My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, at the NATO meeting on 31st March, allied representatives, with full British support, reaffirmed their Governments' commitment to NATO's December 1979 decision on theatre nuclear forces, including the pursuit of arms control. We would welcome early resumption of United States-Soviet talks and share our allies' views as to the importance of continuing alliance consultation on these matters.

My Lords, while welcoming the decision to urge an early negotiation, may I ask whether the Government will seek, at the meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers in Rome early next month, to reach a decision about the date of the negotiations? Is there not hope that this negotiation might lead to the withdrawal of the Soviet SS20s and the Backfire bomber and make unnecessary the stationing of the cruise missile in this country? Has the Minister noted the decision of the Belgian and Netherlands Governments not to station cruise missiles until the result of these negotiations? Could not our Government reach a similar decision, particularly in view of the critical report on the effectiveness of the cruise by the United States Congress study which was published yesterday?

My Lords, I think it is understandable that the new American Administration wish to review their negotiating position on theatre nuclear forces and, indeed, to review it as part of the wider consideration of SALT and their general arms control policy. It is only reasonable to expect a new administration to do that. But the United States Administration have already said that they intend to continue with the talks on arms limitation and theatre nuclear forces. I do not think any date has yet been fixed, but I hope it will not be too long delayed.

My Lords, while welcoming the tone and substance of the Foreign Secretary's reply to my noble friend, in that it means that we shall continue as a country to support all meaningful attempts to secure arms control in this field, in a most comprehensive sense, both inside NATO and outside in other fora, may I express pleasure at seeing him back in this country and looking so well?

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I do not think we should forget, when talking about arms limitation talks and theatre nuclear forces, that, at the present time, there is a very serious imbalance in favour of the Soviet Union. Therefore, though we are very willing to discuss limitation, it is necessary that the double decision taken by NATO in December 1979 should be adhered to.

My Lords, can my noble friend say what counter-withdrawal has been made by the Soviet Union, in response to the Americans' withdrawal of 1,000 warheads from their stockpile in Europe?

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, that is a rather different set of negotiations. That is concerned with mutual and balanced force reductions, and not so much with the strategic arms limitation talks or, indeed, with the theatre nuclear forces talks. But what the Soviet Union have said, and have repeated to me in a message which the Soviet Ambassador delivered to me last week, is that they would be prepared to go ahead with talks on theatre nuclear forces.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the European Council recently agreed to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European Parliament, and I see no present prospect of agreement on a change in these arrangements.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it has been estimated that some £15 million a year of public money could be saved by fixing a single seat for the European Parliament? May I ask him whether he agrees with any such estimate, and whether he accepts the fact that the people of this country, and others, would be far more effectively represented by Members of the European Parliament who were able to establish a single seat?

My Lords, being very well aware of my noble friend's views on this subject, I think it was very nice of him to thank me for the Answer at all. I do not think I could quarrel with the estimate that he has given of the expense of having these various locations. But the subject of a single site, or the subject of the Parliament's activities, including the committee meetings and the location of the secretariat, was raised by the French last year and it became apparent—and I am afraid that it is a very divisive issue in the Community—that it would not be easy to reach a generally accepted agreement. The European Council therefore agreed to maintain the status quo.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there would be great jubilation in this country—never mind the seats of the Euro-Parliament—if we came out of the Common Market entirely? What a colossal amount of money we would save, if we came out!

My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord opposite over what seems to be a very great number of years, his question does not surprise me.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the decision that was apparently arrived at quite recently, the expense and the inefficiency which flows from this circus moving round the three points is the point which may well bring about the disintegration of the European Parliament? It is the one thing which will not allow the European Parliament to work in a way which will establish itself as a permanent feature. Is my noble friend also aware that the overwhelming view of the Members of the European Parliament is that it is vital that we should have some sort of stability, which is not there at the moment?

My Lords, I hope very much that the Parliament's views will be put to the members of the Council. Also, I hope very much that the consequences which my noble friend predicts will not occur.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that it is better to have NATO with all its faults and weaknesses than another European war?

My Lords, in so far as that bears on the Question—and, indeed, in so far as it does not—I agree with the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the department of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in contact with the Sheriffs Principal well in advance of the strike. General guidance was issued to all courts on 2nd March and a meeting with senior court staff concerned was held on 16th March. Since that time regular contact has been maintained with the two Sheriffs Principal concerned and with the Sheriff Clerk at Glasgow.

My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, I am bound to say that I am a little startled by its inadequacy. In finalising it, did the noble and learned Lord have in mind the following circumstances: First, did he have in mind the duration of the strike, which is now in its second month, during which the administration of justice in Glasgow and Edinburgh has been practically at a standstill? Did he have in mind also the three previous incidents of strikes in the Civil Service and their consequences for the Scottish courts? On the first of these occasions none of the staff, or only a minority of the staff in the sheriff court struck, and none at all in the Supreme Court. Does not the noble and learned Lord recognise that this suggests a considerable decline in the morale of the staff of the courts, the restoration of which must be the responsibility of the Ministers in the Scottish Office? Finally—

Speech!

Finally, did he have in mind the action taken in 1979 by the Labour Government, for whose competence I had no particular love, when they took the necessary emergency powers to keep the wheels of justice turning? Does he not appreciate that something of that vigorous nature is called for by this strike which is causing so much difficulty in Scotland?

