986.
In addition, in reply to the noble Lord's question about reaching Houghton levels or comparability with other professions, the Government's stated aim is that the local education authorities, the employers in this case, should, within their budget, make a statement which is on a good housekeeping basis. I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the phraseology used; indeed I agree that a "clarification of responsibilities" is a good phrase. We hope that this disruptive dispute is well on the way to being finalised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend could clear up two points which, even after the Statement, still remain uncertain in my mind. First, in the complex arrangements of this matter, is it possible to put the agreement reached with all the other teachers' unions into effect in the absence of agreement by the National Union of Teachers? Secondly, have the other unions, apart from the National Union of Teachers, agreed with the employers' proposals for what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, so rightly calls a "clarification of teachers' responsibilities"?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding of the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that the National Union of Teachers has suggested that it will go forward with the arrangements if a positive settlement is reached. However, perhaps I may inform my noble friend if I find that I have misunderstood that point.
On the question whether the other unions have agreed to a clarification of responsibilities in the finalisation of the settlement, I believe the answer is that the offer has been made by the employers in an open-ended way. The pressure is there for a clarification of teachers' responsibilities in that the Government have in hand certain monies which will be released on condition that the Government's objectives in this matter are fulfilled.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it not a fact that the National Union of Teachers and indeed, so far as I know, the NAS have, as the Government would wish, on every occasion gone to their members and balloted them before they moved any further in any of the discussions? Surely this is exactly what the Government wanted. Therefore, they can hardly—as would seem to be implied by the question of the noble Lord opposite—condemn the unions if they wait for the decision of their members before they move to the next stage of any negotiations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a point that is perfectly well understood by the Government. On the decisions taken by all the unions last year, during the negotiations both in September and October, when offers were put forward, the other unions have changed their minds, and it is much to be hoped that the National Association of Schoolmasters will also succeed, as a result of its balloting processes, in changing its mind.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that all the time it has been a case of the local authorities having to give, give, and give without support from the DES? Surely this is wrong. Surely at this point, where the unions and the local authorities have gone so far, the department itself should back up the local authorities in releasing monies for this matter?
Baroness Hooper: The department is fully prepared to back up the local authorities for any spending within their budgets. The local authorities are well aware of the stringencies. They have a number of pressures; they have a number of commitments. They are the best people to know how to meet all those commitments, and that is why the Government have stood on the sidelines to some extent, but with the assurance that, as soon as the Government's requirements, or the Government's objectives, are agreed to, the additional sums in hand may be released over a four-year period.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness quite answered both my points about finances. I think she answered about the monies for the 1985–86 settlement, when I said I hoped there might be a generous gesture—and I gather from what she said that there will not; but I also asked about the Government expenditure plans for 1986–87. Surely if there had been agreement about salaries much earlier on in the year, that percentage increase would have been allowed for in the plans for the following year. I am asking, can that now happen?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I omitted to answer a particular point. The Government have put forward no pay factor for 1986–87. What is offered for that period will be for the employers to decide. The employers, as I have said, know full well the terms on which the Government are willing to release extra resources for teachers' pay for 1986–87 and later years, and they also know full well the background to the Government's decision to start this additional investment from the coming financial year. I hope that that helps to amplify my answer.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Question, That the Bill do now pass.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I shall be brief. Some six or seven years ago I launched my Laboratory Animals Protection Bill into the pipeline, thereby initiating the process which has culminated in the Third Reading of the Government Bill this afternoon. Only one feature has marred the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. During the Committee stage we were robbed of the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who was at the time on the sick list.
914
We were glad to welcome him back at the Report stage. I myself was prepared to treat him with all the tenderness due to a convalescent. It was quite unnecessary by way of precaution. Without notice, and quite unexpectedly, he want off like a Chinese cracker. Detonation after detonation followed one another from the Bench where he sits, scattering the Government Front Bench like chaff before a desert wind and leaving him master of the battlefield.
I am so glad that in the privacy of conversation they have managed to resolve these matters. In a few minutes I shall be asked whether I am content that this Bill should now pass, and to that I shall assent. I have only two words to add to it; Nunc dimittis.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I shall not take much time. I should like, both on behalf of those who wish to defend animals and those who realise the importance of research, to thank the Government for having introduced this Bill. It strikes a happy medium between the two. Though it may possibly disappoint the extremists on either side, I think it is good that they should be disappointed. I am most grateful.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I want to say a brief word. I agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that this is a good Bill. It is a better Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House than it was when it arrived, and for that I have no doubt that we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He has responded to many amendments—and many, I am conscious, from me or with my name to them—with considerable courtesy. I am grateful for the helpful attitude adopted both by the noble Lord and by his colleague the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and the officials at the Home Office who have been responsible for the Bill. I thank all those involved very much indeed.
Having said that, I think it is fair to say that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will improve things only slightly so far as laboratory animals are concerned. That is a modest claim for a Bill which is the first one Parliament has considered and put on to the statute book for over a hundred years. But, as my noble friend Lord Houghton reminded us a number of times, the Bill certainly contains the potential to improve matters considerably. I agree with him about that, but I think, with him—and I was glad to hear the points he made—that the Bill could, and should, do a little more now on the face of it.
Before mentioning the points which I feel we still have not resolved satisfactorily may I say something on my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northfield, who unfortunately was not able to stay for the time taken by the Statements? He and I have not always agreed about all the amendments on the Bill, but we agree about one thing. I do not want to detract at all from the commitment shown by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and David Mellor at the Home Office, but it is clear that no government would have been prepared to introduce legislation on this subject without the help and co-operation of my noble friend Lord Houghton, and his willingness to take part in the difficult job of reaching compromises.
I am all too conscious that that leads to more criticism than praise whatever the compromise turns

915
out to be. That contribution has been vital. It would have been vital to any government. His contribution to the future welfare of laboratory animals cannot be underestimated. Whatever are the rights or wrongs, the pluses and minuses of this Bill, it is clearly a considerable improvement over the law we have now.
There are still some improvements that can be made to the Bill and I hope that another place will look at this. One thing that was not mentioned by my noble friend is that I still firmly believe that greater controls—and therefore more bureaucracy—costs, and inconvenience should be imposed on those who wish to do experiments which involve the highest degree of suffering. We made several attempts at Committee and Report stages to persuade the Government of that and did not succeed. I am still convinced that the thousand-odd experiments which will have to be covered in the transfer period and the 500-odd a year subsequently justify a greater degree of inspection and consideration by outside experts, whether from the Animal Procedures Committee or elsewhere, than the Bill currently requires.
I strongly agree with the comments made by my noble friend about the Animal Procedures Committee. The clause about secrecy is unnecessarily draconian and will deter people from coming forward to serve on the committee. It is clearly right that the committee has power to initiate its own investigations. I am sure that that bit of the Bill must be changed.
I still believe that while we have improved the remit of the Animal Procedures Committee we have not got it right yet, and the committee should have a more forward-looking and positive remit to reduce, where possible, the number of animals used in experimental procedures. That would be an important change if another place were able to consider it.
Finally, there is a category of improvement concerned with the checking and monitoring of what happens in laboratories. I do not think we have put a sufficiently stringent requirement upon those who run laboratories, or other places where animals are experimented on, to monitor what happens to animals that are likely to die or suffer. The stories of people going through laboratories when they open up in the morning and clearing out dead animals that have died during the night are legion. More stringent requirements are needed there. Outside the scope of the Bill, I am sure that the Home Office needs to be convinced that there need to be greater resources in terms of manpower especially for the inspectorate to make this Bill work satisfactorily.
Having said all that, I believe we have made some significant improvements to the Bill. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his co-operation in that. I wish the Bill not a speedy but a considered passage through another place on to the statute book.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this is a welcome and very necessary Bill. Any Bill which updates an Act going back as far as 1876 is extremely welcome. It is an achievement of your Lordships' House that this Bill has passed through all its stages without any major dissension. We all look forward to the day, if it ever comes, when experiments on animals become
916
completely unnecessary. But if we are to conquer the malignant diseases of cancer, cystic fibrosis and so on, these experiments will be necessary. I believe that during its passage through this House the Bill has dotted a number of "i's" and crossed a number of "t's". When it goes to another place some more dots and crosses may be necessary.
I hope that the Government will take on board that the inspectors who will be needed here must be very highly trained. They will have many heavy responsibilities thrust on their shoulders. The amendment regarding registered breeding establishments is welcome because there have been a number of reports (I suggest that many are false) of animals being gathered from the streets and placed into these laboratories for experiments.
I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the very efficient and courteous way in which he has piloted this difficult Bill through your Lordships' House, and other noble Lords from all parts of the House who have contributed to an agreeable and constructive debate. Hopefully, in another place the Bill will have the same practical and sensible passage that it has enjoyed in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word after those whom I call the "heavyweights" have spoken. First, I should thank Lord Glenarthur who has shepherded this Bill with so much goodwill, tolerance and sense of concern. These qualities we now expect from the noble Lord, and I hope we shall not be disappointed on any other Bill. We are grateful to him for the way he has put this Bill through.
Although there have been criticisms of the Bill from some of the custodians of animal welfare, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, one of the great pioneers in this field, has been pleased with the Bill. The speech he made today made this quite clear. In the course of our discussions and debates we have come across the conflict between the interests of animal welfare and the requirements of science and medicine which are features of our times. But all the time there has been complete agreement on the need for a balance between the freedom of scientists to carry out scientific investigations and our concern for the animals that will be adversely affected in this process. Many of us have repeatedly stressed that the safeguards for animals in this Bill should be there and be seen as a protection for them against unnecessary suffering, but also should accurately represent and reflect the measure of concern that people in this country genuinely feel for animals. It is a concern that we have every reason to be proud of.
While this need for balance has been agreed on by all the speakers, there have been arguments about the best way to put it all into effect. The dissension lay in three different areas which still give rise to some anxiety and which I am sure will be the subject of a great deal of attention when the Bill reaches another place. It is generally agreed that the successful working of the Bill will depend on the code of practice, but the concern is that the code of practice is still in draft form and will remain so until the Bill reaches the statute book.

917
Secondly, it is also generally agreed that the Bill concerns animal suffering. This is what my noble friend Lord Melchett has stressed throughout the Bill. It has been pointed out from all sides of the House that all possible safeguards should be brought in to deal with the prevention and elimination of pain in animals. Many suggestions have been made, stressed and brought forward again as to how this should be done. For example, there should be adequate training for licensees and there should be constant surveillance of animals undergoing operations. This is especially important at night and at the weekends. These points were brought out repeatedly to try to deal with this terrible and repugnant aspect of the Bill before us, that these animals should undergo pain.
The third area has already been stressed by my noble friends, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett; it is the role of the Animal Procedures Committee. We are a little disappointed that the Animal Procedures Committee has not been given an even more substantial role so that it would have powers of supervision and the freedom on its own initiative to comment or to make proposals on any issue which it considers to be relevant.
In conclusion, we were delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when on Second Reading he informed the House of the substantial reduction in the number of experiments on animals between the years 1976 and 1984. The figure has decreased from 5.5 million to 3.5 million. Although the Government did not accept the arguments pressed by my noble friend Lord Melchett that the Bill should legislate specifically for a reduction in the number of experiments on animals, we hope and believe that one of the main effects of the Bill will be a reduction in the number of such experiments. Our eventual goal should be the total elimination of animals in scientific experimentation. We are glad that the noble Lord the Minister has so often been sympathetic and co-operative and has accepted numerous amendments. Indeed, we are glad that he should today have accepted an amendment that many noble Lords found of great importance from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
As previous speakers have said, we know that the Bill would not have come about without a great deal of hard work by the department and with the help of those noble Lords who have toiled in this field for so many years. Before I end I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton. We all admire the way he recovered from the bit of scientific procedure that he underwent in the middle of this Bill. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who brought all the expertise most fluently expressed as he always does to our debates, and to my noble friend Lord Melchett, without whom the Bill would not have changed so much. We can only hope that history will show that the Bill will have been a significant step forward.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I shall be very brief but I cannot resist the temptation to say "Thank you" on my own behalf and echo the thanks that have been given to all those who have taken part in this debate and also to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his
918
very great help on a number of points. All that I should like to do in addition to that is to refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on Report—that the Bill as it stands represents a compromise of interests which are in conflict and which have a very great deal to be said for them on both sides—and to express the hope that they both expressed, that in another place the Bill will be treated in the same spirit of compromise as it has been dealt with in your Lordships' House.
It is always extremely difficult when it comes to amendments to know what are important matters of principle and what are details which will enable the Bill to function more smoothly. I very much hope that amendment from this stage on will be in the latter terms rather than the former.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps a single sentence should be uttered from these Benches. I am sure that we owed it to the laboratory animals to do something more for them than was done by the Act of 1876. It has taken us a very long time to get down to this task, and but for the energy and thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not believe that even yet we should be undertaking it. But at last, thank goodness, we seem to be achieving something. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, our discussions today have completed our detailed consideration of the entirety of this Bill although, as has been forecast by those of your Lordships who have just spoken, in due course we may examine any amendments made to it in another place; and we have been given some indication of what sort of amendments there might be. The Bill introduces the first legislative changes for 109 years to the system of controlling experimental work carried out on living animals. This is an historic and notable development. We have had to look back at the vast changes in the biological sciences which have taken place since our parliamentary predecessors debated the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876; and we have had to look forward to the developments in science which are yet to come and which the new system of control must be able to encompass.
This Bill is notable in another respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, it has been made possible because of an unprecedented degree of co-operation across a wide range of interests. Your Lordships will be aware of the important contribution which has come from the moderate and responsible animal welfare bodies and in particular the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and certainly I share his view, which was added to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and others—an integral part of this was that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has given us his great knowledge and wisdom on this subject and all the benefit that comes from that.
In addition, science and industry have supported the aims of this Bill. During the long work of preparation—and it has been long—and during its passage through your Lordships' House they have

919
given most generously of their expertise. And we have had the benefit of reasoning from many of your Lordships who have brought to bear enormous interest in the welfare of animals and experience of their use in scientific procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has a fine reputation as a defender of animals of all sorts, and, although I could not agree with everything that he said on every amendment, he gave us food for thought on several issues, for which I am grateful. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has brought a wealth of direct personal experience of procedures on animals to bear on our considerations and this Bill achieves what for him is an aim that he has been keen to achieve for so long. For what he and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, with his particular experience, have contributed I am most grateful.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Somers, my noble friend Lord Auckland, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have all brought feeling and concern to bear. I am grateful to all of them, as I am too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said and as your Lordships will be aware, it is he who has been the vital catalyst for change and who has harnessed so effectively the energies of all those who have sought to make a positive contribution to this undertaking.
I have referred to the range of interests and opinions involved. Looking back at our consideration of this Bill, it is clear that these different stands have been comprehensively and most ably represented. We have explored very thoroughly a wide range of important issues of detail and operation as well as looking critically at the essential spirit upon which the Bill is founded. It is of course the misfortune of the Government spokesman that he cannot (to borrow a phrase) please all of the people all of the time. But even though it has not been possible to incorporate all your Lordships' suggestions, I must say that we have derived great benefit from all the penetrating scrutiny which has been given by your Lordships to the wide range of important issues raised by this Bill. Your Lordships have also made a number of very helpful points which will need to be reflected and will be reflected in the next draft of the Home Office guidance note which we shall produce within the next two or three weeks.
I am sure that the benefit of our debates owes much to the manner in which this difficult subject has been approached. Anyone reading our debates will be deeply impressed by the common thread of humanity which has run through all the contributions that we have heard. From all quarters there has been a clear sense of responsibility towards the rest of the animal kingdom and a desire for the Bill to strike an appropriate balance between the need to avoid animal suffering and the importance of safeguarding our own communities. The Bill has been greatly improved as a result, and so too has our appreciation of the often subtle and intractable issues which it addresses.
This Bill does not sweep away the great legacy of our long experience in controlling animal
920
experimentation. Instead it builds upon it, providing new mechanisms by which Parliament, the Secretary of State, his advisers and the inspectorate will be able to extend and improve the system of control. This will be to the benefit of both human society and animals. Again I thank your Lordships for many valuable contributions and for your kind references to the part that I have played. As to the part I play on other Bills, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, hinted, perhaps that is something I can undertake, in the terms used quite often on this Bill, to agree to consider without being further tempted. I join with your Lordships in wishing this Bill a swift passage to the statute book.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before the House will, I feel, be non-controversial. Indeed, I would expect it to be generally welcomed since its purpose is to enable the Patent Office to improve the services it provides to the public. It will facilitate the computerisation of the registers kept by the Patent Office and will make certain amendments to existing legislation in order to prepare the way for the introduction of registration of marks for services. It is essentially an amending Bill, and this explains why although running to only four clauses it has 11 pages of schedules. These set out the amendments to existing legislation. For example, five pages are taken up by Schedule 1, which contains new sections to replace the provisions dealing with the registers in the Trade Marks Act 1938, Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Patents Act 1977.
The subject of computerisation comes first in the Bill. Following a scrutiny of the operations of the Patent Office undertaken by a team under Sir Derek Rayner (now the noble Lord, Lord Rayner) in 1980, the report recommended that greater use be made of computers for keeping office records. As far as most of those records are concerned, it is of course entirely a matter for the Patent Office how they are kept; they are the normal records kept by any large organisation and no specific legal authority is needed for the office to purchase computers and to use these for its record-keeping. The registers are, however, in a different category. The comptroller is obliged by the respective Acts to keep at the Patent Office separate registers for patents, for designs and for trade marks, and the Acts also give the public the right to inspect the registers and to obtain copies of entries in the registers, and provide that such copies when certified by the comptroller shall be admitted in legal proceedings.
If the Patent Office is to reap the full benefits of computerisation it must be freed of any obligation to keep paper registers. The office will almost certainly wish to keep some existing paper registers, but in the case of a computerised register the information held on an electronic storage medium, such as disc or tape, would constitute the statutory register. The intention is that anyone wishing to inspect the register would be able to call up the relevant part on the screen of a computer terminal at the Patent Office. Anyone

921
wanting a copy would be able to get a printout from the computer, and the Patent Office would certify such a printout so that it would be used in legal proceedings.
A change in the law is necessary because it is not clear that these intentions are at present covered by the provisions relating to inspection, the supply of copies and the admissibility in evidence of copies in the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the Registered Designs Act 1949, which of course date from pre-computer times. Those who drafted the Patents Act 1977 were able to foresee the problem, and that Act refers, for example, to
"a document reproducing in legible form an entry made in the register otherwise than in legible form".
However, even that Act requires amendment since, like the Designs and Trade Marks Acts, it requires the register to be kept at the Patent Office. The Patent Office wishes to be free of this requirement, since it may be more convenient for the actual computer and the disc or tapes constituting the register to be kept at a remote site connected to terminals and printers in the Patent Office. All this is brought about in the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon by Clause 1 and Schedule 1.
These amendments would provide that, when the registers are kept in non-documentary form, the right to inspect the registers is a right to inspect the material on the registers. Similarly, the right to a copy or an entry is the right to a copy in a form in which it can be taken away and which is visible and legible, and such a copy, duly certified shall be admissible in evidence. The requirement for the registers to be kept at the Patent Office and the requirement that the registers be kept under the control of the comptroller is replaced by an obligation on the comptroller to maintain the registers. This latter provision would cause the comptroller to remain legally responsible for assembling the data to be recorded, but the staff performing the task would not necessarily be under his control but may instead be bound to him by a contractual relationship.
I come now to the other main subject of the Bill, service marks. At present it is only possible to register a trade mark which is to be used in relation to goods. For some time now, business and the trade mark interests have pressed for a change in the law to allow the registration of marks used in relation to services, such as banking, dry cleaning or car servicing. Your Lordships may recall that a Bill for this purpose was introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the Bill was lost when the 1983 general election intervened. Registrations for service marks will be brought about by the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984, which was introduced in the other place after the election. That Act is not yet in force, but the Government at the time indicated that they aimed to implement the Act on 1st October 1985.
As I said, the 1984 Act started life as a Private Member's Bill and its effect was restricted to amending the Trade Marks Act 1938 to afford registration for service marks. It did not make consequential amendments to other legislation. This Bill therefore rectifies this by making the amendments to existing legislation which are set out in Schedule 2. These
922
provisions are to come into force on the same day as the 1984 Act; that is, on 1st October this year.
Although the Long Title of the 1984 Act states that it is an Act to amend the law to afford registration for service marks, the expression itself is not used in the body of the Act. Since this is the expression which will in practice be used to refer to such marks, it is felt important that it should be the expression used in the law instituting their registration. Accordingly, subsection (1) of Clause 2 amends the 1984 Act to introduce the term "service mark" and defines it in language culled from the 1984 Act without substantive change.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 deals with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which specifies that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have unrestricted power to legislate on, among other things, trade marks. It is intended to ensure that service marks are treated in the same way.
Subsection (3) of Clause 2 is intended to have a similar effect with respect to a wide variety of legislation specified in Schedule 2. Much of this is legislation which is not concerned with trade marks but with, for example, such matters as taxes, or the jurisdiction of the courts, but which contains provisions which refer to trade marks. The present measure would cause service marks to be treated under these provisions in the same way as trade marks. In addition, Schedule 2 amends the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the 1984 Act, in particular in relation to priority rights for trade marks and service marks.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly explain what is meant in this context by "priority rights". When, following an application to the Patent Office, a trade mark is put on the register, the registration is normally deemed to take effect from the date of the application. In some cases this date may assume considerable importance, since the registration may be invalid if the mark had been used in the United Kingdom by another party before that date. The applicant may, however, be able to obtain an earlier registration date, and this is referred to as claiming priority rights. This can be done if the applicant had made an application within the preceding six months for registration of the same trade mark in one of the countries specified in an Order in Council. In that case it is the date of the earlier foreign application which is deemed to be the date of registration of that trade mark in the United Kingdom. This has been the legal position for trade marks—that is, marks for goods—for many years, and fulfils an obligation under the Paris Convention to which the United Kingdom is a party, as are most countries in the world.
The obligation under the Paris Convention to accord priority rights does not extend to service marks. Some countries which already provide for registration of service marks do however operate a similar priority system on a reciprocal basis—that is, they allow priority to be claimed from an application made in a country which in turn accords their applicants priority rights. We have decided to adopt a similar system, and accordingly the Bill amends the 1938 and 1984 Acts to allow a country to be designated by order, either in fulfilment of a bilateral agreement or if the Government are satisfied that the country makes