My Lords, obviously we had in mind the duration of the strike, and we have it continually in mind. We also had in mind that there were previous occurrences and we regret the fact that in some respects the situation is worse than on some previous occasions, although in other respects it is better than on previous occasions. It is not quite right to say that the wheels of justice are at a complete standstill in Glasgow and Edinburgh. So far quite an amount of work has been done in the sheriff court both in Edinburgh and Glasgow, although certainly not nearly so much as is usually done. We also have in mind what took place on the last occasion in the way of emergency powers legislation. We are keeping that possibility under review. However, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the emergency powers legislation has no effect on getting people back to work, and it is to that primarily that the efforts of the Government are directed.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government could not expect foreign immigration authorities to accept expired United Kingdom passports during the current industrial dispute over Civil Service pay unless the expired passports were appropriately endorsed. As the dispute is affecting both the Passport Office and the Immigration Service it would be administratively impracticable to renew expired passports exceptionally in the present situation. As far as possible we are trying to maintain the issue of passports, in cases of urgency, to personal applicants.

My Lords, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his Answer. Is he aware that the validity of old-age pensioners' travel permits originally issued by London Transport is extended in post offices upon production of evidence of identity?

My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand the exact purpose of the noble Lord's question. Could he explain it a little more if he wants an intelligent answer?

My Lords, a passport expires at a certain date unless it is extended. I am advised that old-age pensioners can get their travel permits, which are issued by London Transport, extended at post offices. Could the same thing not apply if one could assure the identity of the person applying for the extension?

My Lords, I think that would be very difficult. But what does happen is that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies wishing to make holiday visits to the European Community, to Scandinavia and to other Western European countries and Canada, can obtain British Visitors' passports, while they wait, at the main post offices in Britain.

My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I announce that my noble friend Lord Ferrier has decided that, in view of the other business on the Order Paper today, he will not be asking the Unstarred Question standing in his name.

rose to call attention to the need for greater equality in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this important question this afternoon. I think it is necessary that from time to time we should consider very carefully the principles on which our economic and social policies are based. And, in this context, we shall listen with particular attention to the contribution to be made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The noble Earl has told us that this is the last occasion on which the right reverend Prelate will address us, at any rate in his present capacity, and I should like, on behalf of my noble friends to express our regret that that should be so, our appreciation of the very considerable contribution which the right reverend Prelate has made to our deliberations, and our good wishes for the future.

We need to be clear about the aims of our economic and social policies, and that raises, in the context of this Motion, the question, is equality a proper aim? We on these Benches have long been committed to equality of opportunity. We have seen, for example, a free education system and a free health service as instruments to that end. But, despite much progress, few would deny that there is still a long way to go. It is argued by some that if once equality of opportunity is achieved then we should seek greater wealth for all which will lift up the poorest with the richest; increased wealth for all, rather than redistribution, it is argued, is the remedy for poverty. But that argument becomes more difficult to sustain in a no-growth situation.

My party, in addition to standing for greater equality of opportunity, has also stood for greater equality in the distribution of wealth. Noble Lords may recall that in Anthony Trollope's novel, The Prime Minister, which was published in 1875, the Duke of Omnium, Liberal Prime Minister in a coalition Government, during a walk in the country with a Cabinet colleague expounds his political philosophy, and he equates liberalism not with liberty and free institutions, as might have been expected, but with a slow but steady progress towards equality.

After all, John Stuart Mill, who is perhaps most famous for his Essay on Liberty, also stood for an equitable distribution of wealth. As the House is aware, a Liberal Government laid the foundations of our social security system and introduced progressive taxation, which together have done much to redistribute income, and on which all parties have built. We have sought a reduction in the extremes between richest and poorest, and a wider distribution of wealth, both in income and capital, campaigning for that under the slogan "ownership for all".

The welfare state has done much to redistribute income. So have trade union strength, full employment and economic growth, although not always to the very poorest. But in spite of this, real poverty, though reduced in extent, still exists today and may now again be on the increase. The system is far from perfect. What is more—and I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for introducing a statistic or two—the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth tells us that the top 10 per cent. receive 25.8 per cent. of the earned income before tax—22·4 per cent. after tax—and 55 per cent. of the investment income. As regards capital, the top 10 per cent., so the Commission says, owns 60·6 per cent. of the marketable wealth, a much greater concentration with capital than with income.

In the Guardian last Sunday Harford Thomas reviewed a new book by three Danish writers on how to solve the problems facing modern industrialised society. He reported that those three insist that there should be an equal wage for all and that profits should either be ploughed back into the company or transferred to a community budget. We do not have to go anything like as far as that to recognise that the figures which I have quoted indicate that further redistribution is desirable.

Therefore, there is a strong case for greater equality of wealth in Britain today. There is also a strong case for greater equality between men and women in our country. Twenty-five proposed changes in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts that would improve equality between men and women were put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission in January. There is a strong case for greater equality between white and black in our country through the elimination of discrimination and the provision of greater job opportunities for the young black population.

There is a strong case for greater equality in our country between the community as a whole and those with families. In recent years the tax policies of successive Governments have worsened the relative position of families, and increased child benefit is the key remedy here. There is a strong case for greater equality between the community as a whole and the elderly and disabled, particularly the very elderly. That means no more cuts in personal social services and in social security benefits which affect these people, and the allocation of adequate resources.

There is a strong case for greater equality between the employed and the unemployed. In this country we are in danger of becoming two nations: those who have jobs and those who do not. However, I am quite convinced that a change in Government economic policies could substantially reduce the number of unemployed. But will full employment as we knew it ever return? Should we be thinking about work sharing? Should we be thinking about reductions in the working week?

As regards the redistribution of wealth, I should like to suggest three ways in which we might redistribute income. The first is through a tax credit system. That is automatically a means of redistribution, as indeed was the introduction of child benefit, which provided help for those who were not helped at all by income tax allowances because they did not pay tax. The wider application of that principle in a tax credit system would be redistributory. The second is through a national minimum earnings level. We have published details of how this would fit in with a tax credit scheme. The third way is through a great increase in profit-sharing.

I have three suggestions as to how we might spread capital. The first is by replacing capital transfer tax with an accessions tax under which the recipient of a gift or bequest would be taxed according to the size of that gift or bequest and according to the number of such gifts and bequests that he had already received. This would encourage donors to spread their wealth. The second suggestion is through a tax-free allowance for a certain amount of savings income which would be replaced later under a tax credit system, with a tax credit linked to saving available to those who saved. This would provide an encouragement for small savings of all kinds and help to build up the capital resources of those who have little at the present time. The third suggestion is through wider share ownership linked to the profit-sharing which I have already mentioned.

I recall that in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, The Gondoliers, the Republican Marco sings these words:

"The aristocrat who banks with Coutts

The aristocrat who hunts and shoots,

The aristocrat who cleans your boots,

They all shall equal be".

In political, civil and legal rights, that must be so. In wealth and possessions, as the noble Earl said, absolute equality is impossible and undesirable. But I believe that greater equality is—as the Motion implies—both possible and necessary.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving the House the opportunity to debate a matter which is of profound and fundamental importance to the good government of this country. I am also most grateful to him for the very kind words that he has spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for the things that he has so generously said.

Some years ago the late Archbishop Lord Fisher of Lambeth observed that:

"All humans are equal in the love of God, but not in the sight of God".

His epigram fell flat, though it did, indeed, bring a storm of abuse about his head, possibly because it was spoken in the unprofitable circumstances of a visit to Africa and also perhaps because it was rather too subtle for most people to appreciate. This was unfortunate, as the archbishop was drawing attention to a fundamental dilemma which faces anyone who tries to discuss the concept of equality. On the one hand, as the noble Earl has said, surely every Member of this House would agree—either on religious grounds or on other grounds—that every human being born into the world is equal to every other person by reason of the common humanity which they possess and, therefore, each has certain inalienable rights.

I am sure we would also agree—and I think the noble Earl has hinted at this—that it is patently obvious that in a sense all human beings are not equal and never will be equal. The circumstances of our birth may produce an inequality which perhaps eventually may be overcome, though it is unlikely that the child born on the streets of Calcutta will ever achieve equality with a child born in this country. Nevertheless, some have a higher IQ than others; some have more efficient technical ability than others; some can run faster, propel tennis or golf balls more effectively, move boats more speedily, perform better in the arts or have more common sense than their fellow human beings. These are inequalities which will always be present and, therefore, although the exercise of training direction may remove some of their impact, they will always be there.

Therefore, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl for introducing this debate, because he is asking us to give thought to issues which are fundamental to the process of good government. In doing so we must take note of this fundamental dilemma that he places before us. All human beings have fundamental rights by reason of their humanity, and it is the duty of Government to protect them. But each human being is unique in certain particular capacities. How can these abilities be directed and used for the common good and not produce frustration in the individual? These are the issues which Government must concern themselves with.

First, as regards that equality which belongs to all, the general principles have been stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its preamble it recognises the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family; it asserts that their recognition is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and it goes on to define in detail what they are. It examines them in detail, and from that examination emerge two great principles: the principle of freedom and the principle of justice.

Each individual has the right, so far as possible, to be a free man: each individual is entitled to protection under the law. It would be impossible to examine in detail the scope of these rights, but they should always be in our minds as we examine the issues which come before this House: the threat of totalitarian régimes; discrimination on the grounds of colour or sex; the right to worship freely; to move and speak without restriction; to receive proper consideration for health so far as the whole body politic is not injured by these things. These are the basic equalities upon which civilised living can alone be founded, and we have the guardianship of them.

But what of those inequalities which are inevitable by reason of individual gifts and capacities and which, by their very existence, differentiate us from one another? Here surely the emphasis in good government must be upon opportunity. What is important is that the society in which we live should ensure that every citizen has full opportunity to train and develop whatever capacities he has, and then to be able to put those abilities to good use for the benefit of society, of himself, and of his family. This means that society must protect the health and the stability of the family; must ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a good education and, if necessary, of retraining; and then, having been educated, everyone ought to have the opportunity to put to creative use the ability which he possesses.

Every one of these issues would merit a full dress debate in this House, and indeed they have frequently been given consideration here and elsewhere. I must confine myself to some simple, rather telegraphic observations upon them. The stability of family life presupposes a decent home to live in. There are few causes for inequality in our society more powerful than the differences of opportunity in the provision of housing. We have had frequent debates in the past on this subject, and I must content myself with a plea that whatever Government are in power they will put in the forefront of their thinking and their action the necessity of ensuring a strong and effective housing policy so that the shocking prospect of being unable to find accommodation, especially in the case of the young, becomes a thing of the past.

A healthy society will ensure equality of opportunity for education at all levels. I have to admit, and I do so reluctantly, that I recognise that our present system of education is socially divisive. I am a product of a public school—as are some other, distinguished Members of this House—not very far away from where we are sitting at this moment. I must accept that I enjoyed there advantages which were denied to those less fortunate than myself. I could wish that others could have had the same opportunities. Here is another vital area to which Government must address themselves. I do not think that the answer lies in the destruction of what many would regard as good, merely because it is not open to all to enjoy the benefits.