923
provision for priority rights for service marks on a comparable basis.
Clause 3 and Schedule 3 effect consequential repeals, and Clause 4 contains the extent and commencement provisions. I have just two points to make about these. First, the Isle of Man has agreed that the Bill should be extended to them. Agreement has not yet been reached on the precise form of the extension. Discussions are continuing between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office and when a form of extension is agreed an amendment to the Bill will be moved. Secondly, the commencement provision is drafted so that the Patent Office can receive applications for service mark registration before the day on which the Act comes into force, these being treated eventually as though filed on that day.
This is essentially a technical Bill. I am afraid that it is not a very exciting Bill. Nevertheless it is a valuable measure, since it enables the Patent Office both to improve the efficiency of its present activities by using modern technology to keep the registers and to commence the registrations of service marks by allowing the implementation of the 1984 Act, which was passed by Parliament for that purpose. I am reminded by my noble friend that earlier I referred to the commencement of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984 by saying it was to be implemented on 1st October 1985. I do apologise: I should of course have said 1986. With that rather brief explanation, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having given a brief explanation as to the purposes that lie behind the Bill, and as regards those purposes we on this side of the House have no dissent. I am bound to say straight away that, as to its detailed application to the several interests to whom it directly applies, I would far sooner rely upon the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whose expertise in this field is within the knowledge of the House. Before arriving at a final conclusion I reserve the right to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and then perhaps have another think in the light of what he may say.
We in this House like to take steps to ensure that whatever legislation comes before us goes out in a form which is at any rate intelligible, is consistent, is easy of interpretation by the courts and of course is understood clearly by those whom the Bill is designed to affect—ignorance of the law is reputed to be no excuse. I am bound to say therefore that the Bill as it now stands disappoints me a little. In my own professional life I have been accustomed to threading my way through the tortuous fields of income tax Acts and Finance Acts ever since the year 1918, and through some of the complexities of company law, to mention only a few. I am bound to say that in endeavouring to pick my way through this Bill and the Acts which it is designed to amend, I found the process most tortuous in order to arrive at the final results of the Bill in a practical form.
924
I say this for a number of reasons. Most of the people likely to be affected by Bills of this kind are small business people. There is of course an application to the larger firms in the United Kingdom, and in particular to their employees, but I think it will be generally agreed that the effects of this Bill will be relevant very largely to the small business, to the small businessman, to the start-up man and so on. I have therefore to ask the noble Lord whether there has been any consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is concerned with simplifying matters for small businesses. When the noble Lord was discussing the White Paper produced originally by the Department of Trade and Industry, he affected to be much in favour of simplification. Some of us have since wondered when this regard for simplicity was going to take a practical form. I mention only the whole question of VAT regulations, which appear to have become more complex since the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, enunciated his simplification campaign. I therefore ask the noble Lord the direct question as to what degree of co-ordination and co-operation there has been on this highly complex Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and that particular part of the Department of Employment that is reputed to be led by him. That is the first question.
The second question arises on the way in which we should proceed to make it more intelligible. In the light of the tortuous path that the Bill forces us to tread, can the noble Lord give an indication—he must have been aware of the nature of the Bill he was bringing along, short though it may be—whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to bring forward any kind of consolidation Bill simplifying all the issues involved? The third question related to the passage of the Bill through its remaining stages in this House. I ask the noble Lord—I am well aware that he cannot give me the answer because he will have to have consultations—whether it would be better, or indeed whether it would be possible, to have the Committee stage referred to a Select Committee of the House rather than have it taken on the Floor of the House. In a Select Committee it is possible to have technical experts in to knead together the more technical aspects of matters and reduce them to terms that are easily understandable.
Having said that, I turn to the Bill itself. I have very little to say upon its content, other than to express mild mystification as to some of the terms that have been used. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to Schedule 1,
"which relates to computerisation".
Your Lordships are well aware of the degree of judicial ignorance that is very often and quite properly adopted by those who have the honour to sit on the Bench in various courts. Where judicial ignorance of a term is expressed, that does not mean that the member of the Bench concerned has not formed a conclusion as to what the term really means, but that it is required to be more closely defined. For example, in evidence before a court the words "pop star" may be used, to which the judicial response might be, "What is a pop star?".
In the same way, I observe that the word "computerisation" is nowhere defined in the Bill itself. I do not know whether there is a judicial definition of

925
computerisation. I agree that in general terms the meaning is easily understandable: that is, in purely general and conventional terms, However, I note that when it comes to Schedule 1, where computerisation is by inference referred to, the words used are different. For example, in paragraph 1, which relates to an amendment to the Trade Marks Act 1938, sub paragraph 3 states:
"The register need not be kept in documentary form".
I take it that what is really meant by that is that the register can be kept on a computer. That expression is repeated at various parts of Schedule 1, where instead of referring to the register being kept on computer, the schedule states that the register need not be kept in documentary form. The term is repeated several times throughout the whole of Schedule 1.
Thus we have a reference in Clause 1 of the Bill to computerisation but then, in the schedule to the Bill to which Clause 2 specfically refers, there appears the negative expression that is intended to convey that the register may be kept on a computer. The words used are:
"The register need not be kept in documentary form".
Why does the schedule not say that the register can be kept on a computer? The use of two different terms to describe the same provision weakens both. If computerisation is strong enough then why not use that term? But if the words "other than in documentary form" are strong enough, then why not use those words in Clause 1 itself?
It may be more than a question of semantics. In these days of progress, the imagination may boggle. The words "other than in documentary form" may in years to come cover other operations than those embraced by the term computerisation. Who is to know?
Again to deal with some of the detail, I observe that in that part of Schedule 1 relating to the Patents Act 1977, paragraph 3 reproduces a new section to replace Section 32 of the Act. However, I note that in Schedule 3, where it comes to dealing with repeals consequential upon Schedule 1, Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is repealed. I have looked through Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 and I am a little hazy. The noble Lord can probably answer my query quite simply. I ask him whether the repeal of Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 on page 7 of the Bill in addition to Section 32, which it specifically replaces. I have not had the time to trace out whether or not that is so. If the noble Lord says that it is so, then I shall unhesitatingly accept his affirmation without any further check on my part.
The Bill goes on to deal with the computerisation of extremely important records. I should like to have the Government's assurance that they are fully certain in their own minds that computerisation can be accomplished with physical safety for the records. Modern science has progressed significantly since the early days of computers. Many noble Lords will have had some ordinary practical experience in commerce, banking and in other fields where initial computerisation has been described as the time of the troubles. because they have not been introduced without a considerable number of teething troubles. There is
926
always a necessity, as those who have been responsible for the computerisation of banking records will confirm, for there to be back-up disks for everything that is put on the register, and for proper physical means to be established for the complete security of those records—security against everything including the dropping of a nuclear bomb, when the relevance of the patent register will speedily disappear.
I should like to be assured also that the Government are now completely satisfied about the internal security of the computer records and about the schemes of organisation that they have for checks and security checks to inhibit unauthorised entry into the computer system. I need only refer once again to the fact that there have been problems in commerce and in banking where there has been unauthorised access to computer records—and indeed involving the alteration and falsification of consumer records by those who have been able to obtain access and by those who have sufficient scientific and computer skills to be able to corrupt such records. I am certain that I shall be reassured, but it will be good to have it on the record that the Government have investigated that aspect of the matter and that they are fully satisfied that all security safeguards in regard to those most important records will be put firmly in place.
Finally, I remind the noble Lord that in his opening speech he did not clearly state—of if he did, I apologise for having misunderstood him—that there would be some endeavour to computerise the existing records that already exist in documentary form; in other words, whether it will be the case that all the records will be progressively transferred to computer, or whether it is intended to retain a dual system for the time being.
If it is the case that the existing documentary records are to be put on computer, then I must point out that it will be a very long and costly process. Computers are never any better than the information that is put onto them. If it is the intention to computerise the existing records, then I must say to the noble Lord that the cost estimates that he may have in mind, and the costs to the public that he may have in mind, are likely to be significantly in excess of any figure that he presently anticipates. For the moment also there would be a difficulty. I feel sure that the noble Lord and those who have experience in this field will agree, that to run the two systems at once will present a certain degree of complexity.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long at this stage of the Bill but I felt it my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to some of my misgivings. That being said, I affirm that we on this side of the House support the purposes that lie behind the Bill and, subject to all the precautions that can be taken, wish it a successful passage to another place.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for taking the House so carefully through this Bill and referring to the Bill as essentially a technical one. However, tonight the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is more modest than I have heard him for a long time. I thank him very much for his kind words about myself, but the keen

927
way in which he has analysed the Bill—he has raised many points—has saved me a great deal of trouble in my speech this evening.
May I at once express my deep surprise at the complexity of these arrangements. I agree, of course, with the general objectives of the Bill, which are to computerise—if I may use that word—the register. It also deals with service marks, following the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, some months ago, which he successfully steered through this House having inspired the other place to do something very similar. The House is indebted to him for the energy that he showed in pursuing this important matter of getting a statutory record of service marks.
Service marks, for instance, are very important to small businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, the patent system—or the intellectual property system as it is now called, rather pompously, to include trade marks, copyright, designs and know-how—affects small businesses greatly. The jurisprudence of intellectual property has long been too obscure and expensive. We hear a lot about the help given to small businesses. I have in my hand the Small Business Digest of the National Westminster Bank. It is subtitled A permanent guide for small businesses and their advisers. May I presume to congratulate the National Westminster Bank on a very important and useful document for small businesses?
However, in this document there is a section which has been written by the secretary of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, of which I have the honour of being president. This document which is supposed to be so good for small businesses shows how difficult it is for small businesses to obtain patent protection. On page 10, the document states that,
"the cost of establishing a United Kingdom patent with professional assistance generally ranges between £1,500-£2,000 and if world-wide patents are sought"—
of course, many firms have to file patent applications if they wish to compete abroad and assist our exports—
"the figure can quickly escalate to £50,000 or more. In addition you should appreciate that any legal action to prevent infringement can be both daunting and costly although there are insurance schemes available to provide some protection."
In the earlier part of that section dealing with the patenting process the author states:
"It should also be mentioned that a Government Green Paper published recently gave warning of changes to this System in the near future."
Many of us were hoping that the new patents Bill that was to be produced by the Government would contain some useful help for small businesses in dealing with intellectual property.
Your Lordships may have heard me mention on many occasions what a jungle exists in the system for intellectual property on an international basis. There is the classic phrase of a famous judge who referred to the intellectual property Acts, the trademark Acts and the patent Acts as being full of fuliginous obscurity. Several High Court judges have often told me that they know a particular case is going to be a patent case, where the lawyers and the counsel will stay for a long time, from the dozens of books brought in to the court
928
to explain matters. Again, therefore I express surprise that the simple objectives of computerisation and the introduction of essential matters relating to service marks should be so complex.
In my hand I have the current copy of The Director, issued by the Institute of Directors, of which I am also a member. For the first time in my experience there is a full page advertisement for the Patent Office. It is, of course, Industry Year and therefore I suppose the Patent Office would like to have the public's attention drawn to its activities. The advertisement illustrates a very large safety pin and is headed:
"When new ideas are born they need protection."
It goes on to say how important the Patent Office and, therefore, the patent system are, inter alia, for helping small companies seeking to develop new products and processes to stand on their own feet. We had hoped, of course, that a Bill of this kind, introduced in this Session, would contain some help to reduce costs and to make less obscure the intellectual property laws of this country.
I have one question for the Minister. I note that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it states:
"The provisions relating to the registers will enable a reduction to be made of about 25 posts in the public service."
Therefore, will the saving in costs arising from that reduction of 25 posts, which must be about £500,000, be directed towards reducing the fees charged and helping small businesses attain their patents? One of the interesting developments at present is that, in view of the difficulties arising from intellectual property matters, they are being forsaken by so many industrialists who are finding ways to avoid, in certain industries, the necessity of seeking patent protection.
The other matter that I wish to raise is a request to the Minister to consider the possibility of simplifying the scope of these schedules. For example, in Schedule 1 most of page 4 is already in the Trademarks Act 1938. Why, therefore, was it necessary to repeat almost a full page from the old Act in order to say, in effect, that the register need not be kept in documentary form? Surely that page could be simplified before Report stage.
Similar criticism arises in regard to the sections dealing with the Registered Designs Act on pages 5 and 6 and the Patents Act on pages 7 and 8, which contain large repetitions of what is in the Acts at the present time. Surely as a matter of drafting it would be very helpful, particularly to the small business people, if the minimum number of amendments were put in this Bill for the purposes of the two main objectives that we have in mind.
Again, when one turns to Schedule 2, dealing with service marks, I can only repeat the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the extraordinary way that Part I of that schedule has been drafted. I should have thought that it was possible to avoid what the noble Lord referred to as the tortuous route that has to be explored in order to understand the effect of service marks on the law of this country as it relates to trade marks.
I listened with great care to the explanation by the noble Lord the Minister of Part III of the schedule, which refers to the registration of trade marks following overseas applications. Here, again, I think

929
the Bill has covered an important lacuna in the old Trade Marks Act 1938, and, subject to some small amendments which are Committee stage amendments. I do not propose to make any observations on it.
In conclusion, therefore, I, too, should like to ask whether the Government have any intention of introducing in the near future a Bill relating to intellectual property, which will be of some help to small businesses.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my place when my noble friend the Minister addressed the House. I only wish to make a few very short observations.
First, this Bill, in part, is the inevitable consequential result of your Lordships' own initiative in passing a Bill to introduce the registration of service marks, which, albeit in another form, attracted the attention of another place. But whatever form the Bill took, a good deal of statutory carpentry was required to fit the implementation of it into the framework of our statute law.
On the question of drafting, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I wonder whether it is really justified to criticise the drafting of the first schedule on the grounds of repetition. There are two views on this. I know not which is right, but one view is that of the noble Lord, and the other view is that it is of greater convenience if the repetition can be contained in one document. Either course has its advantages. For my part, I would support the form in which the Government have produced this draft.
As regards Schedule 2 again on careful analysis the suggestion of tortuous drafting may not be entirely justified. I refer to Clause 2, Clause 3(2), of course Schedule 2, and Part II of Schedule 3, for these are required, with those requisite amendments, in the very complex structure of existing law in so many and various fields, to accommodate the concept of the registration of service marks. This is a very difficult task wherein the industry of the draftsmen and the work of the backroom boys both in the ministry and in the Patent Office are most highly to be complimented.
Of course there is a case, an overwhelming case, for a general consolidation of intellectual property systems, to which both noble Lords have referred, but short of this general consolidation the Government have produced what seems to me to be a wholly satisfactory result. I confess that I have been involved in discussions—not with the ministry, but certainly with the Patent Office and professional associations—and I know how difficult it was to bring the concept of the Bill into a form in which it could be implemented. I do not see how it could have been other than complex. One only has to look at the series of enactments which appear in the second schedule to see how many different types of statute were involved in the implementation of what, on the face of it, appeared to be a relatively simple concept. As I have said, I do not see how the result could have been other than complex in the situation in which we are placed, for the situation is complex.
930
All in all, this is a result which is workable, certainly at the hands of those who have to implement it professionally. I have great sympathy for small businesses and the small businessman, but in this sphere the advice is of a highly professional specialist order and it is of necessity complex. I would suggest to your Lordships that to those who have to tender the advice the result that the Government have produced in this Bill is wholly reasonable and intelligible.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Since my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has not addressed any questions to me, perhaps I may first respond to him and thank him very much for his support and for the explanations that he has given to the course of action the Government have taken. As this was largely at his instigation in 1983, as I said earlier, I did not suppose that my noble friend would greatly object to what has now come out.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, always applies a diligent duty to any Bill that comes before your Lordships' House, and though he has raised a number of questions I feel quite sure that your Lordships would like me to respond to all of them so that we do not have perhaps too protracted a Committee stage.
The noble Lord asked about co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. Although there is always close liaison among departments of state, on this occasion there was no consultation specifically on the Bill with the office of my noble friend Lord Young. Simplification of patent law would require a major Bill, and this is essentially a tidying-up measure. If it is complex, it is because of the legislation that it amends. It certainly does not purport to be a substantive revision of patent law, which I fear will have to wait for a little while. The noble Lord asked whether it was the Government's intention to consolidate the various Acts. We do not have plans for consolidation at this time, but the possibility is always kept in mind.
The noble Lord also asked about the Bill's passage through the House and whether there would be a Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House. As he said, that is not for me but for the usual channels. I shall draw the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip to his comments.
The noble Lord mentioned the term "computerisation" which appears on the face of the Bill. The reference is purely descriptive and explanatory and has no legislative effect. A single word is used for brevity and simplicity. The alternative is to refer to the registers not being in a documentary form. That has the legislative effect that we are looking for and must be as accurate as possible. The use of the word "computer" is avoided in those references so that the form in which the register is kept is not constrained by a particular technology. Indeed, in speaking of computers and computer technology the noble Lord himself said that the mind boggles at what may emerge.The important thing is not so much that the registers may be kept on a computer but that they need no longer be kept on paper.

931
The noble Lord questioned whether Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by new Section 32 as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The answer is, yes. If he looks at new subsections (9), (10) and (11) he will find that answer.
The noble Lord asked for an assurance about physical safety. There is always the risk of such a register being damaged by fire or something else. In the case of an electronic register there is another danger: electronic degradation. The Patent Office will guard against that by keeping a back-up copy of the register at a remote and different site. Should the main copy be degraded, the back-up would become the register and a further back-up copy would be made.
With regard to unauthorised access, ways to prevent that are being studied. But unauthorised inspection does not pose quite the same problem as the examples to which the noble Lord referred since the material is public. Anybody can go through the front door and pay a fee to see it, so there should not be much difficulty there. Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether there would be a tandem system while the existing records are being transferred. "Yes and no" is the answer. The Patent Office will keep on the shelf, so to speak, certain of the written registers and records, but others will be transferred, so to that extent there will be a tandem system. It is for the Patent Office to determine which is the best way to move forward. The Bill gives it even further opportunity to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised a number of points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I defer to his knowledge and experience. I was glad to have his general support. He asked about costs and quoted from an article in, I think, the National Westminster Bank journal in which a figure of something like £1,500 was given. He will know that the official fee for obtaining a patent from the Patent Office is less than £200. A large element of the costs—and perhaps the difference between my figure and his—is made up of professional fees and other expenses over which neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Patent Office has jurisdiction. But the fees are set to cover costs, and any reduction in costs will therefore be reflected in the level of fees. And that I think answers the point about the 20 posts. I put it that way rather than confirming that there will be a reduction in fees, but as costs go up any reduction in cost tends to minimise any increase in fees.
The noble Lord raised a question about the drafting of the clauses dealing with service marks. I can do no more than draw his attention to the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Reference was made to the restatement of the provisions of the older enactments set out in Schedule 1. If those sections had not been restated, a mass of separate amendments would have had to be made. I suspect that the bulk of those would have been much greater than the restatement, and the complexity would then have been a good deal worse.
The noble Lord mentioned the difficulties for small businesses and individuals in using the patent system. Noble Lords will recall that there is a White Paper in preparation on intellectual property, including the implementation of the recently announced decision to separate the Patent Office. That will be published later
932
this year, and I hope that that will contain some of the answers. However, I see no immediate prospect of a major Bill to simplify patent law.
The noble Lord asked about the series of press advertisements. We believe that these are largely in response to some suggestions contained in the Green Paper, Intellectual Property and Innovation. It is probably for the Patent Office, knowing that this Bill was to come before Parliament, to adopt generally a higher profile with regard to the services and the facilities that it offers to inventors and to others seeking patents and registration marks. Those are, I believe, all the answers to the questions that have been raised this afternoon.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a White Paper that was to come out shortly and that will, if I understand what he said correctly, divide up the Patent Office in some way. I am not clear what that meant. I became more confused when the noble Lord said that the advertisement placed in The Director was for the purpose of raising the profile of the Patent Office. Does that mean modifications, in some way or other, to the patent system that would reduce the cost to inventors of getting a patent through not having to seek professional assistance? It is professional assistance that is costly because of the complexity of the laws.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my reference to the White Paper was that there is to be a White Paper on intellectual property which will also include suggestions with regard to the recently announced decision to free the Patent Office from the constraints of the traditional Civil Service framework. While not pre-empting what is in the White Paper, it will explain the creation, or re-creation, of the Patent Office as a body more responsive to the needs of its customers.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will know that, as a statutory non-departmental body, the Patent Office will be able to be much more flexible and innovative in its approach and will be able to introduce new services when there is a clear market demand for them. That was the reference to the Patent Office in the White Paper. As to fees, the noble Lord has made his point, and I believe that I have made mine. The noble Lord stated that there might be one or two matters that he would wish to raise during the Committee stage. If my officials and I can help any noble Lord in the meantime, your Lordships know that this would be my wish. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Marriage Bill [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Lord Meston: 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.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Marriage between certain persons related by affinity not to be void]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("in England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment. I should like to speak also to the identical amendment, Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9: Page 1, line 14, leave out ("in England and Wales").
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Has the noble Lord considered also speaking to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 as they seem to raise the same point?
Lord Meston: In fact, they do not raise an identical point but a similar point. Subject to the better view of your Lordships' Committee, I would prefer to deal with them separately. If that is satisfactory, I shall simply speak at this stage to Amendments Nos. 1 and 9. These are slight and technical amendments to remove unnecessary potential restriction on the recognition of marriages to be covered by this Bill.
In removing the reference to England and Wales in Clause 1, one is not presuming to legislate for foreign countries. The intention of the amendment is to include cases which, by established principles of English private international law, would be governed by English law, even if the parties concerned were married abroad. For example, if an English domiciled couple were married in France, it would be a wrong and odd result if French law applied English law and found that the marriage was not valid simply because of the place of marriage. The amendment also introduces a measure of consistency with earlier marriage enabling legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In rising to support the amendment, I do so not only because it raises an important point of private international law but also because the background of the leading case throws considerable light on the social problems with which your Lordships, I believe, will be largely concerned. This Bill is concerned with capacity to marry. Under our private international law, capacity to marry is referred to the personal law of the person who is concerned, that is to say, in English law, normally the law of the domicile, as the noble Lord said; although in some systems, it is the law of the nationality. It differs therefore from where the question of the formality of the marriage is concerned, which is referred to the law of the place where the contract of marriage is concluded.
It would therefore be quite wrong to confine the question of capacity to marriages in England and Wales. As the noble Lord explained, one takes one's personal capacity to marry abroad. If one can marry according to one's personal capacity abroad, then that is a valid marriage in English law. If one is incapable of entering into that marriage by reason of a personal incapacity, then the marriage is invalid in English law.
I mentioned a leading case. In fact, the principle that I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships is established by a decision of the House of Lords. It was another case that throws an interesting light on the Book of Leviticus, with which most of the report of the
934
Seear Committee was concerned as the originating point of its deliberations. As your Lordships know, under Chapter 18 of the Book of Leviticus, a man is precluded from marrying or, indeed, having sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law.
I speak, subject, in all of this, to the correction of the great Biblical scholars and canon lawyers whom I see on the Bench of Bishops this evening. Under Chapter 20 of Leviticus, that bar is regarded so seriously that sexual intercourse between a man and his sister-in-law is a capital offence. Oddly enough, under Chapter 18 an uncle can marry his niece. It seems to me—and again I speak subject to correction—that the reason for that must be that the uncle and niece were normally living in different households at that time.
The odd thing was that an aunt could not marry her nephew and that was—again subject to correction—I think because that reversed the order of authority in the family which was regarded as the social norm at the time that Leviticus finally took shape.
As the Committee knows, during the Middle Ages all those degrees of affinity became vastly proliferated. Indeed, one had not only affinity by marriage but spiritual affinity by godparentage, so that as the degrees were multiplied one had a situation where a distant relative of a godchild might well be precluded from marrying a distant relative of the godparent. The marriage would be set aside as void.
At the Reformation most of that was swept aside and the Protestant Churches returned to the word of the Book of Leviticus. The Roman Catholic Church subsequently went a long way in the same direction at the Council of Trent. But there was a curious difference which gave rise to the case to which I was going to refer. The Lutheran Church applied the ban on an uncle/niece marriage literally and did not extend it to an aunt/nephew marriage. But the Calvinist Churches applied the Levitical ban by analogy to aunt/nephew marriages. The Anglican Church in that respect followed the Calvinist mode.
The case which I had in mind establishing the principle which lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord arose in this way. A British Jew wished to marry his niece, as he could by his own religious law which was, of course, the Levitical law. He could not do so in this country, so he went to Germany—a Lutheran country—where he could go through such a ceremony, and did. Subsequently questions of settlement arose and it was held that the marriage was void, because the propositus being a domiciled Englishman carried his incapacity abroad.
I venture to go into that case further because the difference in Leviticus between uncle/niece marriages and brother-in-law/sister-in-law marriages is accountable by the separation of households; and second, to show that although we apply the Levitical law by analogy to our aunt/nephew marriages, we have never countenanced brother-in-law/sister-in-law marriages. For those reasons, which in the end come back to a question of law—we are concerned here with capacity which ought to be referred to the law of the domicile and not to the law of the place of contract—I venture to support this amendment.
Lord Meston: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his expertise in this matter, and