I have never been able to subscribe to the argument that, because everyone cannot have fillet of steak, all must be content with bully beef. I regret the abolition of the direct grant schools which I know, for I was a chairman of one of the best of them for 18 years, covered the complete range of social strata; and I do not think that the assisted places scheme really adequately replaces what we lost in the direct grant schools. I cannot agree, as has been said, that the right of parents to choose what education their children should have is too high a price to pay for the health of society. I know that the public schools are not the preserve of the wealthy, for I am aware of many instances where parents, many of them young, are making real sacrifices so as to enable them to pay the school fees that will be required of them.

I think it would be a tragedy to kill those independent schools by the process of slow strangulation by forbidding parents to pay school fees. I believe the answer may lie along the lines of improving the standards of the comprehensive schools to such an extent that they can compete realistically with the voluntary sector; and that there should be full consultation with the independent schools to see if there is a possibility of finding some middle path by which their right to exist is recognised, so long as they are prepared to take their place in, and make their contribution to, an integrated system of education. There is so much good, such great traditions, such excellence in our public schools, that they should not be destroyed, nor should their benefits be confined to a small section of society.

But it is of no avail to have an excellent system of education if at the end of it there are no opportunities for exercising the skills that education has implanted. I suppose that there is nothing which encourages a sense of inequality in society more certainly than the fact that some have secure jobs, some have jobs that are in serious jeopardy, and some have no jobs at all, and cannot get them. And when this insecurity is linked, rightly or wrongly, with other potential causes of inequality, such as racism, then there are the conditions for real and terrible trouble. I have no intention of approaching these social problems from a party point of view, for I do not believe that the quality of compassion belongs to any one point of view. But I do believe that it is absolutely top priority that there should be the most careful and expert examination of the effects of long-term unemployment on society.

We all want to return as soon as possible to full employment. We are told that it will be a slow process at the best, and that possibly we shall never return to the circumstances that we have known in the past. That is all the more reason to examine the effect which this state of affairs can have on the soul of the nation. What measures can be taken to meet the destructive influence which the inequalities within society caused by long-term unemployment may have upon the thinking and behaviour of our people? Many of us can remember the 1930s and what happened in countries other than our own, where evil leadership battened upon the sense of inequality and injustice among the young unemployed. We feel bound to sound a warning and plead for an imaginative understanding of the underlying causes for unrest.

One thing is certain. We must at least, at all levels of society, try to understand one another and co-operate with one another in the search for a solution. This can be done at its best among the young. So I make no apology in returning to the subject of a debate I initiated in your Lordships' House in November 1979, pleading for some form of organised youth service, which would bring young men and women together, regardless of their social standing and background, to do some useful service for the benefit of the nation as a whole. My arguments then have been powerfully re-stated by Sir Hugh Fraser in an article in The Times of 8th April. I see there is a further reference in The Times today regarding the creation of a debate about youth, which has produced a number of objections by people who say it would be impracticable; but I am glad to see that so distinguished a person as the noble Baroness, Lady David, is taking part in the discussion which is going on. I hope that the Government will not only encourage this research but them- selves initiate thought and action. For unless we can find ways of satisfying the reactions and emotions of young people who are perplexed and then angered by the injustices of which they find themselves victims, we shall be laying up for ourselves a store of terrible trouble.

There is one more point which I feel must be made. Though there must be inequalities in society, it is yet necessary that those of us who are more fortunate and upon whom providence has smiled, should not make personal capital out of our good fortune. I can never put from my mind the haunting injunction that "to whom much is given, much will be required"; or that Our Lord, having said some scathing things about those who took advantage of their privileged position, reminded them that the greatest are those who serve. It is all too easy for us to demand that Government shall remove the causes of inequality. It is required also of each individual to combat the evils that come from it. I believe that much could be done by an avoidance of ostentation and a simpler life style on the part of many of us.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if on this occasion I end on a personal note. In a few hours' time I shall cease to be Bishop of London, and therefore a Member of your Lordships' House. I count it a very high privilege to have been a Member for twenty-one years, and to have taken some modest part in its work. I believe that this House makes an essential contribution to the good government of this country and I would oppose to the last, in so far as it may be possible for me to do so, those who seek to destroy it. I have made many friends and received much kindness, for which I thank your Lordships. I wish you well.

My Lords, I should like to thank my friend the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this valuable and important debate. On behalf of the rest of your Lordships' House I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his speech. Every Sunday I pray in my church for Gerald, our bishop, and I shall continue to pray for him although he will be our bishop no longer and will be succeeded by another familiar friend here in your Lordships' Chamber. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London's speech this afternoon was characteristic of the wisdom and courtesy with which he has informed your Lordships' debates over many years, and on behalf of us all I assure him that whatever he says and wherever he goes he will always be listened to with affection and respect.

Hear, hear!

The right reverend Prelate's references to unemployment are of particular relevance to your Lordships's House because we do, of course, have a Select Committee on the long-term consequences of unemployment, on which I have the privilege to serve and of which his brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, is a distinguished member. I am sure that when our report appears it will make a landmark in the discussion of this important topic. My Lords, I am sure that from us the Bishop of London takes with him every conceivable best wish.

Hear, hear!