935
for his lucid explanation not only of private international law but of the very remarkable man-made development of the law of affinity of which he gave us a very good example.
All I know, as a practising lawyer, is that in private international law as it has developed in recent years the court needs as much room for manoeuvre as possible. It is on that basis that I commend this amendment to you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("daughter") insert ("daughter-in-law").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I propose to deal with amendments raising the same points. They are Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, and those of my noble friend Baroness Seears, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 7, after ("grand-daughter") insert ("a grand-daughter-in-law").
Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 9, after ("father") insert ("father-in-law").
Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 9, after ("grandfather") insert ("grandfather-in-law").
Amendment No. 10: Page 1, line 16, after first ("the") insert ("mother or").
Amendment No. 11: Page 1,1ine 17, after ("his") insert ("son or").
Amendment No. 32: Page 5, line 34, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 36 and insert ("from 'Wife's mother' ").
Amendment No. 33: Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 39 and insert ("from 'Husband's father' ").
This raises the point of marriages between father-in-law and daughter-in-law. My proposition is that we have already affirmed the principle which runs through the majority report of the archbishops that a man and woman, previously married, whose marriages are terminated by death or divorce, should be free to marry each other as long as they are over the age of 21, notwithstanding the disloyalty, the adultery, the abduction which may have taken place previously while they were married.
When this matter came before us on Second Reading I venture to think that I was about the only one who opposed marriage between step-father and step-daughter because I felt that that was an intrusion into the structure of the family. I gave the illustration of my own case, a widow and widower, both in their forties, and stepchildren both in their teens and under 21. Was it to be allowed that I should take the daughter and seduce her, take her away, and divorce my wife in order to marry her? That seemed outrageous to me. I therefore protested in your Lordships' House against this introduction of marriage between step-father and step-daughter. But I was in a minority. Every one of the bishops were against me. I have therefore to accept the first clause of this Bill, which allows a step-father and step-daughter to marry once the previous marriages have been terminated by death or divorce.
I suggest that the only logical consequence of that is that a father-in-law should be able to marry his daughter-in-law once their previous marriages have been terminated by death or divorce because the principle has already been established.
Let me take your Lordships briefly through the history. Your Lordships will know from history, all the arguments in 1907 as to a man marrying his deceased wife's sister. The Churches were opposed to this. It was felt that for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister might mean that he might be tempted to poison, kill or hurt his wife so that he could marry her sister. But such marriages were allowed in 1907. In 1925 it was extended to the deceased brother's wife but that always dealt with death.
6 P.m.
However, in 1960 both Houses allowed the marriage of a man with his brother's wife. Just think of the disloyalty there would be in the family! To take my case, could I be so disloyal to my brother as to make love to his wife, or seduce her and take her away to live with me? It is a monstrous idea—a gross breach of loyalty within the family. Yet if there is a divorce on that account, if my brother should divorce his wife, by law we could marry. That was the principle established in 1960 by both Houses of Parliament. Dr. Williams, the then Bishop of Winchester, was in favour of such a marriage; Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury was against it. However, that principle was passed. We have to accept the introduction of the principle into our law that a man can marry his brother's wife once the brother is dead or divorced, notwithstanding all the infidelity and breach of loyalty that went on earlier.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill we extend that principle to the step-father and step-daughter. I have already indicated the gross disloyalty which will arise within one family if the father, who is already married to the mother of the family, seduces her daughter and goes off with her, the result ending in a divorce. Is that to be allowed? Under Clause 1 your Lordships will allow it. Once the people involved are dead or divorced, we are saying that marriage can take place between the step-father and step-daughter.
Now we come to the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law. That does not seem to be nearly as bad as the case of the step-father. The father-in-law may have a grown-up son who may marry and set up his own household elsewhere. There would be two separate families. It may be that the girl is already with the family and the father-in-law then makes love to and goes off with his son's wife. Of course, there would be a divorce. The disloyalty to the son is not nearly so great as the disloyalty in the cases which I have mentioned because there are two separate households and there has been divorce or death on both sides. Therefore, they are free to marry.
Why is that principle not just as applicable as all the other cases which I have mentioned? The majority report of the archbishops took that view. What a good committee it was! Among its members where my noble friend Lady Seear, Sir George Baker, who was president of the Family Division, and John Rubinstein, a very skilful lawyer who knows all about these matters. The majority took the view that as long as those involved are over 21 years of age and once the previous marriage has been terminated, they should be free to marry. It is only the minority report, without any particularly good reasons, which would not extend this principle to parents-in-law. If we extended it to

937
parents-in-law and children-in-law, the law would be wholly consistent throughout and we would avoid all those petitions and special Bills before this House.
Therefore, as we have got this far, as we have got to step-fathers and step-daughters, logically we should extend the law to fathers-in-law and daughters-in-law. That is the object of these amendments which I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I hesitate to intervene at this stage, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, clearly indicated at Second Reading that he opposed this Bill root and branch. Of course, we all respect his strength of feeling in this regard. Clearly these amendments are wrecking amendments. However, naturally the noble and learned Lord wants a serious discussion as to whether the law should remain as it is, as to whether the law should change at least as far as this Bill would allow and the minority of the committee reporting under No Just Cause would allow, or whether the changes should go further, as the majority of the committee wishes; that is to say, that the law should be extended to in-laws.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggests in his very lucid way that logically, if we extend to step-parents, we should extend to in-laws. I beg to doubt that that is a logical progression. The minority of the committee did not perceive that as a logical progression.The point I make at this stage is simply that, if the law were to be extended to in-laws, these amendments as drafted—and I say this with great respect—are not the way to do it. The amendments as drafted use the expressions "daughter-in-law" and "father-in-law", which are not expressions used in other legislation; indeed, they do not make sense in this context. They create an ambiguity.
For example, the first amendment would, if accepted, lead Clause 1 to read:
"the daughter-in-law of a former spouse".
The daughter-in-law of a former spouse could be your own daughter-in-law or the wife of your stepson, who is someone you could marry anyway. Accordingly, a nonsense would be created. Furthermore, there is another substantial technical difficulty in these amendments because they have been drafted in such a way that they are attached to Clause 1(1), which is a clause specifically designed to cover and protect stepchildren in circumstances in which the stepchild has been in the same household and the step-parent has been in loco parentis. It is highly improbable, that for example, a daughter-in-law could be treated as a child of the family, and I would suggest that it is wrong to seek to superimpose the extension of the law relating to in-laws, which the noble and learned Lord suggests, on a clause of this nature. Indeed the reference to "child of the family" would be otiose in this context.
Having pointed to those serious technical defects, as I would respectfully suggest they are, I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that perhaps the debate on this topic should be deferred until we reach Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear; they cover the same ground
938
without—and I say this with enormous respect—the technical defects which I perceive in these amendments.
Lord Denning: I quite agree. I am ready to wait for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Phillips: I do not want to detain the Committee, but there is to me a sense of unreality about this. I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that had I been present he would have had a supporter on this. Speaking as a grandmother, I am trying to imagine wanting to marry my grandson-in-law. The mind boggles. I have never had any of these kind of feelings, but perhaps I am old fashioned in these matters. If we are to spend a lot of time discussing this, there is a curious air of unreality. Are there cases that we can feel are going to be presented that would need the attention of the law?
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, must have had something in mind when he put this Bill together. Before we proceed it would be useful if those who have amendments or speeches on the clauses could give some examples which would take us away from the realms of fantasy. This may be enjoyable legalese but it has no bearing to the real world. As I recall it, the original Bill we discussed was based on a case relating to a stepmother who wished to marry her—a stepfather who wished to marry—Anyway, I am moving now into a totally unreal situation. I am sure that it is valuable to discuss this around the dinner table, but I am not sure that it deserves the attention of this Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In answer to the noble Baroness, the reference to grandparents and granddaughters is of couse quite unreal, but both the majority and the minority reports included them because they appear in both the table known as Archbishop Parker's table to the Book of Common Prayer and in the schedule to the Marriage Act. Therefore, they must be picked up when one is dealing with the realistic question which arises under this subsection—not the next—which is dealing with stepparents as a matter of reality; with stepfather and stepdaughter, and stepmother and stepson. The next subsection is the one which deals with in-laws.
I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord. Lord Meston, says, that it would be much tidier if we postponed the discussion on this amendment to the important amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which pose to us the question of the minority or majority report. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will see his way to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Denning: I certainly will. I want to get on with the merits of the argument.
Baroness Seear: May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that perhaps because the noble Baroness is not a member of the Anglican Church (I think I am right in saying that) she has not whiled away the time during tedious sermons reading Parker's list. Otherwise she would understand why this is necessary.
Baroness Phillips: In the Catholic Church we have an even more complicated list of consanguinity, and that for our sins would cry to Heaven for vengeance. I also used to enliven myself with reading that and one or two other things, not having understood them nor hopefully having committed any of them.
Viscount Davidson: To help the Committee, may I say at this stage that the Government were in no way involved in the conception of this Bill? Their attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. All we are doing is to try to help in certain small ways in its drafting. We are taking no sides whatever.
Lord Denning: I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment. I await with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is going to do on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, after ("grandfather") insert (" (whether his father or grandfather is living or not)").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 12: Page 1, line 17, after ("grandson") insert ("whether his grandson is living or not) ").
These amendments are entirely technical. They add nothing of substance to the Bill. In both instances it is to produce a verbal consistency with the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No.7:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Baroness said: May I first apologise for coming into the debate at rather a late stage, but I do so because my noble friend Lord Mischcon is unfortunately unable to be here today. I shall try inadequately to fill his place and put forward the views that he would have put forward at this stage. In moving Amendment No. 7 perhaps I may, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31.
Amendment No. 14: Page 1, line 21, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 20: Clause 5, page 3, line 14, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 22: In the schedule, page 3, line 31, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 24: Page 3, line 46, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 25: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 27: Page 4, line 28, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 28: Page 4, line 34, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 29: Page 5, line 5, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 31: Page 5, line 29, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one")
As is self-evident, the purpose of this amendment is to raise the age bar from 18 to 21, and therefore to allow marriage between step-parents and stepchildren only if both parties have attained the age of 21, and a child of the family relationship had never existed between them. As was argued at Second Reading the purpose of the Bill is to strike some sort of balance between the right of people to marry as a fundamental freedom and the need for regulation of the legality of marriage in the interests of preserving the stability of the family.
Our amendments suggest that if the age bar is only 18 then the stability of the family is not adequately safeguarded. Let us take the example of a stepchild who is not actually living with a stepfather but is living nearby. That child is not a child of the family but could be subject to tensions and sexual advances prior to the age of 18 with the knowledge that the two people could be legally married when the child reaches the age of 18. That is a situation which could only be acutely destructive to the cohesion of the family during that period.
Perhaps at this point one should add a word about the great difference in the adultness of a young person of 18 and a young person of 21, and also the great difference in the attitude of a young person of 18 and a young person of 21 towards an adult in a position of authority. I feel that I know about this because I have a child of 18 and a child of 21. There is no doubt that the child of 18 is more dominated, and feels more affected, by an adult in authority, whoever that may be—a parent, a step-parent, or a teacher—than a child of 21, who would feel much more of an equal. The child would see himself or herself more on a level with an adult or person in authority who might be a stepfather. Her view of that step-parent would not be one which was dominated but would be more like the way two adults behave. This is an important argument for wishing to raise the age bar from 18 to 21 years.
In the majority report it was said that if a child had been a child of the family a marriage should not take place until that child had attained the age of 21. The report reads:
"The opportunity for the young person to decide on marriage without being unduly influenced by the previous context of the relationship would be prejudiced unless sufficient interval had elapsed for personal identity and liberty of judgment to be established".
These amendments, which I am moving in the name of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and myself, suggest that the same consideration should apply even if the child is not technically a child of the family, if that child is in close proximity, living nearby but not within the household. I beg to move this amendment for the consideration of the Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not intend to intervene to speak at this stage, but the noble Baroness, as I understood her, said that this would apply notwithstanding that the child in question is not a child of the family. I wonder whether she was right about that in view of the succeeding words at the end of this subsection and subsection(3). As I read the amendment, all it did was to raise the age of 18 to 21. I see the noble Baroness is nodding in approbation. I believe that is right, is it not?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Yes. I probably explained myself rather badly, but the amendment allows marriage between step-parents and stepchildren only if both parties have attained the age of 21 and if a child-of-the-family relationship has never existed between them.
Lord Denning: In this case I support the amendment. I always regretted Mr. Justice Latey's committee decision when it reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18. For centuries the age has been 21 and it was a sensible rule. At 18 people are more susceptible. They are not nearly so aware of the ways of the world. I much regretted the reduction from the general age of 21 to 18. In the case of marriage in such circumstances as we are now considering (where a step-daughter is to marry her stepfather) the age of 21 is the proper age to consider. It is the age that the majority report itself considered. I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Obviously this is an arguable case. It has been admirably argued. I ask the noble Baroness not the press her amendment for two reasons. The first is that the age of 21 has, as my noble and learned friend has said, for all practical purposes in pursuance of the report of the Latey committee, a powerful committee, been reduced to 18. The argument used at the time in your Lordships' Chamber, notably by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, was that the age of maturity was steadily going down and that 18 was sensible now, where 21 might have been sensible before. The age of 18 here fits better into the general framework of our law of minority.
My second reason is even more powerful; that is, that the minority report on which this Bill is based has received the approbation of the House of Bishops and their support in your Lordships' Chamber. If this alteration were made the whole matter would have to go back for reconsideration. Both the majority and the minority recognised that there were cases of hardship which called for legislation and for a different treatment from the personal Bill procedure with which your Lordships have been concerned previously. It is because the noble Baroness may have an arguable case, because she may not wish to prejudice the chance of this Bill going through, that I ask her, with respect, not to press this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, in her amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will accept it. I believe that when the age of adulthood was reduced from 21 to 18 it was a mistake. For generations the age of 21 has been the age when those who mature more slowly have reached the time when they can be said to make sound decisions. I do not think that the world has changed to such an extent that all those of 18 make the right decisions. I have children of 20 and 19 and some of their friends mature at different rates. I am sure that 18 is the wrong age. I support the noble Baroness in this amendment.
Lord Meston: I resist the amendment on a limited basis. If I may explain why that is so, I do not want the
942
noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to think that I have a closed mind on this point. She has linked her Amendment No. 7, which deals with the minimum age at which the couple can marry, with her Amendment No. 14, which deals with a different point; namely, the age to be covered in the definition of a "child of the family". I respectfully suggest to her that that is a defect in the amendments, particularly if they are moved together and linked in the way she has linked them.
Although I wish to say something about the age limits in this Bill and the age limits she proposes, if she felt able to withdraw her amendments I should be prepared to reconsider the position and inform her at a later stage. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, the present state of the law is that 21 has little or no significance in English law, certainly in English marriage law. That may still be the age someone has to be if he is unwise enough to want to stand for Parliament. But subject to that it is of no importance at all. The proposition suggested by these amendments—I invite the noble Baroness to think about this—is that a girl, a woman indeed, aged 18 may wish to marry somebody. But because her fiance, perhaps even before she was born, was married to her mother, she must wait until she reaches the age of 21.
I venture to suggest that it is really wrong to deny an adult the freedom to marry at the age of majority. All age limits are arbitrary. There is no magic in, or consistency between, age limits. I would accept that. As the noble Lord pointed out, you can have a mature 18 year-old and an immature 21 year-old. But, by and large, 21 is to put the clock back when, for all other purposes, 18 is the age; and indeed, for all other forms of marriage 18 is the age.
The noble Baroness touched on the peculiar position of step-relations in this Bill. However, there are safeguards built into this Bill. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them at length, but the safeguards already existing in this Bill are that both parties must be 18 rather than 16, as is the present age at which people may marry in this country; that the younger party must never have been a child of the family of the other for any period; that there are formal preliminaries, that is to say, they are both required to make statements which are ultimately enforceable under the law of perjury; that there is a procedure enabling third parties to intervene and object and, ultimately, a procedure for the courts to investigate the facts, and that the clergy have a discretion not to marry such people, as through the conscience clause in Clause 2; and, indeed, marriage by banns (which is sometimes thought of as the easiest way to slip through the net) is specifically excluded. Ultimately, of course, a marriage in defiance of this Bill would be void. Those are the safeguards which already exist in the Bill as drafted.
6.30 p.m.
But different people have different views. Some people still wish to put the clock back. The problems of marriages between young people are not unique to this Bill. But in the situation most likely to arise under this Bill, then, of course, one of the parties at least is likely to be mature; there will not be two immature people. I would suggest that perhaps further protection is unnecessary.

943
There are just two other points that I should really wish to raise. To raise the age generally from 18 to 21 is really to increase the time distance between the age of consent for sexual intercourse, which is 16, and the age of lawful marriage. And, as was observed, I think, in the Latey Report of 1967, saving a man from the risks of responsibilities of marriage until he is 21 increases the risk of unmarried motherhood. And even if the parties do not marry because they cannot but cohabit, then of course cohabitation, as we all know, in the present state of our law has a second-rate status.
The prime defect, I would suggest, as I have already indicated in these amendments, read together,—and I emphasise "read together"—is that the amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to redefine "child of the family" in Clause 1(3). That is to introduce a redefinition which is inconsistent with any previous definition in any other statute. Then one has this situation which might arise. A child who has remained outside the family, outside the household, throughout his or her minority, may come into that household after he or she reached 18. It is inconceivable, in the law as it now is, that that person can become a child of the family because he or she is not a child in law. Yet, under Amendment No. 14, although over 18, that person would be deemed to be a child, and, strangely, would be barred from marriage for all time by coming into the household after he or she were 18—barred from marriage notwithstanding that the relationship which led them to want to marry was formed after the younger party had reached the age of majority. That, I suggest, would be a counter-productive and unnecessary result.
I venture to suggest that this Bill, as drafted, already gives extra protection by saying that you cannot marry at 16, which is the usual minimum age; that you have got to wait until you are 18. One final factor, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, is that to damage the Bill in this way by pressing this amendment would be to deprive everybody of the modest advance which the Bill seeks to propose.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, not least for his sympathetic approach towards the principle of my amendment, towards what I am trying to protect. But I agree with the point that he made that there is a conflict between my Amendments Nos. 7 and 14 and I do not think that I made quite clear the redefinition of "child of the family" as contained in Amendment No. 14. However, he accepted the point that I made: that I think there is a very great risk of an immature girl of 18, living, after all, in the same village, as could be the case, perhaps feeling very inadequate in her ability to decide about her step-father; whereas a girl of 21 might be in a better position and might be in a more mature position to be able to do that.
I should like to stress that point. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that there is protection in the Bill. I am glad for his confirmation of that. I am grateful to him for saying that he would discuss it with me. With that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert ("twenty-one at the time of the marriage").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take in conjunction with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 13, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 30.
Amendment No. 13: Page 1, leave out lines 19 to 22.
Amendment No. 19: Page 3. line 14, leave out from ("if') to end of line 17 and insert ("twenty-one at the time of the marriage").
Amendment No. 21: Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("of') to end of line 37 and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 23: Page 3, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 4.
Amendment No. 26: Page 4. line 20, leave out from ("27B") to end of line 17 on page 5 and insert ("Where a marriage mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act is intended to be solemnized on the authority of a superintendent registrar's certificate, the superintendent registrar shall not enter notice of the marriage in the marriage notice book unless he is satisfied by the production of evidence that both the persons to be married have attained the age of twenty-one.").
Amendment No. 30: Page 5, leave out lines 26 to 31.
These are all the amendments which deal with the position of the step-parent and the step-child; and not those which deal with the position of in-laws. These will come later in Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
As I think your Lordships will be aware, these amendments represent the position of the majority report of the Archbishop's Committee as opposed to the minority report which is the recommendation which has been incorporated in the Bill, which received a Second Reading and which received the support of the Bench of Bishops, as your Lordships will see this evening.
The majority report is the report which adopts the approach which is embodied in this recommendation. In view of the attitude taken at the time of the Second Reading and of the position of the Bench of Bishops, I would feel great anxiety if I were opposing their decision solely from my own extremely limited experience of these matters. But I must make the point to your Lordships that I am speaking for the members of the majority report and I would remind your Lordships of who those members were. They included a much respected cleric who was also Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London University; they included the late Sir George Baker, a High Court judge who had been presiding judge of the Family Division; they included the director of the Institute of Marital Studies; they included a woman solicitor with great experience in matrimonial cases who also, and most exceptionally, is a trained and practising analyst; and they included a well-known anthropologist. So the points that I am putting forward are not simply the points of an inexperienced spinster. They are the points supported by people with very wide knowledge and experience of these questions.
I would also point out that what we are talking about is the law of the land. It is not in any sense the law of the church. As your Lordships are aware, we are today a pluralist society and the legislation which goes through this House applies to people of many different religions in our country and of no religion at all. Of course, all the different churches and all the different religious persuasions, quite rightly and properly, have

945
their own doctrine and discipline in regard to marriage and remarriage. That is as it should be.
I was much impressed by, for example, the evidence which came from the Jewish community and which said, somewhat crisply, "You can legislate as you like. We have our own rules and our members will obey our own rules." That surely, in a pluralist society, is the right way to approach what is legislation for the state, for a society in which people hold very differing views about the nature of the family, about family responsibilities and about family relationships.
Thirdly, I would remind your Lordships that if what is passed is only what is recommended by the minority report, and only what is embodied in this Bill which is before us, we shall be left with the position that all those people who are not covered by the minority report—and that is the great majority of cases—will have to continue to pursue the process of the Private Bill.
Your Lordships have experienced the Private Bill, and a very unsatisfactory experience it is. We have been in the position in which we in this Chamber have been trying to judge whether it is appropriate that two persons should marry, with no one here to speak for or against the case of the parties who are wishing to marry; on at least one occasion in the extremely embarrassing and, I felt, humiliating position that those persons who were deeply concerned were sitting in the Gallery and listening to the inept way—and I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House would deny that it was an inept way—of dealing with something which was of the greatest personal importance to those individuals. We do not have a process that is satisfactory for dealing with those cases and yet we shall be left with nothing better, if all we do is to pass the recommendations that are embodied in this Bill as it stands, against the recommendations of the majority report.
I know that in some quarters it was hoped that we would recommend for those cases that there should be a judicial decision, that it should be left to the courts with lines of guidance, and that the judges should make the decision. That, I think, was favoured in certain quarters. I can only tell your Lordships that the late Sir George Baker spoke very strongly on the basis of all his experience, supported with representations which came to us from the courts in Australia, and said that this was not the right way to proceed. Sir George Baker commented, when we were discussing this possible change, how difficult it was to make any kind of proper decision in these cases on a matter of judgment by the judge.
As he said, it is not enough to know, when the rice pudding has been thrown, who threw it.You also have to know how the rice pudding was cooked. That illustrates very well the difficulty, if you are leaving it to the judges to make up their minds whether or not it is appropriate that marriage should go forward in these cases. Certainly, I beg to submit that he had far greater experience than anybody in your Lordships' House, and that was his view.
6.45 p.m.
The difference in the position of the majority report, so far as stepchildren are concerned, is this. The
946
minority report and this Bill would never allow marriage between persons who have been, or are, in a step-parent/stepchild relationship unless that stepchild had never at any time been a child of the family. The majority report would say that such marriage was possible, provided that the younger of the two parties was over 21. If the minority report goes through as the Bill stands at the present time, that would mean that a girl who was at boarding school at the age of 16 when her mother remarried, and who had gone to her mother's new home in the summer holidays and stayed in that house, would rank as a child of the family.
If some 20 years later her mother had died and she and the step-father, whom she had come to know as two adult persons, wished to marry they would not be permitted so to do, because she had spent two summer holidays in that family 20 years before. This seems to me to be a somewhat absurd position at which to arrive. This is the difference between us. The Bill as it stands does not permit any marriage ever between step-relations if one was a child of the family. The majority report and this amendment propose that such marriage should be permitted, if there has been a child of the family position, after the younger member is 21.
If I understand it aright, the opposition to the majority report stems from a profound belief in the importance of the family; that the family is an essential unit of our society, essential for the upbringing of children, and that it is vital that its position should be strengthened and maintained. The belief is also held that if there is a possibility of marriage between step-father and step-daughter, or step-mother and stepson, where there has been a child of the family relationship, the possibility develops of erotic relationships within the family which would be devastating to the family and extremely harmful to the task of the family in nurturing people within the family group. There is also the view that the family is felt to be under threat, that it is necessary to draw a line and call a halt to the permissiveness which has allowed the widespread development of divorce and has contributed to what is seen as the breaker of the family.
Let me say in response to those criticisms that the majority shared absolutely with the minority the belief in the importance of the family as a unit in society, although I must say that I think there is a considerable amount of romanticising at times about the nature of the family. I would remind your Lordships that some of the most hideous crimes in modern society are committed within the family and, at a different level, reading the notes of the planner of leisure time activities on the basis of the family, he remarked that it had been observed that if a family were left together on their own for a period of more than two hours they started bickering. That may not be everybody's experience, but I think we do well not to wear too rose-coloured spectacles when viewing the family.
Be that as it may, we absolutely agree that the family is important, must be maintained and where possible strengthened. But when it comes to the argument that you cannot accept at any stage the marriage of people who have been step-relations, with a child of the family relationship because of the danger of the development of erotic relationships—the danger that

947
the young girl will be seduced by the glamorous stepfather—there are, of course, always dangers of erotic relationships developing within the family circle. We know perfectly well that incest is more common than is generally admitted. We know that this is extremely undesirable; but I also believe that most responsible adults share the view that it is highly undesirable. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the vast majority of step-parents would not share the view that everything has to be done to see that erotic relationships do not develop.
In any case, it is only in cases in which the family relationship is in an extremely poor position. Once again, so often when families break down because of a third party it is because the relationship between husband and wife is already very weak indeed. I should have thought that we could depend on the responsibility of the vast majority of people to see that relationships of this kind do not develop. I should have thought that the greater danger between step-parents and stepchildren, certainly based on all the mythology, is not that too affectionate relationships will develop but that relationships of an extremely hostile and disagreeable kind are likely to develop? that hate rather than the wrong kind of love is more likely to be the risk in relationships of this kind.
I should like to make a further point in this connection because it is often pointed out that where adopted children are concerned there is no question of allowing subsequent marriage. The argument is put forward that because it is not allowed for adopted children the position of stepchildren is similar. I think this is a false argument. The whole point about adoption is that the adopted child is received into the family, and although it is of course never true in the literal sense, the whole atmosphere is to be such that that adopted child is to feel absolutely at one as a member of that family and of no other. As I understand it, people working with children who are stepchildren are now arguing very strongly that it is important that a child, where it is of divorced parents, should keep in touch with his natural parents; that the stepdaughter or stepson should be encouraged to continue a relationship with the natural parents. It is not true that stepchildren are ever in the same sense one of the family, or indeed arguably should be encouraged to be, as is the case with the adopted child. It is a fiction to say that the relationship between the stepchild and the step-parent is really the same as that between him and the natural parent. This is the sad consequence of divorce. Once this has happened the bonds are broken, and there is no true relationship with the new parent when the mother remarries. We are fooling ourselves if we think that it is otherwise.
The last argument is that the time has come to draw a line. What an extraordinary place to draw it! One marriage in three is breaking down. Maybe we sold the pass at that time; I do not know. Maybe Rome was right when it was said that if you want to protect the family you do not move in the direction of legalising divorce at all. But we have done it. One marriage in three is breaking down—and in supporting the minority report we say that we are taking a line to save the family? What a curious place to draw it! There is a great deal to be done to save the family. There is a great deal to be done in the way of better help for
948
parents, in the way of better housing, of better child care help and a whole variety of counselling and assistance to help to support the family.
That is the place to start. That is where to draw your line: not on this Bill, which affects a very small number of people and in which, because of the fear that in a very small number of cases there might develop an erotic relationship, you are refusing to allow the marriage of anybody who has been a child of the family, even 20 or 30 years later, even when the natural parent has died and perhaps the marriage of the stepdaughter has broken down—nothing whatsoever to do with the original relationship with the stepfather. We are turning all this down because we think this is the place to draw the line. I cannot believe that this is sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may say just a word in support of the amendment. The illustration given by the noble Baroness was quite clear. Let us suppose you have this stepfather who is aged 40, shall we say, and the stepdaughter, who is 15. There is no possible sexual ribaldry, or anything, for years, and the girl is at school and so forth, for 15 of her first 20 years. Then, afterwards, there may be a death or divorce or whatever. Why should not the two be free to marry then, whereas the original clause said that while she was under 18 and a child of the family they could never marry? I would support the amendment.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: In speaking to Amendment No. 8 I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for introducing this Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for having chaired the group which produced that excellent report No Just Cause. I listened with rapt attention to her eloquent speech tonight. I only wish that I could agree with the noble Baroness in her amendment, but I regret that I cannot.
Let me first say that I believe there should be some legislation in this matter. I remember, when I was a Bishop in South London, a very tragic pastoral case in which a man and his stepmother met as strangers, fell in love, and did not know that they were related by affinity until they decided to get married, which they found they could not. Since they did not believe in living together unmarried, they were in some distress. They did not know about the possibility of bringing a personal Bill before your Lordships' House, but if they had known they would not have had the means to do so and would not have wished to publicise their personal history.
I listened with great interest to the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, of the Book of Leviticus, but I am not deterred in my feelings that there should be legislation because Leviticus, when it was written, envisaged an extended family. It is inconceivable that any stepchild should not have been at some period a child of the family. Therefore, it does not really affect the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put it forward.
So, though I welcome legislation I oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness. It has the effect of removing all impediments in cases where a step-parent wishes to marry a stepchild except that the marriage cannot take place until they are both over 21 years of

949
age. This amendment has the effect that the permanent impediment to marriage would be lost in cases where the younger partner has been a child of the family. I would remind your Lordships that if, as the noble Baroness so eloquently told us, one marriage in three is now breaking down, there are far more stepparents and far more stepchildren than there ever have been in this country before. Therefore, this is a more important and pressing problem than it has been in the past.
In opposing this amendment I speak only for myself, but I carry with me almost the whole Bench of Bishops. When we considered this matter carefully and voted formally in our House of Bishops we decided, by a vote of 39 to 2, that a step-parent could marry a stepchild only if the younger person had never been a child of the family.
As this Bill, if it ever becomes law, will have effect in Wales it is perhaps important that Members of your Lordships' Committee should know that the Bishops in the Churches of Wales agree in this matter with the Bishops of the Church of England, and so does the Free Church Federal Council. The Baptist Union in particular has pledged full support to the Bill as it now stands, without the amendments of the noble Baroness.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, made clear on Second Reading the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure that we all regret the noble Duke's illness and hope that he will soon be able to return to this Chamber. He was broadly supportive of this Bill as it stood, unamended.
Had this been a Government Bill then of course I would not have dared to mention that pretty unanimous Church support, because I know from experience of the Shops Bill that the Government take no notice of the views of the unanimous Church, especially when pleas are made on behalf of the family. However, this is not a Government Bill but a Private Member's Bill. In the circumstances, I hope that the united views of the Churches may carry some weight. Indeed, if this amendment were to be carried then I fear that the Bench of Bishops would be forced to find itself in opposition to this Bill.
What are the arguments in favour of the amendment? In the majority report, great emphasis was put on the liberty to marry: the natural right that an individual should be free to marry the person of his or her choice. That is not the case of course where there is consanguinity. In that case, not only is there a natural taboo against marriage but there is also a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of any offspring. However, such does not apply to degrees of affinity, at least so far as any offspring are concerned. Should not affines be free to marry? That argument has some weight, but it is insufficient to bear the burden that has been put upon it because all liberty must be used with restraint or it degenerates into license.
My personal freedom can only be exercised when it does not conflict with the benefit of the community. My freedom to marry whom I wish must be circumscribed by the good of the family as an institution. I must emphasise again that we are talking about
950
marriage. There is nothing in the law that forbids freedom for a father to have sexual relations with his stepdaughter or for a mother to have sexual relations with her stepson. If they so wish, they may live together. But to enable them to marry confers a problem of social status; it shows that society as a whole is prepared to approve of that relationship. I maintain that society should not and indeed does not approve of that relationship, because it endangers certain roles within the family.
Those roles, if they are to be exercised properly, need to be free from sexual overtones. If it be argued that the fact that two people cannot marry does not always prevent those sexual overtones from being present, then the answer that should be given is that whereas it does not absolutely prevent them it does act as a powerful deterrent. Thus it is very desirable to restrict the ability to marry in the case of a father and his stepdaughter or a mother and her stepson where one has been a child of the family. So the objection that everybody has the liberty to marry does not do away with the need for an impediment to such marriages in cases where the younger person has been a child of the family.
It is claimed—and we have heard it claimed again tonight—that the law of affinity has already been breached. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has told the Committee, after 1907 it became possible to marry one's deceased wife's sister, and in 1960 the ability was extended to one's divorced wife's sister. I remind the Committee that at that time divorce was comparatively uncommon. It affected a comparatively small number of the population of this country.
In 1961 only 2·1 per cent. per 1,000 of the population were currently engaged in divorce proceedings. Today, a generation and 25 years later, the figure has increased sixfold so that there are 12 people per 1,000 engaged in divorce proceedings. I must admit that were the 1960 law being discussed today, 25 years later, then I personally would oppose it in the different circumstances in which we now find ourselves. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' Committee would do the same because that law endangers the family in a way that it did not 25 years ago. However, I am a realist and I accept that that particular law will never be repealed. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will not wish to endanger further the family by removing all impediments to the step-parents of stepchildren, except that of attaining 21 years of age.
After all, marriage really is under siege today. As I understand it, the institution of marriage in this land has not been greatly helped by recent or present legislation. It is now possible to institute divorce proceedings only one year after a marriage has taken place, and under the Shops Bill, if it is passed in its present form, wives who work in retail shops will be forced to work on Sundays when they should be spending the day with their husbands.
Be that as it may—and I do not wish to introduce another Bill at this juncture—the statistics of divorce tell their own story. And divorce proceedings only show the tip of the iceberg. There is considerable fluidity of marital and sexual relationships in our society today. In such a situation I venture to suggest

951
that the family as an institution brings stability and permanence where those used to be fulfilled by marriage. I am not looking at the family through rose-tinted spectacles. In fact, I believe that bickering within the family helps one to learn how to resolve conflict as one grows up. Also, the fact that evil crimes take place within the family does not in my view diminish its importance.
For those reasons, it is very important that every care is taken to protect the family, which is after all the fundamental unit of society and on whose stability the very stability of our society in this country rests. That includes protecting the roles within the family. But I fear the amendment we are considering would serve to endanger the family and not to strengthen it.
I am sure that I do not need to press upon the Committee the importance of the different roles that are exercised within the family, which act as a safeguard for its stability and which have the potential to enhance it. Specific relationships may flourish within the family precisely because they are free of sexual expectations. That applies particularly to parents and their children and grandchildren. It applies also to parents and their adopted children. I agree with the noble Baroness that the situation is not exactly the same, but it is not wholly dissimilar. A stepchild who is assimilated into a family does not, as I see it, have the same relationship as is the case with an adopted child, but it is very similar. Indeed, under our law it is incestuous for an adoptive parent to have sexual relations with an adopted child.
If within the family a step-parent and a stepchild can never marry, the parent-child relationship is clearly established and they are less likely to view one another as sexual partners. They are free to develop their relationship as step-parent and stepchildren without sexual overtones. Even though it is possible that sexual expectations may be aroused, the fact that the couple can never marry acts as an important deterrent. If there are cases that are plainly unfair, then there still remains the possibility of bringing a personal Bill to this House. Even though that option has its disadvantages, it still remains a possibility.
In the recent past some of us have been deeply shocked to find that child sexual abuse is far more common in our society than used to be thought; a figure of one in 10 has been responsibly put forward. Only last week someone who works for a victim support scheme told me that when she was visiting a person who had been robbed, the experience of describing that distressing experience enabled the victim to remember and talk about sexual abuse in childhood, which had had a very devastating effect upon her. That kind of story can be repeated again and again. It shows that the fact that marriage is forbidden in certain relationships does not affect the occurrence of sexual abuse within that relationship. But if marriage were to be permitted, then sexual abuse would be likely to become much more common just because sexual expectations would be more likely to be aroused.
If the amendment of the noble Baroness were to be agreed it would have an affect far beyond the persons immediately involved. As the minority report put it so aptly:
952
"To license marriage between a step-parent and a step-child of the family would be to condone sexual rivalry between father and son, or mother and daughter, which, within the close confines of the family would be destructive of the father-and-son, and mother-and-daughter relationships. In other words, the law would be seen to condone an assault on family relationships which are recognised as essentially valuable ones."
It is true that the law cannot prevent such sexual rivalry but it can deter it and reinforce a taboo which acts for the general well-being of society.
There is a further confusion which would come about if the amendment were to be passed. Let us imagine that this amendment were to be carried and eventually became part of the law of the land. Let us suppose a man marries his stepdaughter and goes to live with her in the same area as his natural children live. His natural children would then see their former stepsister in the role of mother in relation to their father. Their father would assume the role of stepbrother in relation to themselves. We can imagine the emotional confusion that would be caused for the man's natural children. We can imagine the disapproval and repugnance of neighbours, and the acrimony. For all I know these things may happen already but if society sanctions such a liaison with the dignity of marriage where there had been a child of the family it would seem to bestow its approval in a way which would not redound to the well-being of society.
It could be said that such confusion ought to be avoided when children are young but that it is a different matter when step-parent and stepchild are older. Should they not then be free to marry? What does "older" mean in this context? Thirty years is said to be too old. The amendment of the noble Baroness permits marriage when the younger partner has reached the age of 21. Incidentally, this restricts the liberty of the stepchild who is not a child of the family more than the original Bill does, as we have seen already with the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs has not pressed. The Bill before us would enable such a marriage to take place when the younger partner attains the age of 18 years.
Let us take the amendment of the noble Baroness as it stands. Only three years' waiting would be needed. The step-parent and the stepchild could live together until 21 years of age and then get married. Sexual expectations would be aroused. The role of step-parent would not be free of sexual overtones. The family, which should be supported by those who exercise different roles within it, would be in danger. That is why I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendment of the noble Baroness should be resisted.
In speaking as I have, I have adhered to the thinking of the minority report. I remind your Lordships that it is a minority report that has some distinguished signatures attached to it; including those of a Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, an expert lay member, a member of the General Synod and, if I may mention it, a Bishop's wife. However, I hope that the Committee will be impressed not by the signatories but by the force and clarity of the report's arguments, from which I have freely drawn in speaking tonight.
At the beginning I spoke of the all but united view of the Churches against this amendment, but I have been very careful not to argue on grounds of religion. I agree with the noble Baroness that a particular

953
Church should not impose its views upon society as a whole. I have tried to argue the case not on the ground of religion or from the words of the scriptures—certainly not Leviticus—nor from Christian tradition. I have attempted to look at the question from the point of view of natural law, the nature of marriage, the needs of the family and the safeguards it requires.
I believe in a natural right to marry, but that natural right must be exercised in a way which is for the welfare of society and for the family, and with limits. Therefore, I hope that in considering this amendment your Lordships will see the great drawbacks which it has if you are deeply concerned, as we all are, for the welfare of the family.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am glad on this occasion to follow the right reverend Prelate in total agreement, save for his reference to the Shops Bill, on which I shall not follow him.
I feel considerable ingratitude in opposing categorically, as I do, this amendment, because the noble Baroness has put us under such a great debt by the admirable clarity of the report No Just Cause and compounded that debt with the speech she has made today. I also naturally feel some reluctance because Sir George Baker was my successor in office as President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and later the Family Division. Indeed, I know none of the signatories of the minority report, whereas I have worked closely on many of these matters with members of the majority.
Nevertheless, I confess I found the arguments of the minority quite compelling. But there was one other matter which I also noted. In the anthropological appendix there is an important extract from an essay by Professor Malinowski submitted to an earlier Church committee. He was, of course, the greatest anthropologist of his day. What he said is not at all affected by what Professor La Fontaine commented about it. What Professor Malinowski said, as his first principle, was:
"The main sociological reason for marriage taboos and prohibited degrees is the elimination of sex from relations of the family type."
If you are to allow marriage then sexual preliminaries are almost inevitable, as the right reverend Prelate said. It took someone as frivolous as the Rev. Sidney Smith to ask, "How does a curate propose marriage? Does he say 'I will see you in the vestry after the service?' "Of course, if you are going to contemplate marriage you contemplate sexual relations and, contrary to what Professor Malinowski said, you bring them right into the centre of the family.
I desire to make only three more points. First, the noble Baroness today and on Second Reading powerfully put her case on the fundamental liberty to marry; an innate freedom. I say only this. One can obtain freedom and one can advance freedom by taking part in an organisation or an institution. The individual who is left naked before the state is unlikely to be left free for very long; whereas if he is a member of a family, a trade union, a club, or whatever it is, his freedom, his power of choice—his power to influence the decisions that affect himself—are enormously advanced.
954
The second point is that we already accept, and the noble Baroness accepts, that there must be some limitation on the freedom to marry. For many centuries a marriage could be contracted without any formalities at all. Now we demand publicity, which happened only in 1753 in this country and as late as 1939 in Scotland. But that was accepted as a limitation on the freedom to marry. Then there is the age of marriage. Since 1929 it has been 16, but for centuries it was the canonical age of puberty, sometimes formalised into 14 for the boy and 12 for the girl. As late as the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the 1950s, Dr. Marie Stopes advocated the lowering of the permissible age. There is nothing sacrosanct about 16. It is a limitation on freedom which we accept as buttressing the institution of marriage and safeguarding the family.
Finally, there is the adopted child. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate had to say. It is a pure fiction and a valuable one to say that an adopted child is a real child. I myself cannot see any logical distinction between an adopted child, who may not be married within the family, and a stepchild.
My last argument is to repeat something which I said on Second Reading. I do not believe that any divorce case—certainly very few divorce cases, if any—can be free from pain. Most are profoundly grievous to both parties and even more so to the children. Divorces have proliferated greatly, particularly since the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I tend to test adherence to the principle of the family by asking myself where the various people who talk about it stood on that Act. If I may say so with respect, I do not think that the Bench of Bishops can be entirely exculpated in view of the book Putting Asunder, which followed so closely after the authoritative statement of the Church's position by Archbishop Fisher to the Royal Commission.
Though I believe that hardly a single divorce is unattended by grievous pain, I have no doubt at all which divorces are the most grievous, painful and agonising. They are the cases where a father-in-law or a stepfather has made sexual advances to the daughter-in-law or the stepchild and the marriage has broken up in consequence. They are by far the hardest cases. If I had not been convinced by the arguments of the minority, that fact would certainly have clinched the matter in my mind.
Lord Meston: Despite the formidable advocacy of my noble friend Lady Seear, I cannot accept her amendment in this context. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his exposition and development of the minority report position and I should like to adopt every word that he said.
This amendment seeks to allow an unrestricted right to marry between step-parent and stepchild provided that both are 21. In itself, 21 is an arbitrary age limit and I have already indicated that it is something which I am prepared to consider on its own merit; but I suggest to your Lordships that the removal of any precondition other than age is wrong, in particular of course the removal of the precondition in the Bill that the younger party should not at any time before