I approach this topic with great difficulty and with some apprehension. I was a close friend of the late Tony Crosland, whose death was a terrible blow to us, and was much more of a blow to our nation. Tony Crosland argued that socialism was about equality, and for many years I was one of those who was proud to call himself a socialist. Finally, I came to the conclusion that socialism was not about equality but was about tyranny, and that all the examples we had of socialism both in the Communist bloc and in the third world were tyrannical states. The question I want to broach this afternoon is whether there is a conflict between the three great ideals of the French Revolution of liberty, equality, and fraternity. As a follower of the creed of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I personally believe that the greatest of these three is fraternity—but I must confess that all three words loom very large in my personal creed.

I have devoted many years of my academic life to studying what equality means, and it is by no means a simple question. Some years ago, as a result of a series of discussions on Radio 3 I ventured to publish a book under the title Whatever Happened to Equality? A large number of people took part, including the then Lord Chancellor and many other extremely distinguished persons. The question of how one measures the present distribution of incomes, how one measures the present distribution of opportunities, and what one means by a shift to further equality is by no means clear.

If you take, for example, the statistics of income or of wealth, these are largely based on the returns held by the Inland Revenue. It is admitted that these returns are inaccurate; they exclude almost all low incomes, and they exclude many high incomes of those people who use the income tax system to avoid paying income tax and capital transfer tax. Therefore the question of what is the unit of income is a very difficult one. How does one add up a man, a wife and three children and compare their income with that of an old-age pensioner? Does one do a simple division and say that the family has an income of £10,000 a year, divide that by five which gives a result of £2,000, and say that is equal to the £2,000 which is paid to an old-age pensioner? I can assure your Lordships that this is by no means a simple question and in principle, in many cases, it is often an unanswerable question in statistical terms.

I have no doubt in my own mind that, loosely phrased, a society that is more equal is preferable to a society that is less equal. The evidence is odd. The higher the average national income of a country, the more equal appears to be the distribution of income and other opportunities. For example, the United States, is according to most normal criteria, a more equal country than the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is a much more equal country than the Republic of Ireland; and the Republic of Ireland is a much more equal country than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In other words, the higher the national income per head, the more equal the distribution of income appears to be. I confess that I am driven to the conclusion that the distribution of income is in some respects a function of the average level of incomes per capita in a society.

That is an interesting and important conclusion from research because it suggests that, whatever political system or measures one adopts, it is extremely difficult to alter the distribution of income or of other opportunities in society which might lead to greater, rather than to less, equality. I share the admiration of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for Mr. Frank Field, the Member for Birkenhead, for his brilliant recent book, and I am convinced that it would be a major step forward in social affairs in this country if an adequate system of child benefit were introduced. I believe that because it is extremely important to try to eliminate child and family poverty, and I should be glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his advocacy of such policy, which has for long been advocated by the Liberal Party. I am not at all sure that on all criteria that would lead to greater equality. In other words, I think the case for child benefit is a case on behalf of children rather than a case for equality.

The evidence of attempts to achieve greater equality in this country is extremely disheartening. It must be said that the work of the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the work of Professor Atkinson of University College, and the work of Mr. Field, all of them distinguished experts in this matter, all suggests that under the Wilson and Callaghan Governments equality was not pursued and that society became if anything more, rather than less, unequal. I believe that to be an academic finding which, on the present state of knowledge, is irrefutable. I do not conclude from that that if one votes Labour one votes for inequality. I conclude from it that we really do not know how to go from here to there—how to go from our present condition to a more equal state.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in a moving and important speech, said that education in this country was socially divisive, and I see that Mrs. Williams, a woman for whom I have great affection and for whom we in this House have enormous respect, agrees with the right reverend Prelate and has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to abolish the public schools. I had assumed when I served on the Public Schools Commission that we were set up in order to abolish the public schools, but the message soon came through that that was the last thing on earth the Cabinet wished to hear from that commission. They did not even want to see an integration of the public schools with the maintained sector.

What steps could be taken to make educational activities in this country more equal? Here, Tony Crosland's speeches and books are revealing and the evidence is quite clear. What does the great Stockholm Professor Torsten, who has for many years studied the impact of comprehensive schools in Sweden and throughout the world—he was responsible for the introduction of comprehensives in Sweden—say on this issue? He says in his latest book, which I received in November, that the education system in Sweden has become more unequal and not more equal as a result of the introduction of the comprehensive reform. The persistence of inequality in societies appears to be not amenable to simple-minded administrative or legislative acts.

What does equality mean? Does it mean equality of opportunity? That was what the right reverend Prelate rather rested his case on. Does it mean that we should all equally be able to take scholarships to Eton, Trinity or Christ Church? Does it mean that we should all have equality of treatment—that if we go to the local comprehensive or Eton the same number of pounds per year should be spent on us? That of itself is important and, as a matter of fact, it is almost true of our present structure; the cost of education in ILEA schools is as great as, if not greater than, the cost in many independent schools. However, we do not really believe that, because it costs more to educate a spastic or deaf child than an ordinary child, and it costs more to educate a gifted child than an average one if the gifted child is to be fully stretched.

Do we mean equality of outcome? It is quite clear—this has been said repeatedly by Professor Halsey, Mrs. Flood and other experts in this field—that equality of outcome would involve the family in social engineering of a really radical kind, of the kind which was tried in China under Madame Mau during the Cultural Revolution. One must handicap the children of gifted professional families if one wishes to have equality of outcome.