955
attaining the age of 18 have been a child of the family in relation to the other party.
My noble friend talked about drawing a line and suggested that this was a curious and indeed a wrong place to draw the line. On the contrary, I suggest that this is the correct place to draw the line. As she suggested, the relationship between the step-parent and the stepchild in the family might have been fairly brief, but it might have lasted for virtually all the childhood of the stepchild. The step-parent may have been in loco parentis for almost all the 18 years or so before the child reached its majority. The step-parent has an important place in the family in his or her own right. Indeed, it becomes an even more important place when there has been a divorce. The step-parent comes along and provides support and security which very often is badly needed in a family which has been devastated by separation and divorce.
My noble friend seeks to suggest that there is some qualitative distinction between adoptive parenthood and step-parenthood. I suggest that on the contrary there is very often no qualitative distinction between an adoptive parent and a step-parent where the stepparent has played a very full part in the childhood and upbringing of the children of the family. If a stepparent does not adopt it is very often a matter of accident or legal difficulty which is encountered because of the strange requirements of Section 10 of the Children Act 1975.
When it comes to drawing the line, I suggest that the minority got it right in paragraph 246 of No Just Cause, when it said:
"Protecting a young adult from a precipitate marriage is no substitute for protecting a child from a damaging sexual entanglement. We think that it is a proper task of the law to protect children in emotionally threatening situations and we cannot see why it should hesitate to give protection in this case".
Indeed, the majority itself recognised the need to preclude marriages where either of the parties was under 18 or where either was still under 21 and the younger party had been a child of the family. The risks are obvious: distortion of family relationships and important family functions.
In this country we have a system of law which is child-centred and, one might say, increasingly child-centred. How often have your Lordships seen in Bills and statutes that the welfare of the child is paramount? That is the way our system works. In cases of divorce we distinguish between childless couples and marriages where children are involved. Where there is a child, the court has to be satisfied that the arrangements for the welfare of the child are suitable, and one of the questions which is often asked when that is being considered by the court is, "Who else is living in the household?".
Similarly in the case of adoption, today the whole law and practice of adoption is designed to minimise distortion of families and family relationships. As I ventured to suggest at Second Reading, if a function of the family is the upbringing, and the careful upbringing, of children there should not be any hope, expectation or possibility of sexual or marital relationships either during or following the minority of the children. To have that would simply add strains to family life with which it sometimes cannot cope.
956
7.30 p.m.
The answer of the majority is that we should have a delay and put it off from 18 to 21, but I suggest that there is no magical transformation in people between the ages of 18 and 21. Family life does not dissolve when the youngest child reaches 18, and the three-year period which is suggested in the amendment and by the majority does not dissolve the dangers which were perceived by the minority as inherent in the situation. In short, the three-year gap is not enough to protect the position. It is on those bases that I find myself unable to accept the propositions advanced by my noble friend. Perhaps more importantly in the context of the survival of the Bill and the modest reform that it proposes, the Bench of Bishops find themselves unable to accept what is proposed, however eloquently, by my noble friend.
Of course my noble friend is right. There will still be hard cases. There may well still be cases coming before this House under the personal Bill procedure. However, it is also fair to say that this Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will limit the number of cases coming before this House under that procedure. I agree with my noble friend that an adjudication by a court of law is an unsatisfactory solution for all the reasons which she has advanced and which have been advanced on several previous occasions in your Lordships' House.
The suggestion that I put to my noble friend is that her amendment goes too far. It is not for me, and I am not qualified, to pontificate about the family in the abstract, but I do not accept the proposition that the minority, or indeed myself, have an over-rosy view of what the family consists of. It is precisely because things can go wrong in the family that it needs the protection which the Bill proposes. We all know that a family can create strong loyalties and and can provide cohesion and support for its members, but in some respects those strengths are its weaknesses. We get these horrible cases of violence within the family. Because of the loyalties that are created and engendered, great tensions are also created, jealousy and damage arising when loyalties clash. To allow the sort of marriage that is proposed by my noble friend without any precondition is to open the door to yet further strains.
Baroness Seear: There have been few speakers in support of the amendment, and I do not intend to speak any longer about it because I think that I have raised all the points already. I should, however, like to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

David, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Denning, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Donoughue, L.

957

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Jeger, B.

Northfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Mottistone, L.

Birmingham, Bp. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Oxford, Bp.

Chichester, Bp.

Renwick, L.

Denham, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Hereford, Bp.

St. Albans, Bp.

Hooper, B.

Selborne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Truro, Bp.

Long, V.

Winstanley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Meston, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 9:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 9):
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("in England and Wales").
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to rehearse any of the arguments that I used on the previous amendment. Most of them are the same. I wish, however, to make the point that this amendment deals with the relationship of in-laws, not of step relations. Here, most of the arguments that have been advanced against the previous amendment do not apply—in particular the central argument about the position of child of the family and the danger to the family and to the child being brought up in the family if the possibility of marriage is there.
As to in-laws, it is not possible that someone in an in-law relationship can at any time have been child of the family. So the persuasive points that, I am sure, moved most of your Lordships to oppose the previous amendment—the argument that someone living as a child should be protected from any possibility of erotic relationships within the family—does not hold in regard to this amendment.
My second point, as stated previously, in the Committee tonight, is that the law now permits marriage between a brother and his divorced brother's wife. Marriage between in-laws has, for 20 years, been permitted by the law of the land. What logic can there be in permitting marriage between a man and his divorced brother's wife and forbidding it between a man and his divorced son's wife? On the basis of logic
958
and because there is no argument based on child of the family, I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: I have already spoken about this. I suggested earlier and I suggest here that there is no difference in principle. Once you let the step relationship go into marriage, you have the in-law relationship, too. Indeed, the position is far more serious in a step-relationship because then you have father and mother with their joint stepchildren in one family, and you are allowing, after divorce, marriage between members of that self-same family—the stepfather with the step-daughter. That is a far greater breach of the loyalty or the integrity of the family than the next step, the in-law relationship. There, you have two families, separate ones. You have the father-in-law with his wife, and you have the son who marries the daughter-in-law and sets up his own family. Then, whatever the cause, both parties divorce.
Then you have the son with the sister-in-law. Surely, in those circumstances, they should be allowed to remarry or to marry. Or there is the case of the brother and sister-in-law which was allowed in 1960. In other words, there is no difference in principle between the cases. This case should go with the others. I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I should like to suggest that there is a difference, and quite an important difference, between the relationship of parent and child and the other relationship that has been mentioned. Many of the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham in connection with the previous amendment—arguments concerned with the need to protect the family and to have rules to protect sexual relations within a family—apply equally in this case. At this late hour, I do not propose to weary the Committee by repeating them all over again. The right of the individual to marry whom he or she chooses cannot be absolute. It is already limited by consanguinity, which has among its other purposes the promotion of the right relationships within the family and protecting them and helping to provide the right setting in which people grow up. Similar considerations apply to affinity.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said, we have to face the situation of a great increase in the number of divorces producing a very large number of people who are involved in these sort of relationships. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that we should have some clearly understood rules about who may marry whom in order to protect relationships within the extended family. The report itself—it is a part that, so far as I can follow it, is agreed by the majority—says:
"What about a father who is becoming sexually interested in his son's wife? Or a young married man who begins to feel he might prefer not his own, perhaps immature, wife but her more mature mother?"
What indeed? The report goes on to say that such cases do arise and that the law cannot prevent this. That may be so in some cases, but that seems to assume that the law has no educative or deterrent influence, and that it has nothing to do with the building up of the

959
climate of opinion. That also ignores the fact that every injury to the present law concerning the family, every weakening of it, tends to devalue the institution further, and to reduce its standing and importance. The present law is a guard against the exploitation of a younger person by an older. Indeed, it may be that in some cases that is also needed the other way round.
In the debate which immediately preceded this present Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, quoted from an advertisement put in a periodical by the Patent Office in which there was the phrase, "When new ideas are born they need protection". I should like to suggest to your Lordships that when a young couple marry that marriage needs protection, and it needs protection above all from the families of the two partners. That protection will be gravely weakened if this amendment were passed and the possibility of marriage between parents and the children were allowed.
The minority report again seems to me to put this very clearly and strongly. This amendment
"…would deprive the child-in-law of his or her safety of place as child in the new family into which he or she marries. When, for instance, a son brings his wife to his father's home, there is an underlying assumption that the daughter-in-law will assume a role in relation to her father-in-law which is exempt from sexual expectations. To admit the possibility of a future marriage between parent-in-law and child-in-law would be to undermine assumptions which make for the safety and comfort of the adult family."
May I again remind the Committee that the opposition which I voiced to this amendment is supported by the bishops as a whole, by the Free Church Federal Council, and by the Church in Wales which has similar obligations in regard to marriage as those of the Church of England. The Archbishop of York made it clear on Second Reading that if an amendment of this kind were carried he and other bishops would have to oppose the Bill.
At present we are happy to support this limited relaxation of the present law, but I hope that the arguments which I have tried to present as briefly as possible to the Committee at this late hour may suggest that there is a distinct difference between the issue of parents-in-law and children-in-law and the whole question of sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the right reverend Prelate whether his opposition would be maintained if the Bill were limited to the deceased son's wife, and if there were no question of the divorced son's wife? In the event of the son having died, and the father-in-law himself being a widower, would the right reverend Prelate continue to believe that marriage should not take place?
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I am not sure that I can answer that question without having time to think about it. My immediate reaction is that there is some difference between the two.
Baroness Seear: If I were to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to return at Report stage with this alternative, would that meet the approval of a large number of Members of the Committee?
Lord Meston: I suspect that that question was directed as much at me as at the Bench of Bishops
960
opposite. I certainly find myself unable to accept the amendment in its present form. Like the right reverend Prelate, I should need time to think about the ramifications of enabling a marriage in the circumstances suggested by my noble friend. But the question is not a simple one. These are very complex questions. One is dealing with complicated family structures. One has to remember that parents-in-law are not just parents-in-law; they become grandparents. The whole family structure can be completely destablised and distorted by a marriage of the kind which is suggested in this amendment.
I do not know whether that is sufficient answer at this stage to my noble friend. However, although I would keep an open mind at this stage, I would certainly invite her to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My olive branch having been rejected. I do not propose to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to divide the Committee.
7.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 24.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Denning, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Meston, L. [Teller.]

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chichester, Bp. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Selborne, E.

Hereford, Bp.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Truro, Bp.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.4 p.m.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed earlier: col. 939.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 12):
Page 1, line 17, after ("grandson") insert ("(whether his grandson is living or not)").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 5 and insert ("Where, apart from this Act, any matter affecting the validity of a marriage would fall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and nothing in this Act shall preclude the determination of that matter in accordance with that law").
Amendment No. 16 is simply part and parcel of the same alteration to Clause 1(5) of the Bill. The word "and" at the beginning of the words to be inserted in Amendment No. 16 has somehow crept in by mistake, and I invite noble Lords to read the amendments together as if the word "and" were not there. Essentially this is a drafting amendment, the effect of which is to produce a change of emphasis.
As at present drafted, Clause 1(5) disapplies Clause 1 everywhere in every case in which the court might otherwise, on established principles of private international law, apply Clause 1. This amendment would allow the court a freer rein and preserves the rules of private international law. It does not, however, seek to dictate to the court the principles of international law to be applied in any given case. Again, there is also an argument in support of this amendment that it is more consistent with preceding legislation, and in particular consistent with Section 14 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With the Committee's approval, presumably we can take out the word "and" at the beginning of the sentence in this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On question, Whether Clause 1, as amended shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The reason that my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill is not out of disagreement over specific objections contained in the clause but because we doubt the validity of making changes in the law in such a piecemeal fashion.
On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mishcon argued that the procedural aspects of legalising marriage within the degrees of affinity are at present very imperfect, and this is what his speech was mainly about. Indeed, I think that many other speakers have
962
agreed with that. Everyone has agreed that the present system of personal Bill procedure is objectionable, clumsy and expensive. My noble friend made a powerful speech on Second Reading arguing that, instead of bringing about changes in this piecemeal fashion, such as would be the case under Clause 1 of this Bill, we should concentrate on a more civilised procedure for dealing with all the cases of affinity. This of course could be done through the establishment of the family court.
Of one thing there can be no doubt. Support for the concept of a family court has been very strong indeed for a long time. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced on the Second Reading of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill that there should be a re-examination of the idea of a unified family court, and many noble and learned Lords have given support to that concept. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supported it in the year 1946. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has also been a great advocate for the concept of the family court, starting his advocacy in 1954. There has been no lack of support for the concept and idea of a family court.
Here again, it is my submission that if family courts were set up—and I know that this has not had the agreement of Sir George Baker in the writing of the report, and has not got the support of some of the other advocates of a family court—one of the functions could be to investigate impediments on marriages. It has been argued against, but in my view it is something that would be a most appropriate function for it to serve.
The aim of all of us is to protect and help members of families at this time when formalised and conventional family structure is breaking down, and to make adjustments to prevent suffering and unhappiness for men, women and children who have been swept into this crisis which has occurred through the high rate of divorce in this country. Surely an important step must be towards the establishment of a unified family court.
My opposition to Clause 1 is not founded on deep, fundamental disagreement with the proposals contained in it, and not in a confrontational way, but I cannot give it my full support when what I really want is another method of dealing with the issue, which is to press on towards the real goal we should all have, and that is the establishment of the family court.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As the noble Baroness was kind enough to say, I have been a long time proponent of the institution of the family court. I proposed quite an elaborate structure in 1954 to the Morton Royal Commission. The concept has lately been gathering support significantly and encouragingly, particularly with the Law Society Family Law Committee, and now the Law Society itself.
I desire to say only two things. There is a great danger in treating the words "family court" as an open sesame which will solve all family problems. Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

963
used the words "family court" almost as an open sesame and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, in effect, "There are here some ascertained people who have a grievance. They have so far had to go to considerable difficulty and expense through the Personal Bill procedure. You do not solve those grievances, you do not remedy their disadvantages, by saying, 'We will throw the whole thing to a family court which does not yet exist, with no criteria at all save merely here is the Book of Leviticus; here is the Book of Common Prayer with a table of consanguinity and affinity; here is the admirable Seear Report with its majority and minority reports; here are some people who would like to marry in a way that the law does not permit at the moment. Now go ahead and decide'."
What the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said on that occasion was quite unanswerable. There is a difference of opinion in your Lordships' Committee as to how far we should go, but that we should go somewhere unites us all. It would be an abnegation of responsibility to say that we may some day get a family court which may, in some magical way, without any criteria at all, solve this problem by the wave of a wand. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to support Clause 1.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: We have heard a debate about what I regard as a red herring in the context of this Bill, the involvement of the court. It does not matter what label you put on it. It may be a family court, it may be some other court, but at the end of the day you are asking the court to be involved in deciding whether people should, or should not, get married. As to the defects of that idea, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in one of the earlier debates on 25th March 1981 at col. 1242 onwards.
To invest a court with a discretion to decide whether or not a couple should marry is a quite unworkable idea. What sort of criteria should that court apply, particularly a court which may well be attuned to apportion fault? What sort of evidence should that court receive? What sort of procedure should that court adopt?
You have a couple coming to the court and they both want the same thing! They are coming to a court which is used to dealing with things on an adversarial basis, and so you probably have to involve the expense of the Attorney General or the Queen's Proctor to act as devil's advocate. The example of New Zealand and Australia shows that the courts do not relish the task of making this sort of decision.
However sensitive our judges are, and in particular our Family Division judges who are most sensitive, they are not going to be used to this sort of task. The law will build up a set of precedents with hard cases making bad law. As it says simply in this report, if you have a freedom you should not have to argue for it before a court of law. It will involve expense, delay, embarrassment, anxiety and uncertainly for the couple involved: all the defects which presently exist in the personal Bill procedure which has been so roundly disapproved of on all sides.
964
The family court in itself is not a panacea. It does not matter what label you put on the court; if you decide to create a family court and ask ten different people what they have in mind for a family court, you will get ten different ideas. We understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department is going to put forward models for a family court in the spring, but certainly this Bill ought not to have to wait until the family court is created.
For all I know it may never be created. There are difficulties in the present system of family law as at present administered, but they are undoubtedly exaggerated. As the Booth Committee recently emphasised and illustrated, many of those difficulties can be removed by fine tuning. I therefore would distance myself from any suggestion that the sort of decisions which are required, or may be required in this Bill, should depend on the existence of a family court.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Marriage according to rites of Church of England or the Church in Wales]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("affinity") and insert ("the relationship of the persons to be married").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, to produce consistency and clarity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of s. 3 of Perjury Act 1911]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: I do not propose to oppose the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of Schedule 1 to Supreme Court Act 1981]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: I do not propose to oppose the Question, That Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("1970") and insert ("1983").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply to remove an error in the Bill as drafted in the citation of the Marriage Acts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
In the Schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 33 not moved.]
On Question, Whether the schedule shall be agreed to?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have one question to ask about the schedule. I cannot find the reference, but I shall tell the noble Lord what my problem is. Why is there a provision that publication of banns should not apply to marriages under this Bill? It seems that it applies to all the other ways of publicising marriage or authorising marriage—licence and superintendant registrars' certificates—but why not the publication of banns?
Lord Meston: I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having given me some notice that he would raise this point. I hope I can now furnish him with an answer. I am told that procedural alterations would be required and they would be very complex. It would apparently be very difficult to deal with the challenges that might be created by a marriage proposed under this Bill. Secondly, I am told that the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer would have to be altered to cope. There are defects in discovery of impediments through the banns procedure. I refer the noble and learned Lord to Professor Cretney's excellent book on family law, where he deals with the problem in a succinct paragraph in which he observes that, whereas in the case of civil preliminaries the registrar may refuse to issue a licence unless he is satisfied by the production of written evidence that the necessary consents had been obtained, there is no analogous right in the ecclesiastical procedure. Hence, I gather, the need for fairly drastic amendment. He goes on to suggest as follows in the case of somebody under 18 who wants to marry without consent:
"The best advice to be given to a person under 18 who wishes to contract a marriage without his parents' consent is therefore to be married after publication of banns in church, preferably in a large town, where the incumbent does not take an officious view of his pastoral responsibilities, and where it is unlikely that members of the congregation will know the parties. Not only will the marriage be valid (in the absence of objection) but no criminal offence will have been committed. He may thus enjoy his married life in defiance of the policy of the law and without fear of penal sanctions.".
Having said all that, marriage in a church is not precluded under the Bill because a church wedding is still possible in appropriate circumstances with a common licence.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord has given quite a number of answers to my query, any of which would have been conclusive, so there is nothing for me to do except say "thank you".
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

SDI Research
8.26 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what relation they consider SDI research stands in to
966
SDI procurement and deployment, and to the viability of the ABM treaty.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the first week of December the Government were playing both Houses of Parliament and the press along. It had been reported for many months that there was shortly to be an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom about SDI research. The rumours that this was approaching became more frequent and firmer and on Thursday, 5th December, the Prime Minister said at Question Time that she hoped the agreement would be signed "before Christmas". It was signed before noon the next day and throughout that week various attempts by interested Members of both Houses to get some news out of the Government, not only of what might be in the agreement (which might have been difficult) but when it was likely to be signed, had been systematically stalled.
On the first possible day I asked leave to raise a Private Notice Question about this matter in the House. This was refused. It proved impossible to have a day for debate as far as the eye could see. I apologise now for bringing this Unstarred Question on so late. During the course of being refused a PNQ I discovered what I had not known before—namely that no PNQ has been allowed in this House at all since the autumn of 1983. However, this is a general point which perhaps it might be right to take up through the proper channels.
Later questions on the secret memorandum of understanding between this country and the United States on SDI research have drawn quite insufficient answers in both Houses. Therefore there is good justification for a short debate this evening.
On 13th December I asked the Government in this House whether they agreed with the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence, Richard Perle, that:
"if we are successful (in SDI research) we will be putting a dome over the Soviet Union, that's the correct image"—
and whether it was to that end that British firms and institutions would now be working? In a supplementary answer the noble Lord the Minister of State said:
"My Lords, I am afraid that the warped objectives to which the noble Lord referred"—
that is me—
"are the product of the noble Lord's imagination".—[Official Report, 13/12/85; col. 461.]
That is the kind of answer that not only gets us no further, it even lacks the contingent advantage of being true. The idea that SDI should be able to shoot down Soviet missiles over Soviet territory is part of the present United States purpose, and the reason is obvious. It is that that would be the best place for the uranium and plutonium in the destroyed Soviet warheads to land. I can hardly believe that the Minister of State did not know that at that time. The history of the SDI proposal is well enough known. I will not trouble the House with any elements of it for the sixth time in the last three years. The moral of that history is that there is no doubt whatsoever that both the United States and the Soviet Union have been working on ballistic missile defence for many