This is a complex and difficult question and we have only a brief time this afternoon to consider it, and I am conscious that I have reached the end of my time. I would only say that after many years of arduous and careful study of the question, I doubt very much whether in the short run there are many practical steps that could be taken which would actually lead to greater equality. I would favour particular actions because I believe them to be good in themselves, and one in particular would be an adequate child endowment scheme. But I must confess that over the years of my study, and particularly of the education system, I am defeated. I do not know what steps one would take, if one were Minister in a Government with all power to reform the education system, to make it more equal. I really and genuinely must say that on this question I have become a complete agnostic.

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for his very helpful speech. I wish at the outset to refer, as the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Banks, did, to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth which met under the distinguished chairmanship of my fellow Social Democrat Lord Diamond. Despite the difficulties, which Lord Vaizey mentioned, of grappling with the statistics on this subject, it marshalled so much evidence about the persisting inequality in our society that it is bound to be an important source book—certainly for our new Social Democratic Party as it develops its policy and, I hope, for other parties too—in trying to learn from the lessons of the past in devising some new policies which will prove more effective than previous policies have done in reducing the extent of inequality in our society.

From the seven-and-a-half volumes which the Royal Commission produced over the years, I stress a particu- larly important fact; namely, that the share of the total income going to the bottom 50 per cent. of incomes has hardly changed in the last quarter of a century. The share of the top 10 per cent. has fallen, yet the beneficiaries have not been the bottom 50 per cent., but rather the people between it. In my view, that is not a very remarkable or satisfactory result for what many people have at various times in the past spoke of as an age of equality.

The Royal Commission was put out of commission, abolished, very soon after the last general election by a Government who did not want to maintain a continuous independent review of this vital subject. I believe there is no doubt that had it continued in existence, and had it been reporting in an eighth or even a ninth volume today, it would have shown an even more unfavourable picture than it did when it was still in existence. In my view, and that of many other observers, the present Government have done more to reduce equity in our society from Brixton to Birkenhead than have any other Government which this country has had this century.

In 1979, in the first post-election Budget, taxes were reduced by some £4½ billion, and that was done largely to the benefit of richer people and very largely to the detriment of poorer people. What was then started has, unfortunately, continued with much nibbling away at the already meagre standards of many poorer sections of our population. Both the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Vaizey, referred to the book by Frank Field, as did the noble Earl in opening the debate, and I agree with all of them that it forms a most important statement, and to some extent it has succeeded in bringing up-to-date, though not with the same degree of chapter and verse, the findings of the Royal Commission reports themselves.

Against the background of that analysis, what should be done? All those who are taking part in this short debate today know that to come to any conclusion on that question would take a much longer debate than we have time for, but we do have time to express some of our own individual opinions, and to some extent the opinions of the parties which we represent, if we do represent parties here today. If I may, as a Social Democrat I should like to state a view about one particular reform which seems to me crucial. Before mentioning it, going back to one of the great socialists to whom the noble Earl referred in his opening remarks. I should like to state what is the underlying belief which he and I and many others share in terms drawn from one of Professor Tawney's books on the acquisitive society. He said that there is no justification for

"a small class which wears several men's clothes, eats several men's dinners, occupies several families' houses, and lives several men's lives".

Following on from that, the reform that seems to me to be required—perhaps even more than others—is in the tax and social security system, not considered separately, but taken together. The last grand simplification that this country saw was the Beveridge Plans, and I was very pleased to see in the recent biography of Lord Beveridge that tribute was paid to the noble Earl for the work that he did, when he was Frank Pakenham, in publicising the Beveridge Report in 1942. That work had a very important influence on the reception that the report received. Perhaps no report this century has had such a big effect on social policy. It aimed at bringing together a variety of social insurance schemes in order to abolish poverty, or want, as Lord Beveridge referred to it, by setting a minimum standard below which no one should be allowed to fall. We know that, at any rate in the terms in which he proposed it, that policy has not worked, or successive Governments have not allowed it to work.

The policy of incremental gradualism, which has been such a marked feature of our social policy, has produced one little addition after another to the basic structure without raising the fundamental underlying insurance benefit to a proper level, and has added a really amazing complex of different, new means-tested benefits, all of which involve what seems to me an unwarrantable interference with human liberty on a matter which is of great importance to many people. It is something that they would like to keep private to themselves, or, at any rate, from the tax people; namely, their own income, and how they spend it.

Quite apart from its other evils, the structure that we have is quite incomprehensible to any but the experts, and quite often even the experts cannot understand it. Certainly the people who are entitled to the benefits under the great panoply of schemes that exist cannot possibly be expected to understand what are their entitlements. That partly accounts for the fact that the take-up under so many of the schemes is so lamentably low. This nation is far from being a nation of scroungers; much more is it a nation of people who are baffled by the incomprehensibility of the social benefits system, which makes it impossible for many of them, or at least an adequate number of them, to claim their proper entitlements no matter how much they might wish to do so.

So, leading on from there, what I am suggesting is that in principle what is required is a general simplification of the tax and benefits system. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that he favoured tax credits, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I think went at least some way to agreeing with him on that. Sometimes the term used is "tax credits", sometimes people talk about the negative income tax, sometimes about social dividends, and sometimes about a national minimum income. But in principle they all amount to very much the same thing.