967
years—for decades. It is not a case of only the Soviet Union doing so or only the United States doing so. They have both been doing so.
But it was the United States which, nearly three years ago now, suddenly decided to make it very big business indeed. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is not with us this evening. I should like, if I may, to quote something which I hope he himself would have quoted had he been here. That is something that he wrote in a recent article:
"Had anyone other than the American president ever invited scientists to try to render 'nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete', the suggestion would probably have attracted no more attention than had they been asked to square the circle or solve the problem of perpetual motion".
That is written with an acerbity which is permitted only to people who have quite outstanding wisdom and experience but, since it is permitted to such people and since that is exactly what Lord Zuckerman has, the rest of us had better think pretty hard about what he says.
Will it work, SDI, this hair-trigger automation with the astronomical loss of life at stake? Scientists are divided. We have another expert to hand, one which perhaps is easier to understand, especially to the present Government, than conflicting scientists. It is a market expert and that market is the insurance market. Space insurance of any sort whatever is unobtainable now. It was unobtainable even before the recent shuttle disaster. Think how unattainable it will be in an SDI world! Think how the anti-ballistic missile defences themselves envisaged by SDI if they had been there would have reacted to the shuttle disaster! What would they have done on hair-trigger automation? Think also, of course, of the fact that the shuttle itself was carrying SDI experimentation into space. it was a partly-military mission.
Today, I think we should be more concerned with what happens in the unlikely event that SDI does turn out to work. The noble Lord the Minister of State thinks that it will. On 21st January, in answer to a parliamentary Question, he said that history leads us to suppose that it will. If he believes that most well-funded programmes of physical research have in the past succeeded or even if he believes that their success rate has been unrelated to informed estimates of the probability of their success before they started, then he and no doubt many others need briefing in the history of science as well as in the present actualities of science.
It is not likely to succeed but it may; and we must ask whether we should be in it given the possibility that it may succeed. Where do we stand? We are being dragged along behind the United States chariot. This is not surprising given the holds, the manifold holds, in related matters, defence matters, that the United States has over us, starting with the fact that our own submarine force is now dependent on fuel reprocessing in the United States, when just a turn of the tap will suffice.
The Prime Minister has supported research right from the beginning. I expect it to have been correctly guessed that she did so on a reflex action simply to support President Reagan against the "wets" and
968
because nobody could tell her that the research was actually illegal. But it has all gone on. We now have this secret memorandum of understanding, the first and so far the only one concluded by the United States with any of its allies. We now have Secretary Weinberger speaking of recent support in Britain for SDI, not for SDI research. Of course that is what he speaks of. Did we expect him not to?
We have conferred a certain alliance status on this American programme, we and we alone. We now have Mr. Lamont in the House of Commons calling the SDI participation office in our own Ministry of Defence the counterpart of the SDI office in the Pentagon, as if we were in this together on equal terms. And all the time the Government have not spent a single pound on unclassified research or studies into what the British, let alone the European, interest in having this thing could possibly be.
The Government have spent nothing on research as to whether it would increase or decrease strategic stability. They are doing a classified study of something called "European architecture". In so far as we can attach any meaning to that expression, we must attach the meaning which would make it clearly against the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty forbids the passing of blueprints, knowledge or equipment about ballistic missile defence to any ally. We are being dragged along by a juggernaut which is accelerating. In the latest Pentagon annual defence guidance document the SDI has been promoted—it was not there last year—to top priority, a position it shares only with the modernisation of the US nuclear armoury itself. Of course that is what it shares it with! What else would it share it with?
This promotion within the Pentagon is to shield the SDI from the new congressional drive for a balanced budget. You can even now in the press watch the Washington "hawks" as they jostle to get the President to take steps which in practice will bind his successor to carry on, whoever he is.
My Unstarred Question is in particular about the relationship of SDI if it comes about to the ABM treaty. Mr. Timothy Renton, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, said in the House of Commons on 8th December:
"Neither the partial test ban treaty nor the space treaty prohibits the development of directed energy weapons in space".
One of the cornerstones of the SDI programme is the X-ray laser. This has to be powered by a nuclear explosion or explosions. Is it conceivable to think that such a thing could become operational without being tested in its operational environment, namely, space? The partial test ban does prohibit this. The nuclear-powered X-ray laser will also be capable of striking downwards to create fire storms in cities—capable of! A firm called R and D Associates of California (which used to be more famous under the name of Rand) has carried out a study coming to this conclusion which the Government pooh-pooed. But I think it is quite a long time since Rand turned out wrong on this sort of technological forecast.
If that is right then the nuclear-powered X-ray laser is a weapon of mass destruction and it is consequently also against the space treaty. Ministers, I submit,

969
should be alert in this field and not legalistic. The facility at Fylingdales is being turned by the United States, which runs it, into a phased array radar. That is what the famous radio station at Krasnoyarsk in the Soviet Union is. We object to Krasnoyarsk because it is a phased array station not on the periphery of a signatory of the ABM treaty—the Soviet Union. Why should we believe that the up-dated Fylingdales will be in accordance with the ABM treaty? It will be a phased array radar not on the periphery of a signatory of the ABM treaty. Britain is not a signatory; the United States is. The Yorkshire Moors are not on the periphery of the United States. May we hope that the Government will meet this criticism in a forthright manner.
The ABM treaty prohibits the transfer to non-signatories of technical descriptions and blueprints. Has it occurred to the Government that this gives United Kingdom industry working on SDI research a commercial interest in the destruction of the treaty as soon as it begins to bite where it was intended to bite? SDI also stands in the way of a comprehensive test ban, which I think we all desire, or ought to desire, because if the Soviet Union were to get their own SDI, as they no doubt would in time, we would need to re-think our own Trident warheads. The Government claim that the Trident can cope with anything the Russians can produce in the line of BMD, but they were saying that before this immense pressure had begun to be brought to bear on the Russians precisely to get their own SDI.
Lastly, and most important of all—I will not go into this again, because I have explained it so often—the SDI contributes, not to strategic stability but to strategic instability. If there is any doubt left in the Government's mind, may I recommend to them the recent studies conducted by Messrs. Kent and Mayer—two separate studies. They are fairly conclusive. The secret memorandum of understanding replaces the 1975 secret memorandum of understanding on defence trade in general, which was not due to expire until 1995. I think the House would be interested to know why it has been appropriate to withdraw a general understanding and replace it by one mainly centred on SDI. The memorandum of understanding waives the national laws in both countries about buying American and buying British, and about the balance of payments programme requirements in the United States. It provides for a flow of information between governments. It is not clear whether it seals off the flow of information between the United States Government and United States industrial exploitation in general. I think we should worry about this, in view of the fact that it is intended to be a secret memorandum of understanding and the bits I have just quoted have already been published in the United States press.
There is a general suspicion in industry in both countries that the United States may be going to cream off our ideas now, and that we shall find there is no return when it comes to bulk purchases which are economically interesting. In this context, I should like to ask the Government to give us news of what has happened to the special office in the Ministry of
970
Defence which was to ensure a two-way street in the Trident programme procurement.
It is also interesting that the first contract between the United States Government and any British firm for SDI research did not go through this memorandum of understanding it all; it by-passed the Ministry of Defence. It was a contract for optical computers signed by Messrs. Ferranti—a British firm. Optical computers will be used for the nuclear-powered laser X-ray above all other things. In other words, if they are procured or deployed they will break the ABM treaty. According to general US industrial studies at the moment, Europe can expect to get about 1 per cent. of SDI expenditure. If that is right, I wonder what percentage of the 1 per cent. will be coming Britain's way. I also wonder what effect the new congressional resistance to any of the work going to Europe at all, which is beginning to be felt, will have. In Congress they have now heard of British participation, and not all of them like it by any means.
To sum up, SDI should not be looked at in isolation, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in a wise speech as Secretary-General of NATO on 28th December. The Soviet Union has now, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington foresaw in that speech, launched an unprecedentedly realistic disarmament proposal which has moved away from the original Soviet all-out requirement of a ban on SDI research, but is still, of course, conditional on no procurement or deployment. In the view of many the Government must, in the interests of this country, dissociate themselves from the determination of the President of the United States that SDI shall not be on a disarmament negotiating table. They must bring him back to his own commitment, entered into jointly with the Soviet Union, to prevent an arms race in space, because if this country does not do it, why should we expect any other country in the world to do it?
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on raising in your Lordships' House the important Question standing in his name. The Question is concerned with relations. I myself am not competent to speak about strategic relations, nor am I competent to talk technologically about relations of components to anti-ballistic missiles and the like. However, I intend to address myself to moral relations in this matter.
The treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, signed by President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev on 26th May, 1972, was an important agreement between two super-powers to limit useless expenditure and to decrease international tension. The picture that President Reagan has painted of the morality of ABM nuclear defence beyond what is allowed in that treaty is very beguiling. It seems at first sight so sensible to research, develop and deploy weapons which would make nuclear missiles of no avail in war, because they would be shot down or exploded before they could do their devastating damage. It seems so sensible to prefer that kind of defence to the dangers of nuclear

971
deterrence which results, as we know, in an arms race in nuclear missiles.
But, in fact, even if a successful deployment of anti-ballistic missiles were to be possible, this would appear to the other side to be an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon, because it would enable the side which possessed it to initiate a pre-emptive strike with impunity. Furthermore, it could not defend a country from attack by cruise missiles or submarine-launched missiles. And so, for all the high-sounding rhetoric, and perhaps I should add for all the goodwill which may underlie it, the claims of SDI to a higher morality than nuclear deterrence are quite unfounded. Indeed, because SDI introduces a new element of instability it could be said on moral grounds to be retrogressive.
Article 5(1) of the ABM treaty states unequivocally:
"Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, space-based or mobile land-based."
That seems to me to be clear enough. It is therefore a matter of deep concern when the head of the National Security Council of our chief ally, the USA, said that no aspect of the development of space-based BMD components is prohibited under the 1972 treaty, and that the treaty only referred to the technology which was available then.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a very revealing extended review in the New York Review of Books, this statement not only showed an intended breach of the present treaty, but also a new version of the treaty. Before development of space-based ABM systems or components can take place, it is necessary to give six months' notice of withdrawal from the treaty under Article 8. To do that would destabilise even further the situation brought about by the massive increase in expenditure in the American SDI.
I realise how much we depend upon our chief ally in matters of defence and the close relationship that exists between us. Nonetheless, I believe that we have to point out that the intention to develop SDI is contrary to the treaty and against the best interests of international peace. Indeed, it is hard to understand how matters have progressed to the present situation, unless we assume that major vested interests are at stake. According to the New Scientist, Boeing has SDI contracts of 217 million dollars, McDonnell Douglas of 122 million dollars, and Lockheed of 0·5 billion dollars. It would seem that the careers of too many people, and the profits of too many defence corporations, are involved to halt what Mr. Gorbachev has called "an illusion". I find it a tragic and terrible situation when a description by a potential enemy whose word one does not always trust seems more sensible than those of one's chief ally.
It is sometimes said that research is quite different from development, and that it is not research but development that is forbidden under the ABM treaty. It is further said that the Russians are deeply engaged in development and that they have already breached the ABM treaty. These matters are not so clear as they appear to certain people. In the first place, research means inquiry into the fundamental principles and practice of a project. Development means
972
experimentation with the practice to see whether it works in conditions other than that of the experimental laboratory, while deployment means the procurement of weapons and their installation for operational purposes. These are not just my own personal definitions. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes research as "careful search or enquiry"; development as "fuller working out" or "stage of advancement"; and to "deploy" as "to bring into effective operation". To fudge the meaning of these words is to breach a solemn treaty, and seems to me on objective grounds to constitute a serious moral objection.
But what of the claims that this is just what the Russians are doing? I would refer Members of your Lordships' House to Question Time on 21st January when the noble Lord the Minister agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that it was a respectable view that the Russians spent as much on anti-aircraft as they do on anti-ballistic missile research. Further, the noble Lord did not answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that much of their re-search on lasers, phased array systems and so on are just as likely to be connected with other spheres of defence as with SDI systems. From his silence I take it he agreed.
As for the charges that the Russians have already broken the ABM treaty, specific charges are spelled out in American publications, and the October number of the NATO Review suggests that Soviet success in research would call in question NATO's policy of flexible response. We do not know, I presume, how far the Russians have advanced their research, but at least they have offered to stop their work at Krasnoyarask if the Americans stop their development in the United Kingdom and the Thule in Greenland. It seems to me hardly likely that the Russians would invest large resources of men and money into systems which their leader has publicly called "an illusion".
I cannot see that these considerations in any way alter the moral judgment against major work on SDI: for what is the point of research if it does not lead to development and deployment in breach of the treaty? It may turn out—I hate to say this—that the tragic demise of the shuttle "Challenger" is a blessing in disguise if it prevents or delays the development of SDI.
I have tried to speak about the morality of the development and deployment of SDI. I now turn to consider in this connection the morality of research into SDI components and systems. I take it that we are here concerned, as one possibility, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has mentioned, with a nuclear pumped laser beam, which derives its sources or "pump" of energy from a 100 kiloton nuclear device; and because a satellite containing such a laser, if permanently in position, would be vulnerable to space mines or deceived by decoy launches, it would be kept in a submarine and "popped up" or launched into space on the command of surveillance satellites which registered Russian nuclear missiles rising from their launch pads.
There are grave moral problems about SDI deployment of these laser beams which reflect also

973
upon the morality of their research; because research is pointless unless it is oriented towards development and deployment. What are these moral problems? In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has indicated these X-ray laser beams need for their energy pump the detonation of a nuclear bomb. That in itself is a grave consideration. Secondly, the system could not be tested without the detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. That is morally unacceptable. Thirdly, the command to "pop-up" a laser station, and to detonate a nuclear device, would be given automatically by a surveillance satellite. There would be no time for human involvement, except for a minimum; and if there were, there would be insufficient time for human decision making. I conclude therefore that X-ray laser beam nuclear pumped defence is morally unacceptable. I take it that there would be uncertainty whether the laser beams would actually be able to cause a nuclear missile to explode as they would be untested. That adds to the immorality of the system. I take it that this has already been recognised by our chief ally the United States of America since President Reagan, after the Geneva Summit, said that what the United States was researching on was a "non-nuclear defence system". However, we have as yet had no clear statement that research on the pop-up nuclear pumped X-ray laser beam has been dropped; and the sooner we hear it the better.
A second possibility lies in the chemical laser or excimer, which would eliminate missiles not by explosion, but by heat; or possibly there is the so-called electro-magnetic rail-gun, using intense magnetic fields to create the force to shoot small projectiles at very high velocity. Whether these and other wierd new weapons can be made effective only research and development could show. I certainly do not know. Clearly they could not be tested against Russian missiles except during war. Thus they would be untested.
Even more important is the question of how they would be deployed, even if they were to be researched and developed satisfactorily. They would have to be fired by the command of a super-computer which had precisely the right software—and that in itself is doubtful, because the software would need a precise and exact knowledge of Russian missiles, which I presume we do not have. Secondly, the supercomputer would have to link up surveillance, with the possibility that a quarter of a million objects could be aloft at one time. The computers would have to operate, I am informed by those who know, at between 10 million and a billion floating point operations per second. It is reckoned that the software would need to contain between 10 million and 100 million lines of error-free code.
The Pentagon's present Worldwide Military Command and Control System has 10 million lines of code. It has been plagued with errors, and it has been reckoned that 62 per cent. of all messages failed to get through. Errors are very common. IBM's 370 computer software contained 5,000 errors when it first came out. Whether it is possible to build super-computers which would oversee all that is involved in
974
surveillance, in distinguishing genuine nuclear missiles from decoys, in targeting lasers or rail-guns at more than 1,000 missiles, including MIRVED missiles at different layers of their flight, whether it is possible to allow for human intervention and also be sufficiently flexible to enable the system to continue if many of the terminals go out of action—whether such supercomputers can ever be made I am not in a position to know. Billions of dollars are being spent on their research. What is clear is that, if they can be constructed, we shall have a kind of anti-ballistic missile defence that is full of risk, untested in war-like conditions against the USSR, wide open to the possibility of error with automatic operation and the minimal of human control.
As we pass from research to development, from development to procurement, from procurement to deployment, at each step we are involved in greater breaches of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, unless of course we have given six months' notice of withdrawal—I should say not "we", but our ally. What is more, the risk vastly increases; the risk of technology untried and untested in the circumstances of war. Way back in 1977 the Council for Science and Society published the result of its work on The Acceptability of Risks. It concluded that, as there are no objective ways of deciding the acceptability of a risk in the public interest, it was better to concentrate on the fairness of a decision about a risk rather than the acceptability of the risk itself.
This is where we find ourselves in very deep trouble. In this country we have decided to participate in research for SDI, although our "Strategic Defence Initiative Office" at the Ministry of Defence is likely only to pick up the fragments which fall from the rich man's table. As a country, we are not likely to benefit in terms of security, first, because an SDI umbrella would not extend over this country; secondly, because under Article 9 each party to the agreement bound itself not to transfer to other states nor to deploy outside its national territory ABM systems or their components limited by the treaty.
We have not been consulted about the risks involved in SDI research and development; in charges of breach of the treaty; in the instability that would ensue if SDI were to be successful; in starting an SDI race as well as an arms race; if SDI were actually tried out under conditions of warfare; in laser beams being used not just against nuclear missiles but to incinerate enemy cities; and about the risks involved for the whole world, including the developing world, if billions of dollars badly needed for basic human needs are squandered on what seems a mistaken and dangerous exercise.
If the public knew the facts, I do not believe that they would be prepared to entrust their destiny to a computer network known not to be free from errors in its software. There is a moral question here: how far is it right to continue to support an ally—a generous ally on whose defence we rely—in an undertaking that, by moral reasoning, to say nothing of strategic analysis and technological appraisal, seems fundamentally wrong-headed? When the noble Lord the Minister answers, I hope very much that he will address himself

975
to the moral aspects of the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as well as to its strategic and technical aspects.
9.1 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this subject again. As I said in the noble Lord's previous SDI debate in May of last year, I am not only in favour of the United States going ahead with SDI research—and I emphasise the word "research"—but consider it essential. I shall not repeat what I said then about military space systems and about the views of Dr. Geoffrey Pardoe, so well deployed in his book The Future of Space Technology. As I have said before, this is a case where perhaps I know either too much or too little. However, I believe it is timely to remind ourselves of one or two features surrounding this question.
SDI is indeed an initiative: an initiative to engage in a wide range of research to explore whether it is technically, economically and logistically practicable to deploy an array of complex orbital battle stations with a capability to destroy other spacecraft or, even more difficult, a salvo of enemy ballistic missiles. But with reference to the noble Lord's specific Question, I would say this. Until we know the nature of the problems and the possible solutions, it is impossible to presume that we shall procure and deploy operational systems. As the ABM agreements do not preclude research, the question of contravention can in my view only arise should the research lead to possible deployment of new defence systems—and we are many steps away from that position.
As my noble friend Lady Young said in last May's debate, the whole point of the SDI research programme is to establish whether advances are possible that would make reliance on defence systems a feasible option. There is great confusion in some minds on this issue of the SDI. First, much of the technology—data handling, opto-electronics, etc—has nothing to do with space. It happens to be needed to work in a spacecraft environment if we do get around to needing it.
Secondly, the range of stimulating SDI research is very wide and much is relevant in the non-space defence field—as I shall mention later—and, indeed, elsewhere in the civil domain. He who appreciates where the technology applications are valid is indeed in a very strong cost-benefit situation.
As I have said before, we must pursue the research phase of SDI, and this will require research and demonstration in the space environment. We shall need launchers of both expendable and recoverable types in order to get there. At this poiint—and unlike the right reverend Prelate in his very eloquent speech—may I take this opportunity of expressing the deepest sympathy for all in the United States who, professionally and personally, have suffered so traumatically from the recent shuttle disaster.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, it says very much for the care and safety-consciousness of NASA and its contractors that in 25 years, those are the first deaths to occur in space in a United States space mission. As this week's Economist points out, compared with the number of deaths in the first 25 years of pioneering aviation, that is a safer record than anyone had a right to expect. I support totally the views expressed by President Reagan that we must all continue to move forward in the field of space endeavour, in spite of that disaster. Indeed, I am glad to read in this evening's Standard that the shuttle may fly again by the summer.
Man must go on exploring, not only this planet but also the universe itself. We must be grateful to those pioneers who will enable us to know whether SDI will provide us with more security in future years. Nor must we forget, as I mentioned earlier, the several spin-offs and how the shuttle has, in the words of Christopher Thomas in The Times of 30th January, made life on earth better, whether in helping farmers or those employed in medical research, in genetics, in the growing of proteins, or in the study of viruses.
As Christopher Thomas says, the commercial potential of the shuttle seems limitless, especially in so far as developing tougher materials is concerned and the production of microscopic latex spheres which measure everything from blood cells to ingredients in cosmetics. As we know, the satellite communications business is booming; worth 3 billion dollars last year whereas 10 years ago it hardly existed. Moreover, as George Shultz, the American Secretary of State, said to the Pilgrims on 10th December:
"the revolution in technology is already under way; and prudence clearly requires that we examine all new possibilities. Certainly the Soviets are doing so. Technology does not stop; history does not stop; the balance of power keeps changing its form".
All of us who care about avoiding war and preserving peace must adapt our thinking to new conditions, especially when the new conditions offer a hopeful opportunity and a positive vision of a safer future.
SDI is going to happen anyway, whether we approve or disapprove, and I believe that as a country it is far better for us to participate than to be left out in the cold. At the same time, I should be interested in the views of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on EUREKA, which is the European Community's own independent space defence initiative, and how far we are now participating in it. I believe we are participating in EUREKA as well as in the American space defence initiative.
I will not repeat what I said on this subject in May last but I shall be interested to hear whether my noble friend has anything to add to what my noble friend Lady Young said on that occasion. But, in so far as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is concerned, as I said earlier it is impossible to presume that we shall procure and deploy operational systems and ABM agreements do not preclude research.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not find myself able to follow the noble Earl very far down the road which he treads in this matter.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I was not expecting it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl was not expecting me to do so and I am glad of that because if I were to do so it would only be at the risk of fracturing a friendship which I have grown to value; therefore, I shall not pursue it very far.
However, I agree with the noble Earl on one aspect; that is, all of us whatever our views cannot but be shaken and sorrowful about the disaster which overtook "Challenger" and its crew. We cannot refrain from having the most profound sympathy, particularly for the relatives of all of them. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
First I should like to join in the appreciation which has been uttered to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this matter once again. It is a matter of profound importance and we have not made an awful lot of progress on it. Therefore, it is right while we have a deep disagreement and feeling that the Government have not grasped the reality of the matter that we should continue to question it; and that, of course, is what we are here to do.
I was particularly glad to hear from the right reverend Prelate, because his presence introduced into the subject a moral note which I believe has been sadly lacking from these debates. We have been proceeding on the assumption that this is a weapon like any other weapon. It is not. It is a profoundly different change in the possibilities before mankind, and the impossibilities before mankind. If we do not recognise that fact we may fall into the trap which the noble Earl indicated when he expressed the view that because we know how to do something we must go ahead and do it. We have reached the point when we must know that there are some things which we must not do, and we are now at that point.
The star wars idea has wide appeal in the United States but in most of the rest of the world it has gone down like a lead balloon. The distribution of opinion in this House probably reflects roughly the distribution of opinion in the country. I think the people of this country are not in favour of it. What I have seen of the opinion polls on the subject seems to support that view. The strategic defence initiative was named star wars by the President himself, who has that optimistic naiveté which is such an attractive—
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way, may I ask him on what possible authority he states that President Reagan called his programme star wars? It is a designation which he loathes and in fact it was invented by a headline writer on one of the American national newspapers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right, but my information was that it was tossed off first by President Reagan and picked up by the headline writer. I do not think it matters very much. It is not very important, but if the noble Lord thinks it is important I shall certainly attribute it to the
978
headline writer rather than to President Reagan. Whether or not he actually coined or adopted the name, the whole star wars attitude and the acceptance of the proposition that it is possible to erect a cover over the United States to preserve its people is typical, I think, of what I call an attractive and peculiarly American characteristic. It is a characteristic which has often led them to total disaster in the past and will lead them to ultimate disaster if they proceed with it at this point. As the noble Earl has said, the most recent catastrophe was the tragic loss of the spacecraft and its crew. I think it is a loss which those of us who feel that "Challenger" was flung into space by the Pentagon because of its SDI links find a horrible and senseless waste of valuable lives.
A year ago our Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, greeted the SDI announcement with proper scepticism. He seemed somewhat less confident about the matter than the Minister who will reply to the debate. However, nothing has happened since a year ago which seems to be a cause for increased confidence. I should have thought, on the contrary, that if one had any confidence a year ago one would have rather less confidence now. Therefore, I am surprised to hear that the noble Lord believes that star wars can work. Indeed, if it were to work I am not at all sure that it would not be worse than if it did not work.
Sir Geoffrey Howe asked a number of questions, and none of those questions seems to me to have been answered. He asked if it would work and what would be its impact on the Soviet Union. Some of the answers are becoming clear. We are beginning to know what is the impact on the Soviet Union—and some noble Lords may say, "Well, they are putting forward all kinds of peace proposals and therefore it has been a good impact". But, of course, simultaneously with those proposals which they are putting forward, as a cautious nation they, too, are beginning to step up the kind of development which is now being pressed on with in the United States.
I fear that this will not prove to be a peace umbrella but is likely to lead to the destruction of our civilisation by precipitating a nuclear war. As Sir Geoffrey Howe said:
"Even if the ballistic missile indeed showed signs of becoming, in President Reagan's words, impotent and obsolete, how would protection be extended against the non-ballistic nuclear threat, the threat posed by aircraft or cruise missiles, battlefield weapons or, in the last resort, by covert action …?"
Again he said:
"If it initially proved feasible to construct only limited defences, these would be bound to be more vulnerable than a comprehensive system to counter-measures. Would these holes in the dyke produce and even encourage a nuclear flood …?"
So the Foreign Secretary a year ago was saying in effect what I have said, in rather blunter words perhaps, tonight: that this development, instead of leading toward peace and protection, may render nuclear war more likely. That is not my opinion, but the Foreign Secretary speaking.
Leaving the Foreign Secretary on one side for a moment, it is generally accepted that multiplying offensive systems would be far cheaper than producing effective defences. Therefore we must surely expect to see a large expansion of offensive systems on both

979
sides. This expansion will be undertaken in the hope of maintaining retaliatory capability—that is, strategic stability through mutually assured destruction—while the development is taking place. Yet further expansion of new weapons and the associated command, communications, control and intelligence systems will lead many people to wonder if stability is in fact being lost rather than gained in the process. That is one of the dangers, and it is the immediate danger.
Hence the force of another of Sir Geoffrey's questions, the true strength of which did not seem to be fully recognised at the time either by the members of his Government or by those of us who were surprised to find that he was taking a sceptical view of the new idea. He said:
"Finally on the technology side, could we be certain that the new systems would permit adequate political control over both nuclear weapons and defensive systems, or might we find ourselves in a situation where the peace of the world rested solely upon computers and automatic decision-making?"
What have we been saying here today; what has the right reverend Prelate been saying, and what has the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, been saying? It is precisely that. Because it was said a year ago by none other than the Foreign Secretary, that does not invalidate what we are saying tonight; it strengthens it, and what we are saying strengthens what he was saying a year ago.
What has happened to him in that year? Let us hope that we shall hear from him. In this dreadful situation there is a natural disagreement between those responsible for defence and those responsible for foreign policy. It happens in the United States. We know that the hawks are located in the Defense Department and the doves, in so far as there are any, in the State Department. The same applies in our society: the Ministry of Defence is hawkish and the doves, so far as we have them, are in the Foreign Office. That perhaps should not surprise us.
Here is the problem that faces us. I turn from the Foreign Secretary to something said by Dr. Julie Dahlitz, who is a considerable expert in the international significance of weapons and the consequence of national treaties. She points out that most of the significant treaties relating to outer space are being observed, and that SALT II is being observed by the United States, even though it did not ratify it. There has been no complaint on either side about breach. She says that the outer space treaty, the ABM treaty, the partial test-ban treaty, the SALT I treaty, the SALT II treaty, the convention on the registration of outer space objects, the international telecommunications convention, the hot line modernization agreement and the nuclear accidents agreement have for several years all been observed on both sides and there has been no complaint on either side about non-observation.
Dr. Dahlitz takes the view that the arrival of SDI would break through that situation because the Americans have declared openly that they intend, if necessary, to breach the ABM treaty. It may be doubted whether we have chapter and verse for that contention, but we have. Secretary Weinberger was asked in Congress by Congressman Dicks:
"At what point do you envision working on SDI coming into conflict with the terms of the ABM treaty?"
980
This was his answer:
"we … have the right to withdraw from that treaty unilaterally after 6 months' notice so as to enable us to proceed along the lines the scientists would be requesting".
So Secretary Weinberger already foresees denouncing the ABM treaty if developments make it scientifically necessary to proceed with Star Wars and to do so.
It is not too happy a situation. The conclusion that Dr. Dahlitz draws is that,
"SDI is inconsistent with the objectives of the ABM treaty and its implementation would be in breach of specific provisions of that treaty".
That is absolutely the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is raising in this Question. The object of that treaty was and is to maintain conditions of stable deterrence until disarmament can be achieved. If we go ahead on a basis that calls into question the existing agreements, we are undermining the branch on which we sit; and we may—and I fear would—live to regret it.
We should also, I believe, consider that the Soviet Union has recently put forward a series of quite staggering proposals. I wish to quote in conclusion a short paragraph from the long speech that Mr. Gorbachev made on 15th January. I believe that most of us would agree with it. He said this:
"Instead of spending the next 10 to 15 years in developing new space weapons, which are extremely dangerous for mankind, weapons allegedly designed to make nuclear arms unnecessary, would it not be more sensible to start eliminating those weapons and finally doing away with them altogether? The Soviet Union, I repeat, proposes precisely that".
9.26 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, once again, thanks to my noble friend Lord Kennet, we have the opportunity of considering the disastrous star wars project, launched some three years ago by a no doubt idealistic President of the United States, largely on the advice of the so-called father of the hydrogen bomb, the violently anti-Soviet Doctor Edward Teller. The project is also enthusiastically supported, on purely political grounds so far as we can see, by those mostly West Coast Republicans who are keen, above all, on heavy United States nuclear rearmament and who rightly see in it the possibility of scuppering the arms limitation talks at Geneva and the consequent abandonment of the proven doctrine of mutual assured destruction in favour of the so-called doctrine of mutual assured security, which, as I have said repeatedly in this House, affords no security for anyone except possibly the Americans and very doubtfully even for them.
On the actual practicability of the project, apart from its political implications, my honourable friend Mr. Paddy Ashdown, lately of the Foreign Service and the Royal Marines, has recently undertaken some research. I should like to refer to a number of his findings. Each of the SDI's three-layer operations to destroy missiles, first, as they boost out of the atmosphere, then, in mid-course flight and, finally, as they fall towards their target, will have to work perfectly first time and with flawless co-ordination—in itself something that is very difficult if not impossible to imagine.
Then, according to the initial calculations of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the

981
most reputable, I believe, of all the great American scientific institutions, chemical lasers to perform the first, or booster, defence would require the pre-positioning in space of 1,300 tonnes of fuel in a series of battle stations which would, it says, take 10 space shuttles making three trips a year, 3,000 or 4,000 years to assemble. Alternatively, using ground based lasers and mirrors in space to do the job would require up to 60 per cent. of total United States domestic power output. In any case, protection in the mid-course phase would, so the MIT says, necessitate what it calls cryogenically cooled instruments—whatever those may be, although they could, I suppose, be called super cooled instruments—many times more sensitive than any that we have at present. Studies indicate that for every 10,000 objects to be coped with in this layer, the United States would need 70,000 devices for effective interception.
Finally, we shall have to assume, apparently—the point has already been made, I believe, by one or two noble Lords—that computers capable of effective command and control of the massive and complex interlocking system can be built despite the fact that we shall require them to be, some say, several million times more effective than today's versions and faultless at first-time operation without any kind of practical testing.
I shall be interested to know whether the Government think that there may be something in these conclusions. If, as I suspect, the noble Lord who is to wind up cannot comment on them, perhaps I could have his comments later in writing.
Never mind. Let us still assume, for the purpose of the argument, that sufficient progress may have been made in the next five or 10 years—as I think was mentioned—as a result of the research costing perhaps some hundreds of billions of dollars, to make it possible that an ABM space system covering the United States, although not necessarily Europe, could successfully be "deployed"—as they say—as the result of an operation which, I imagine, would in itself take a few more years to carry out.
What then? All would be well. We need not have any apprehensions, so President Reagan tells Mrs. Thatcher at their famous meeting in Camp David. Before "deployment" the Americans, in accordance with the ABM treaty of 1972, would negotiate with the Russians presumably with the object of getting the Politburo to agree to the establishment of what would be represented as a purely defensive "shield". It has even been suggested—rather later I think—that if the Russians would agree to this they might be assisted in constructing—at their own expense of course—a rather similar shield in order to give similar protection to the Soviet Union.
Surely this is driving fantasy too far. Are we to suppose, having got to the point at which they might be able to prevent Soviet missiles from hitting the United States, that the Americans would then only deploy this marvellous system with the consent of the Russians? It certainly looks as if—short of an actual denunciation of the ABM Treaty of 1972 at six months' notice on the grounds under the treaty that for
982
some reason it may prejudice the supreme national interests of the United States—this would be the only legal way of proceeding. But it has now been made abundantly clear by the Administration that they could in no circumstances be subjected to what they call a Russian veto in these negotiations—that is to say, a refusal by the Russians to agree. They could, therefore, as we must assume, go ahead, treaty or no treaty, whatever the Russians might say. Naturally they have every reason to suppose that they would.
Indeed, how could Congress, after having voted such vast sums on a project within sight of success, agree to its being indefinitely held up by Russian insistence? Whatever we may think of Soviet intentions we must at least admit that the Russians have every reason to fear the accomplishment of the SDI project and to seek to prevent its development by all means in their power. Obviously, if it ever did materialise the Americans would have the capability of bombing them while they would no doubt not have the capability of bombing the Americans.
There are indeed, as I have said, strong reasons for supposing that it can never materialise at all. But the Russians can hardly fail—given the firm assurances to the contrary of Doctor Teller and many other top scientists working with him—to act on the assumption that it might work. What then can they do? It seems that there are three possible courses of action, all or any of which might be adopted. They can, and they no doubt will, refuse to conclude any deal on arms limitation until the SDI project is either withdrawn or substantially modified. I say "either wihdrawn or substantially modified": they could not and, in the absence of some such agreement, they no doubt would not, reduce the numbers of their very powerful strategic missiles but, on the contrary, would greatly increase them so as to counter any perceived threat by SDI. Or they could endeavour to make progress on a star wars project of their own.
The first two of these possibilities would seem to be almost inevitable in the circumstances contemplated. The last is very probably out of the question. Given the vast sums involved and the consequent strain on the Soviet economy, together with the faint hope of any real success, there is very little reason to suppose that that course would be followed. Alleged evidence that the Russians are even now contemplating it must, I suggest, be taken with a large grain of salt. Most of such evidence is based on Soviet efforts to reinforce a land-based ABM system, which of course is permitted by the treaty of 1972. The phased array radar station at Krasnoyarsk and perhaps elsewhere is probably a violation of the treaty, but perhaps not. In any case there is no particular reason for us to be very afraid of it.
The Americans, after all, now possess a perfectly reliable second strike capacity and there is every reason to suppose that, with their existing huge programme of nuclear rearmament, they will be able, even given agreement on arms limitation, to maintain this second strike capacity for many years to come. Suggestions that the Soviet Union might contemplate a first strike against America are chiefly put about by those who have an interest in doing so. Only if they thought that star wars would really become a reality

983
might the Russians contemplate such absurd action as a first strike against America.
To sum up an argument necessarily briefly developed—one cannot do any more here—perhaps I may say that there is strong reason to suppose both that the SDI project is ultimately doomed and that it must be a gravely destabilising factor. As I see it, the real danger is that persistence in its pursuit may endanger the continuance of the North Atlantic Alliance, on the maintenance of which most people in this country believe that our safety and our independence primarily depend.
I do not say now, but in some years' time, if progress in Geneva is seen to be held up by insistence on the star wars programme, there may be governments in Western Europe which no longer want to be "protected" by the United States nuclear umbrella, and may prefer—no doubt fatally, I agree—to come to some arrangement with the Soviet Union. I would ask the Government to tell us whether they feel there may be something in these gloomy apprehensions, but perhaps it has never occurred to them that there might be.
I have spoken for too long already, but my final remark is that, apart from the so-called "tough guys" in America—the Californians and no doubt the born-again Christians—there are I believe a very large number of Americans, more particularly on the East Coast, who are alarmed—indeed highly alarmed—by the apparent attempt, favoured by the distribution of a great deal of money to a great many people, either to get back to the position of power which the United States enjoyed when it had the monopoly of the atom bomb or, failing that, to establish a kind of "fortress America", the inhabitants of which could lead peaceful lives untroubled by the wicked world outside. The prospects raised by star wars are every bit as serious as that.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to beg the indulgence of the House at the beginning of my remarks on two counts. The first is that I fear my speech may be slightly longer than would seem apropriate for someone speaking from the Back-Benches late at night on an Unstarred Question. The second is that what I have to say may be somewhat tedious and technical in content.
My justification for both these factors is that up to now it seems to me that the public debate on the strategic defence initiative has been long on rhetoric and dogma but a little short on fact and reasoned analysis. If I may say so with respect, I believe that the debate in your Lordships' House tonight has sometimes suffered from this defect. Not much of it dealt with the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the ABM treaty, which I understood to be one of the major reasons for this Question being tabled in the first place. One or two speakers have referred to it, but for the most part we have had the familiar arguments about technical feasibility, about the effectiveness of the SDI as against mutual assured destruction and second strike capability; we had many references to Soviet arms control proposals, but only
984
on one or two occasions were we brought to address the problem of the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. We had suggestions that the x-ray laser lies at the heart of the strategic defence initiative programme. It does nothing of the kind. It is one of the possible elements in the programme. It certainly does not lie at the heart of it, and it certainly does not for one moment decide whether it shall be successful or unsuccessful.
We had a suggestion that we should take note of the idea that the SDI places a dome over the Soviet Union. It was suggested that the aim of the SDI was to do precisely this. Of course it is not. In any concept of strategic defence as at present envisaged only some 25 per cent. of Soviet missiles would be expected to be destroyed in the boost phase. The rest would be destroyed in the mid-course phase and the re-entry phase, which are not over the Soviet Union but in space over the United States of America.
We had a suggestion that it was obvious that to improve offensive capabilities was going to be cheaper and easier than improving defensive capabilities. That is not necessarily so. It is an interesting statement of opinion and one which can be countered with exactly the opposite statement of opinion, and that has been done on many occasions.
Before I go on to the substance of my remarks, I should like to refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. When he began I must confess that I looked forward to some moral guidance on what is an extremely painful and difficult issue. I looked for it in vain. I fear that what we got from the right reverend Prelate was a rehearsal of all the familiar arguments which have been deployed against the strategic defence initiative in the technical and political field for at least the last two years. There was not one new argument there even on that basis, but for me at any rate there was certainly not a great deal of spiritual or moral guidance.
May I, again with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, tell him that it was with great sorrow that I heard him, of all people, refer to the tragedy of the "Challenger" space mission as "a blessing in disguise". The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, went on to refer to it as a "senseless waste". I would suggest that we might send from your Lordships' House messages a little more considerate and compassionate than those to the Government of the United States of America and its people.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I suspect that the noble Lord has not read, or considered, either the whole of what I said on that point or the whole of what the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that may well be so as I have as yet read nothing of what either the noble Lord or the right reverend Prelate has said. I shall do so with great interest tomorrow morning. If I find I am wrong I shall at once apologise. I somehow suspect that I shall find myself right.

985
I have two qualifications, I think, for putting before your Lordships what I think may be some of the factual background to this somewhat passionate and rhetorical debate. The first is that I have recently completed a book on the strategic defence initiative. I lay no claim for any special merit in that book. I simply say that in preparing it I have had to engage in conversations with hundreds of officials on the subject and studied, I dare say, thousands of official papers.
My second qualification for addressing the subject of the ABM treaty which, as I say, I thought was to be at the heart of our debate tonight, is that in the period leading up to the signature of the treaty in May 1972 I was, for six years, Minister of State in the Government responsible for arms control and disarmament and head of the British delegation in Geneva.
I am not suggesting for one moment that I had any direct part in the negotiations. They were, of course, bilateral negotiations. I was, however, in constant touch with the arms contol communities on both sides during this crucial period, and I was able to get some idea of what their negotiating aims and positions were. As I shall try to point out, that is an important factor in analysing this complicated issue.
We should first and principally consider some of the facts. I apologise that some of these are tedious repetition, but I believe that they need to appear in the Official Report of this House where they can be seen and studied.
The ABM treaty consists of 16 articles and a number of what are called agreed statements. For the purpose of examining the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the ABM treaty, four articles and one of the agreed statements are especially relevant: Articles II, III, V, and VII and Agreed Statement D. The right reverend Prelate quoted only one part of one article, clause 1 of Article V, but there are other clauses which are equally and perhaps in some respects more relevant. Let me first quote Clause I(A) of Article II which is vital in that it defines for the purpose of the treaty an ABM system. I propose, with the indulgence of the House, to read it:
"For the purpose of this Treaty an ABM system is a system to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, currently consisting of: (a) ABM interceptor missiles"—
which are then defined—
"(b) ABM launchers"—
which are then defined—
"(c) ABM radars"—
which are then defined. It is important that those who wish to engage in this argument should study that article and definitions very carefully, since it can be argued that any system not covered by the definition is not covered by the treaty. That is my first point.
Under Article III each party to the treaty "undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components" except for a limited number of ground-based systems on each side.
Article V, which in my view is the key operative article of the treaty, makes the following provision; and it was Clause 1 of that article which was quoted by the right reverend Prelate:
986
"Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based".
In other words, the deployment of space-based defence systems is forbidden by Clause I of Article V. But the important point to note in the force of this argument is that research is not prohibited, largely because the negotiators in the conference at the time recognised that it would be quite impossible to enforce any such provision.
I will mention Article VII—although I shall not return to it—because it is an important article in the treaty. It reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this Treaty, modernisation and replacement of ABM systems or their components may be carried out".
That is a very important permissive provision.
Finally I want to quote, again in full, because it is most important in the context of public debate, Section D of the agreed statement, that is to say the section that is referred to as Agreed Statement D:
"In order to insure fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components except as provided in Article III of the Treaty, the parties agree"—
this is crucial to the argument—
"that in the event of ABM systems based on other physical principles and including components capable of substituting for ABM intercepter missiles, ABM launchers or ABM radars"—
in the event that ABM systems based on these physical principles
"are created in the future, specific limitations on such systems and their components would be subject to discussion in accordance with Articles XIII and XIV of the Treaty".
And Articles XIII and XIV deal with the possibility of amending the treaty by a special consultative commission.
A number of very important implications flow from these provisions. One is (and I think it is worth repeating) that research is recognised as being different from and distinguishable from development and deployment. It may be argued, as it has been here tonight and many times before, that research has some inbuilt momentum which will inevitably lead to development and deployment. That is a subjective, political, personal judgment and is not a fact. The fact is that research into space-based systems, which is what is going on in the USA at the moment, is permitted by the treaty. Development and deployment are not.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am listening with the greatest interest to the noble Lord's lengthy exposition of the fact that the ABM treaty permits research. Can he, as a matter of fact, tell the House of any Member of this House who has said the contrary, or indeed of any reputable opponent of SDI outside the House who has said the contrary?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I could quote several cases of people saying that research is forbidden under the terms of the treaty because it will inevitably lead to development and deployment; and there are those who have suggested—and I do not say that the noble Lord has done so, but he asked the question—that the experimental research going on at the moment in the