Many Governments have toyed with the idea of a grand simplification under this kind of label and so far have failed to bring it off. One of the essential ideas is that it is ridiculous and costly and it involves too much interference with individual liberty to have a whole set of officials taking away money from citizens in the form of taxes and another whole set of officials handing it back to citizens, not necessarily the same people, but through an amazing series of complicated hoops. As I said earlier, this double system is becoming progressively more complicated and more onerous. If everyone received a guaranteed income that was taxable, then at any rate in principle we would again have the kind of simplification with which we started off in the years after 1942.

There are hundreds of difficulties, administrative and otherwise, about this, but in my submission they should not be so baffling that we cannot take a grip on them. If we do not produce a complete simplification involving all the social security benefits system and the tax allowance system, then at least we should be able to move towards that end, and towards a reform which had not only a strong egalitarian but also a strong libertarian bias to it.

The Social Democratic Party has existed for only a few weeks. The statement that it made at the time of its launch was only an outline one, but one of the sentences in the statement which was made said:

"The state should lean towards greater equality, but if it intervenes oppressively it will damage individual liberty and diminish the nation's wealth".

I hope that the kind of reform that I have just been referring to (hardly even outlining in the time available) may commend itself to the noble Earl who opened this debate, and also to the House, as being in accord with that statement of policy from this newly-born party.

My Lords, it has been a great opportunity to have this debate, but I wish it had been a fuller debate. I want to add my gratitude to that expressed to the right reverend Prelate, and I hope that somehow or other we may have the opportunity, as I have had over the last 10 years, of listening to his wisdom and to the contributions he wants to make in this noble House. My noble friend Lord Longford, who is now on this side of the House although he was once in the research department of the Conservative Party, dealt with these questions philosophically and unpolitically, but nevertheless they are of maximum importance to the problem which this great country is facing. I, too, was brought up on Tawney and others during my extra-mural work for many years. I am not agnostic about education, having been a rough practitioner in it in the toughest types of schools and having been plunged into a class of 80 in my first job in a church school—a school that I loved and a little church that we helped to keep going. We had 80 children in one class, and out of those we got a few scholarships to the grammar school and ultimately a couple, maybe, to the university.

But there is no need to be lugubrious. If we look at the progress (and I will use the old-fashioned expression) of the so-called working classes this last 30 or 40 years educationally here in Britain, we see that there are more ordinary students, like those who came from the setting of How Green Was My Valley, at the universities and at the technicolleges today than there ever were before, even proportionately. That must be taken into account; and much of the greatness that we saw in the last war came from such people. I could name a professor—he is dead now—who was a communist, who through his training was used by the Government, in a devastating part of his work, which led to the complete and successful invasion of Normandy. In other words, masses of people who had no privilege contributed to the victory over Nazism and over those who would curtail human liberty.

However, I still agree with Tawney; and I took the trouble to look up in the Library a quote from the epilogue that he wrote not long before he died, when he said that one of "the two most massive pillars of indefensible disparities" was the educational system. He said:

"The inequalities of educational opportunity are mischievous and a menace to the future of Britain. It is to poison their soul—it is to smite the child with the blight of inferiority".

There is nothing in the world worse than pushing into the minds of the underprivileged a sense of inferiority—and thank goodness I have not got it! But we had to fight not to get it; that is the point. I do not mean arrogance or hubris. I mean, those of us who did not have the privilege knew that we could get to the light only by work.

Now the principle of equality, commonly stated, is in a conditional form. In public matters we believe that people should be treated roughly identically, in justice and with law. Nevertheless, one of the great inequalities is in the poor man getting justice in the courts today, because ultimately he cannot afford it. Our legal aid system has not been the success that we would have liked it to be; that is another avenue. In this country, thank goodness!, the right to listen exists—and I want it to exist more—in regard to the radio and television. I know there are some sins of omission in television, but, my word! it has made a great contribution to the uplift of ordinary people—a series of Shakespeare; a series of music; music that it would cost £7 a ticket to listen to at the opera or in a theatre put before millions nightly to watch. Some of the greatest films and some of the greatest events in our music and in our industry have been seen in the ordinary working-class homes as well as in the so-called middle-class and (if you like to use these horrible terms) upper-class homes every night of the week, somewhere, sometime, for all of us.

There, there is equality of opportunity, and that is one thing that has come with the technological revolution. So when we are spiking down what we are after, we are spiking down more than money—much more than money. We wanted the opportunity. My grandmother used to say, "Oh Lord, I do not ask for money—tell me where it is, and I will do the rest myself". It was an old Welsh prayer; a little wicked one, I think, but nevertheless I understood what the old lady was driving at. Therefore, I do not want to press for equality of incomes so much. The spreading and the increase of the money factor, yes; but we want to keep people above the sustenance level. We want people to have the opportunities.

What is more, we must take into account the fact that holiday brochures at the moment are absolutely loaded with applications intended for ordinary people who have been working hard all the year round to go to Spain, to go to France and, now, to go to Miami, if they are not afraid of being mugged. It is quite true, and the House has forgotten these factors. Ordinary people are moving around the world as never before. Most of my family moved around because they were in the South Wales Borderers, and were pushed around serving overseas, or somewhere or the other. Now, thank goodness! people are reaching a sense of dignity and have less inferiority than they ever had before because of this.

Let us take something else. I do not want to make a political point, but with the 1945 Government the uplift of our people was one of the finest things that we did. Because we are in an economic jam, I do not want us now to brutalise the opportunities of children by cutting to the bone educational opportunities. If we do, it will be all the worse for Britain. I remember, in 1941, the famous statement of the four freedoms:

"We are searching for freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear".