987
United States itself is in breach of the treaty. I shall endeavour to show before I sit down that that it not so.
As I said, development and deployment are not permitted by the treaty. But development and deployment of what? Some eminent legal authorities—and of course we can all quote our own legal authorities—suggest that agreed Statement D allows ABM systems based on other physical principles, etc., to be deployed subject to discussion between signatories of the treaty. In other words, I am going on to suggest that not only is research permitted by the treaty but there is a very strong argument under agreed Statement D that development and deployment might be subject to discussion between the signatories to the treaty.
Of course the strategic defence initiative specifically envisages the kind of exotic technologies which are not covered in Article II of the treaty but are covered by agreed Statement D.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it surely means that one side cannot go ahead without the permission of the other.
Lord Chalfont: Precisely, my Lords. Of course it does. The United States President has made clear (as I shall make clear again in a moment if the House will be patient for a short while longer) that he will not proceed to development and deployment without such discussion.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it has now been said that in no circumstances will the American Administration subject themselves to a Russian veto in such discussions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I will quote some facts to him which will make it clear, I think, that the United States takes a very restrictive view of the treaty and has said so. If the noble Lord will contain himself in patience for a moment, I will come to that point.
There are other experts who claim—and I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would be on their side—that the combined effect of Articles II and III is to prohibit the development of any space-based system designed to intercept strategic missiles in flight and that it is perverse to suggest that an agreed statement appended to a treaty can invalidate the intent of one of the principal articles of that treaty. Those are the two interpretations of the treaty, generally known as broad and narrow interpretations of the treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would say that I maintain that the treaty would prevent the development of exotic (as he calls them) new systems based on other principles in the absence of an agreement between the two signatories under the procedure laid down in agreed Statement D.
Lord Chalfont: Yes, precisely, my Lords. We are at one on this. I do not contest this with the noble Lord for one moment. What I am saying—and he will know, I hope—is that Articles 13 and 14 of the treaty provide for the treaty to be amended under a special Standing Consultative Commission and that, if the
988
two signatories of the treaty get together, they can interpret agreed statement D under the terms of Articles 13 and 14. Of course, it would be against the provisions of the treaty, clearly, if the United States were to proceed with development and deployment without such consultation. I do not contest that for one moment, but in a moment I will explain why I do not think that that is in the least likely.
I had wanted to say a little about what it was that the negotiators of the treaty were attempting to negotiate. I have not now time to do that, as an already long speech has been further lengthened by a series of interruptions. But I should like to pass on vey quickly to deal with the point about the "narrow" and "broad" conceptions of the treaty. It is that all these arguments have been to a very great extent resolved in the United States of America. It is true that in October last year, just before the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, Mr. Robert MacFarlane, President Reagan's national security adviser, announced that the Administration favoured the "broad" interpretation of the treaty, according to which the testing and deployment of star wars systems would be permitted. This is the development to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has been referring. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said, Secretary Weinberger stated as a fact, not as a statement of intention, that the United States has the right to withdraw from the treaty, to abrogate it.
But what has received considerably less publicity, and certainly has received none in your Lordships' House tonight, is that within a matter of days after those two statements President Reagan had signed a new National Security Decision Directive making it specifically clear that, while the Administration accepted that there might be more flexible interpretations of the treaty, it, the Administration, would conduct the strategic defence research programme according to the narrower, more restrictive, interpretation. In other words, as he assured the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister at their meeting last year, this is a research programme only; and both the United States Department of Defense and the Strategic Defense Initiative Office are required by law to ensure that all their programmes comply not only with the ABM treaty but with all existing arms control agreements. The strategic defence research programme at present envisages 15 major experiments. Every single one complies fully with the requirements of the ABM treaty of 1972—and they do not, perhaps I may say in parenthesis, include experiments with X-ray lasers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that we should return to this subject as often as possible. My own plea would be for a period of discreet silence on the subject of the strategic defence initiative. It is progressing very well, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said. No amount of argument on this side of the Atlantic, even if it were to be ever so profound and informed, is likely to stand in its way. What we can do is to take a full and constructive part in it. In that way, we might be able to exert some influence if the Americans show any signs whatsoever of behaving dangerously or irresponsibly. So far there is no evidence to suggest that they are likely to do so.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time I have appreciated and respected all the contributions in this debate. We are something of a repertory company. We not only know our own lines but other participants' lines as well. I very much appreciated the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. I immediately join in the oft expressed sorrow and regret at the horrendous tragedy which befell the "Challenger", her crew and the American people last week. It was a price no one should be expected to pay, and I mourn the loss of all the human lives and everything else that was concerned.
As we frequently are, tonight we are once more indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for using the procedures of this House to focus our attention on this most important area of national concern—nay, international concern. Earlier tonight the noble Lord reminded us that he has done so on six occasions. There are those of us who could quite cheerfully debate and discuss other highly contentious matters not far removed from defence procurement, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is among them. But he has shown persistently over a long period that in the realm of defence matters an understanding if not a resolution of unanswered questions relating to SDI properly should appear on our agenda. It is not only an occasion to ask questions but for the Minister to come to the House to face this and related questions.
If not on trial at least equally under scrutiny in this debate is the whole raison d'être of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a matter that quite properly took up a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had to tell us.
Perhaps one of the major achievements of the 1970s arms control negotiations, the ABM treaty was signed in 1972 and has been a source of controversy not least since the escalation of the SDI programme by the American Government. Born out of a genuine search for arms control, what we are about tonight is trying to reconcile some awkward questions which flow from an examination of ABM and SDI. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has gone some way to answering some of them in his speech tonight. The treaty did not come easy. It took three years of difficult negotiations during the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (the SALT talks) 14 years ago, and even then there were doubts. In retrospect it was ambitious. It bans a territorial ABM defence and permits the development, testing and deployment of fixed ground-based ABM radars. The development, testing or deployment of sea-based, air-based, or mobile land-based systems or of components for such systems is prohibited. As a number of noble Lords have said, research, however, is not restrained in any way.
Over that 14-year period great strides have been made in many areas relevant to ballistic missile defence, including advances in sensors, microelectronics and data processing. A factor emerging in later years has undoubtedly been a sense that strategic defences can be provided—developed—which are not only effective but are less costly. The SDI sets out to research the feasibility of new defence technologies.
990
That, of itself, cannot be bad, but we run into trouble when we face up to the reality of trust—or not—of suspicion, of an ability to work for the common purpose of global peace and security.
What we are about tonight is testing the uncertainties and distrusts which are now in the open arising from the diversions (the interpretations or reinterpretations) from the words of the ABM treaty. Equally we have to be clear as to the background and the understandings. Research, as I have shown, is not part of the ban, for the very good reason that both the United States and Soviet Union at the time and since have recognised that it would be impossible to devise effective or verifiable limits or bans on research. The Soviet Union is clearly on record as acknowledging this, perhaps for the very good reason that for years it has spent legitimately great effort and resources to research into new technologies, including high energy laser and particle beam weapons. The ABM treaty allowed each side freely to engage in research. Both are doing just that.
What, then, is the problem? It is posed in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tonight—not least in the light of the statements made by Mr. Weinberger when he recently proposed a new interpretation of the ABM treaty that will permit testing and development as well as research.
There are two ways of looking at the SDI: first, to consider the threat that it poses to international stability and the potential for an escalation of the arms race; secondly, to consider the commercial value of the SDI to participating nations. The actions of the British Government, of course, are not only important but are of especial importance to this House, and are central to this debate. In that context, the memorandum signed by Her Majesty's Government with the United States last year must play a part in our deliberations.
Complete openness in matters of national security is not always possible or desirable, but we have been especially badly served in respect of that memorandum, which is, in all respects, a secret agreement of doubtful value to Britain. The suspicion will not go away that it is flawed, one-sided and not in the best national interest. That fear includes the suspicion that there will be a one-way traffic from Europe, and especially from Britain, across the Atlantic of our best brains, and the near certainty that we will gain nothing of significance out of it.
The Government have claimed that that agreement is much better than previous agreements with the United States on defence procurement, intelligence and other nuclear matters. There is a certain naïveté in believing that British research bodies will be given non-discriminatory access to the right to tender for research contracts. In a major speech to a subcommittee of the House of Representatives on 10th December last year entitled Barriers to European Participation in the SDI, John Pike, the associate director for space policy, said:
"During the course of recent negotiations the U S refused a British request for a commitment of 1·5 billion dollars for British companies, saying only that the level of participation would be

991
substantial. This American reluctance is quite understandable since the actual amount of money that British companies are likely to receive will probably be only a fraction of the requested amount".
That address was most illuminating. It listed six barriers to European—not only British—participation in the SDI research programme. Of a total of 30 billion dollars, only 1 billion is available, with conpetition—and that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—leaving 29 billion not available for Euro-competition.
I believe that it is still not too late for major reflection upon the entire concept of the strategic defence initiative. It was Senator Edward Kennedy who last September said:
"The SDI may yet turn out to be an expensive way to make arms control reachable. To put it another way, is a trillion dollar weapons programme the best way to arrive at arms cuts?"
There has now been the long-awaited, successful meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. We can wonder whether the SDI research programme has not increased Russia's incentive to break out of the ABM treaty and deploy her own defence system before the Americans have theirs. I have seen the problem posed in this way. We should discourage the Soviet break-out by restraining SDI research, but a better way would be to revise and reaffirm the ABM treaty. If America allows that treaty to be eroded any further and then dicovers that the SDI is not "do-able"—that it does not work—then it could end up with the worst of all worlds: facing a Russian defence shield and strengthened Soviet attack with no arms treaty and no effective American defences.
We have to take on board not only what we ourselves think but what we are told by those in influential positions. It is less than three months ago that Robert MacFarlane, the Administration's national security adviser, announced a new interpretation of the ABM treaty. He said that not only was research into new weapons permitted by the treaty but so were testing and development. It was, however, George Shultz, the Secretary of State—a point made obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—who was quoted in the same report as persuading President Reagan to agree that for the time being America should stick to the traditional, narrower interpretation of the treaty.
The Administration has got itself into a contradictory position. On the one hand it is denouncing the Russians for violating the treaty and, on the other, it is suggesting that the treaty is in some respects meaningless. Yet Gerard Smith, who was the chief United States negotiator of the treaty in 1972, has denounced these reinterpretations. Last October he said that it had not been the intention that technology for space-based ABM systems could be developed or tested under the ABM treaty. He said:
"The new version of the treaty has drastic implications for the survival of the treaty and indeed of the whole arms control process".
I venture to say that even the Minister, and certainly many who have spoken earlier and who are here tonight, are genuinely agitated at the dangers that could exist arising from the opportunities for misunderstanding that exist. They have either been there all the time, from the beginning, or they are emerging and causing distress today.
992
My noble friend Lord Boston, speaking from the Labour Front Bench on 27th March last year, had this to say:
"But, my Lords, the question which has to be asked on research is: where does research end and development begin, let alone where does production, procurement or development begin? We need to be very clear indeed about this. There is no use in glossing over it or allowing ourselves to be swept beyond the point of research into something of substance. We need to be very clear about where research ends and something beyond it begins."—[Official Report, 27/3/85; col. 1132.]
That is the nub of the debate tonight. My noble friend returned to that theme in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 7th November.
The Prime Minister properly raised these misgivings, which are crucial and can have such catastrophic effects on what we all surely want—progress on arms control and, eventually, the total elimination of arms expenditure. I hope the House recognises that these are very serious questions which have been raised, primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and by others. It ought to include the Prime Minister. When she visited Washington a little more than 12 months ago she stressed that British support for the SDI was limited to research into its feasibility and that any SDI-related deployment would, in view of ABM treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Again, that point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I ask the Minister: what negotiations have taken place and what has been the outcome?
My noble friend Lord Jenkins referred to what at the time we all thought was a very sensible speech by the Foreign Secretary last year. In that speech he said that the first point to make was that this was a research programme, conducted in full conformity within the limits of the ABM treaty. But what should happen if and when decisions were required on moving from the research to the development stage? Therefore the noble Lord the Minister should welcome this debate, as I do, and the opportunity to review a little bit of recent history.
What I want to hear from the Minister is that we have cause for disquiet or that he can dispel our disquiet; that he shares the views we have expressed tonight; that the questions are legitimate and have to be answered. If Her Majesty's Government, over-mindful of what they fondly believe is a special relationship with the United States, are hesitant to raise these matters in critical terms with the United States Administration, he should be fortified by the tenor of our debate tonight. He should keep firmly fixed as central to our ambition the desperate need to reach agreement on arms control.
If the initiatives of the United States with the SDI are seen to jeopardise that goal, he will be serving the best interests of the peoples of the world, who yearn for world peace, and the special relationship by telling America to tread with the greatest possible care, to take Britain with it and above all to take the Soviet Union with it; for unless that happens we are condemned to many more sterile years of senseless arms expenditure while millions in the world starve.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is right to return to this important question.

993
We have debated the strategic defence initiative and its implications a number of times in this House, and I dare say we shall do so on many occasions in the future.
It is now almost three years since President Reagan's famous speech of March 1983 which launched the strategic defence initiative, and the research programme is now well established. SDI research is inquiring into a wide range of technologies and a number of different concepts. The US Administration has made it clear that its purpose is to identify ways to exploit recent advances in ballistic missile technologies that have potential for strengthening deterrence and thereby increasing US and Allied security. The programme is designed to answer a number of fundamental scientific and engineering questions that must be addressed before the potential of these technologies can be fully assessed. It is designed to provide to future leaders the technical knowledge necessary to support a decision in the 1990s on whether to develop and deploy advanced defensive systems.
There are a number of reasons why it is entirely right that the US should be conducting such a research programme. Not the least of them is the enormous extent of Soviet activities in these areas. As your Lordships may recall from the starred Question on this subject by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on the 21st January, the Soviet Union has mature research programmes under way in most of the fields relevant to a defence capability against ballistic missiles. They have had an extensive R & D programme into high energy lasers for over 20 years, employing more than 10,000 scientists and engineers. They have tested lasers which could have anti-satellite applications. There is a vigorous R & D programme into particle-beam weapons which could lead to a prototype space-based system in the 'nineties. They have research programmes into radio-frequency weapons, and kinetic energy weapons, including electro-magnetic rail-guns. They possess a launch detection system for US ICBMs and are improving their capabilities in this area; and they have eight space launch systems, with two more, including a heavy lift vehicle, in development.
It is also relevant that the Soviet Union has the only deployed ABM system in the world around Moscow, and it is currently being upgraded. When these are completed the Soviet system will consist of 100 static launchers sited around Moscow, which is the maximum permitted under the 1972 ABM treaty. These will provide a limited two-layer ABM defence capable of discriminating against all but the most elaborate penetration aids and capable of intercepting ballistic missiles both within the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere, the latter with nuclear tipped Galosh missiles. All this is supported by a chain of early warning, surveillance, target acquisition, tracking and missile control radars.
Your Lordships will be aware that I placed a fuller statement of the extent of Soviet activities in the Library of the House last December, but I think it is clear even from this brief account that the extent of Soviet activities in this area is massive by any standards. It would be folly indeed for the West to ignore them.
994
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about the relationship of SDI research to SDI procurement and deployment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an extremely full and helpful account of the state of Soviet research into these matters. He is as well aware as other Members of your Lordships' House that in the Pentagon's publications it has committed itself to the view that in the great majority of the relevant fields for SDI development the United States was ahead in 1983. Is he willing to make a judgment about the relative state of Soviet and American research in 1983 before the great new American programme started?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot give the sort of judgment that the noble Lord asks for, but clearly, if the Soviet programme was proceeding on the scale that I have indicated, it was right for the West to respond.
Lord Kennet: The noble Lord is patient, my Lords; but he has missed my point. Why was it right for the West to do any more if, as the Pentagon maintains, it was already ahead in 1983 or 1984?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact that one is ahead at a particular moment does not mean that one will stay ahead if the other side is conducting a research programme of the scale to which I have referred.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I feel that this exchange should not go on the record without at least a comment. What the Pentagon said in 1984 was that the United States was ahead in some technologies of space defence and that the Soviet Union was ahead in others. I think that we should be quite clear and quite accurate about these things.
Lord Kennet: I said "most", my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about the relationship of SDI research to SDI procurement and deployment. The SDI is a research programme. Decisions on possible moves at later stages of development and procurement will not arise for many years.
The United States view on this was made clear in a policy statement issued by the State Department in June last year. This stated that:
"The US is pursuing the broadly based SDI research programme in an objective manner. We have no preconceived notions about the outcome of the research programme. We do not anticipate that we will be in a position to approach any decision to proceed with development or deployment based on the results of this research for a number of years".
There has been a wide-ranging debate on both sides of the Atlantic about the technical feasibility of ballistic missile defences and their huge cost. A major technical challenge of this sort is not a new departure for the United States. Noble Lords will recall that in the 1960s the Americans responded with outstanding success to President Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon. The potential is therefore great,

995
although it is readily acknowledged in the United States that the technical difficulties are formidable. We have been forcefully reminded of the problems and risks associated with these great projects by the tragic loss of the "Challenger" only the other day. The right reverend Prelate said that that was a blessing in disguise. I suggest that he says that to the relatives of those who died.
I turn now to the possible—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord and others who have spoken will read carefully what I said. I described this as tragic and terrible. I said that it could be a blessing in disguise if certain results flowed from it. I did not say that it was a good thing in itself. I described it as terrible and tragic. But the fact remains that certain results could flow from it which in my judgment (which may be wrong) could be a blessing in disguise.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say that the "blessing in disguise", as the right reverend Prelate refers to it, will be heavily disguised for the relatives of those concerned.
I turn now to possible deployment. This too raises numerous questions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out a number of those questions in a speech last year which has been referred to on several occasions this evening, while emphasising that the answers to many of them would not be known for many years. One of the main aims of the SDI is to try to help find out some of the answers. But whether it will proceed from the research phase to development and deployment is simply an open question.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to the relationship of the programme to the ABM treaty. President Reagan has made it clear on a number of occasions that the SDI research programme will be carried out in a manner fully consistent with United States obligations under the ABM treaty. Furthermore, he recently confirmed that it would continue to be conducted within a restrictive interpretation of the treaty's obligations. The United States has also made it clear that if SDI research yields positive results, they would, after consulting the allies, consult and negotiate with the Soviet Union, in accordance with the terms of the ABM treaty, on how deterrence could be enhanced through a greater reliance by both sides on defensive systems.
The Government's position on these issues, as your Lordships well know, is based on the four points agreed between the Prime Minister and President Reagan in December 1984, and since reaffirmed by both sides. They are so central to the issues that we have debated today that I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I repeat them again. First, the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority but to maintain balance, taking account of Soviet developments. Secondly, SDI-related deployments would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Thirdly, the overall aim is to enhance deterrence. Fourthly, East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
996
The SDI has certainly been an important question in East-West negotiations. It played a major role in bringing the Soviets back to the negotiating table at Geneva last year. Both sides agreed that the aim of these negotiations should be to work out effective agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on earth, at limiting and reducing nuclear arms, and at strengthening strategic stability. The United States has made clear its concern to address the relationship of offensive and defensive systems in these talks. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union's approach has been to propose a ban on the creation of so-called "space strike" weapons which ignores comparable Soviet activities and the problems of verifying a ban on research. They are also refusing point blank to agree reductions in strategic weapons unless the United States agree in advance to abandon the SDI.
Nonetheless, I am glad to say that there have been some positive signs in these negotiations. Both sides tabled detailed proposals for substantial reductions in the level of nuclear weapons last autumn, though the Soviet proposals were one-sided in many respects. In addition, President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev agreed at their summit meeting on the principle of 50 per cent. reductions in the nuclear arms of the US and USSR appropriately applied, and on the idea of an interim INF agreement. Last month, as the new round of the Geneva negotiations began, the Soviet Union announced a further set of proposals. Many of these proposals are a repetition of existing Soviet ideas, but they are wide ranging and also contain new elements. We are studying them fully and carefully. I am sure your Lordships will join me in hoping that they will lead to rapid progress in the Geneva negotiations.
I should now like to turn to some of the points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his opening speech, asked particularly about the position of the Fylingdales radar and its consistency with the ABM treaty. There has, of course, been an early warning radar at Fylingdales since long before the ABM treaty was signed in 1972. The Government are confident that the existence of this radar and its proposed modernisation are in full conformity with United States obligations under the ABM treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it to be phased array radar?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is, I am afraid, a technical question to which I do not know the answer. Perhaps I can find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord possibly say that it is not going to be against the ABM treaty without even knowing whether it is going to be a phased array radar?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord the view of the Government in this matter. I shall ascertain and let him have the additional information which he requires.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked about the transfer of ABM technology to the United Kingdom and how this was provided for, if it was, under the ABM treaty. Under the ABM treaty the parties are

997
prohibited from transferring to other states or deploying outside their own national territory ABM systems limited by the treaty. This prohibition has been agreed to include the obligation not to provide to other states technical descriptions or blueprints worked out for the construction of ABM systems and their components limited by the treaty. United Kingdom participation in the SDI will of course be conducted within these constraints.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a number of points about the SDI Memorandum of Understanding. This provides in a satisfactory way for the protection of the existing data in the United Kingdom as well as for research data generated in this country with the help of US dollars. This MOU did not replace the 1975 MOU on defence equipment cooperation, but is a quite separate document. Incidentally, the 1975 MOU was replaced towards the end of 1985, but by an updated version of the same document.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred also to the SDI participation office. This office has been established in the Ministry of Defence to promote and assist the process of United Kingdom participation in US-funded research work. This includes guidance to industry. I expect to see the successful conclusion of contracts with industry and arrangements with Government research establishments on an increasingly substantial scale in coming months.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister say anything about the comment I made on the difficulty of British firms receiving contracts from America in the light of American law, and in the light of the comments made by John Pike to the Congressional committee?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord recalls the occasion on which I repeated the Statement in your Lordships' House about this matter? That problem was gone into at some length on that occasion. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to refresh his memory of what was said then.
May I turn now to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I have referred to some of them already. The right reverend Prelate asked, in addition, about the definition in the ABM treaty of where permitted research ends and prohibited development begins. The United States have stated that the SDI research programme will be compatible with a restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty. The United States Administration has set out its views on the meaning of the terms "research", "development" and "testing" on a number of occasions; for example, in Appendix B of the Pentagon Report to Congress in April last year, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. I dare say that document was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, during the course of his remarks also.
The right reverend Prelate made much of the morality of the SDI programme. But the United States has made it clear that the purpose of this research is to investigate the contributions which new technologies might make to security, stability and peace, as we go into the next century. These aims are encapsulated in the four points agreed between the President and my
998
right honourable friend the Prime Minister What objective could be more moral than that?
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me about the EUREKA programme. EUREKA is not of course a strategic defence research programme. Its objective is to stimulate European civil industrial capabilities in advance technologies. I understand that 26 such projects have so far been announced, six involving British firms, and a further 25 projects are at a less advanced stage. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred in some detail to the speech of my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. My right honourable friend was of course raising important questions that are very much for the longer term and are not capable of, nor indeed were intended for, easy or early answers.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to the technical problems which confront the research programme. They are indeed formidable. We do not of course know of the solutions, but I believe it would be a brave noble Lord who says that these problems are insoluble for all time.
It was perhaps a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was interrupted so often. I was very largely in agreement with what the noble Lord said. He recited in some detail his interpretation of the provisions of the ABM treaty and he displayed a profound understanding of these matters. The House will be grateful to him.
This has been an interesting and valuable debate. A wide range of views has been expressed about the SDI, its feasibility, its cost, and the implications of moving towards a system based on greater reliance on defences. I think the wide range of views illustrates well the fact that we cannot know the answers to many of these questions for many years to come, though we will doubtless continue to debate them in this House. What is clear is the need for US research to continue, particularly in the light of related Soviet activities, and the need for progress in reaching agreement at the Geneva negotiation. The agreed objective of these negotiations reflects a vision of a world with fewer nuclear weapons and greater strategic stability, a vision we would all share. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to support US efforts to achieve this.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.