I wrote a booklet at the time, and I consider that as important as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear there is a fifth freedom—the all-embracing freedom for under-privileged people: freedom from contempt. That is what we must be struggling for. We can get that only by lifting up the dignity of people, and that can only come from abolishing mischievous cuts in education, and in giving educational opportunity at the roots.

The right reverend Prelate goes back to Dickensian days. You cannot have an educated child if his house is a slum. I know the military people will go for me a bit here, but I think it would be for the greater security of Britain to take some of that £5,000 billion spent on defence and say that, come what may, in the next five years we are going to have a housing programme the like of which Britain has never seen before. If some party had the courage to go to the country and say, "We are not making any vast promises, but we are going to try to wipe out the indignity of homelessness in Britain", I guarantee that it would be one of the greatest blessings that there could be towards building up equality of opportunity in Britain.

Therefore, my first step to this greater equality is freedom from contempt. I remember my noble friend Lord Longford working with Beveridge on those famous giants, the giant of want, the giant of disease, the giant of squalor, the giant of ignorance and the giant of idleness. Those are the giants behind the discontent in our society today. They are still there and they increase with unemployment. But the evils of unemployment can be partially nullified if the mind is developed. There are those of us who are lucky enough to live in nice houses and to understand lovely music, beautiful pictures and homes that are lovely. Many would consider more desirable than Bernard Shaw's arid phrase "equality of income" the ability and opportunity to appreciate the wonderful inheritence of human beings in art, music and poetry. Those are the things which give equality of opportunity.

I remember the gloomy dean, Dean Inge. I apologive to the right reverend Prelate, but he knows, or knew, Dean Inge. He was an arid old curmudgeon. One of his statements was, "It is time to stop educating the children of the poor". Yes, he really said that. I cannot understand this attitude because, to pay a tribute to the Church, the Church schools in Britain were in existence before the 1870 Education Act. I am glad the Church does not take the opportunity to follow the gloomy dean today. I hope that they will keep their schools going. The other thing is that when people are most happy they are most gullible. In the period 1808 to 1812 there were some who were giving free meals to children. The Times said of this:

"There is a section of the School Board for London which aims at saddling upon the ratepayers the responsibility for feeding the children sent to school without proper meals; a policy which we have contended from the first will inevitably tempt a large class of parents to starve or half starve their boys and girls in order to escape the burden to which they are legally subject and one which they are well able to bear".

I will finish with a statement made by Catherine Booth, that great woman, in July 1881. In the War Cry she wrote:

"Oh how I see the emptiness and vanity of everything compared with the salvation of the soul! What does it matter if a man dies in the workhouse? If he dies on the doorstep covered with wounds like Lazarus—what does it matter—if his soul is saved?"

And there is a double meaning there. I will leave it at that. I am glad that the Church did not take that attitude. In the end, Governments and the Church itself—and, as I know, in South Wales the Methodist Church—did a lot for the uplifting of the opportunities of our people.

I pay tribute to the women of Britain, who work so hard and are underprivileged. My great-grandmother had these words on her tombstone:

"Here lies a woman who was never tired"—

The noble Lord is watching the clock. I ought not to be stopped in the middle of a poem.

My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is a timed debate and every extra minute that he speaks he takes from other Lords.

My Lords, the noble Lord has added a minute to my speech, for by now I should be sitting down. But out of courtesy to the noble Lord the Chief Whip I shall not recite the rest of the little poem.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for casting his Motion in conveniently wide terms. I have enjoyed and, I hope, profited from all the speeches, including the poignant speech of the right reverend Prelate, but I want to follow rather a different line of argument. I do not know the noble Earl personally enough to judge whether his amiable qualities include absentmindedness but I have a special reason for hoping that he forgets to withdraw his Motion for Papers at the end of this debate. I have been wondering what Papers we could recommend to the noble Earl to advance his education—not more Blue Books, not more Fabian tracts or official reports of which he may have swallowed too many. What other Papers would cheer the noble Earl and help to persuade him that his plea for greater equality has already gone a long way towards being fulfilled in our lifetime by the remarkable operation of private enterprise in competitive markets? My choice of Papers to put this debate into perspective would be the social commentaries embodied in the bound volumes not of Hansard but of such journals as Homes and Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Women's Weekly—which, I see, goes back to 1911—and all those contemporary magazines on holidays, motoring, eating out, foreign travel and other growing national pastimes.

Who now remembers the working-class world in which at least some of us were brought up? Who remembers the world of fly-papers, of gas coppers, of black-leaded grates, of mangles, meat safes, boiled milk in the summer and acres of lino—or, should I say, linoleum? Such domestic horrors have now been banished by aerosols, detergents, washing-machines, heaters of all kinds, fitted kitchens, refrigerators, deep freezes and wall-to-wall carpeting. Noble Lords can dwell on sad exceptions, but the lives of most ordinary people have been transformed in two generations. I am arguing—and I think it a fair point from the Cross-Benches—that none of this practical progress owes very much at all to politicians and Governments. The larger part of Government social spending consists in taking money from the majority of people and returning it to much the same people in cash and kind—minus heavy freight charges in both directions. While the forebears of many noble Lords here were calling for the "elevation of the masses" the practical process of improvement was being advanced by businessmen, galvanised by unequal incentives in the market, to find better ways of serving their consumers, and, at the same time, offering more rewarding employment. The whole history of liberal capitalism is one of extending the luxuries of a privileged minority ever wider to become the everyday conveniences, even necessities, of growing majorities. The tragedy, in my view, of the last 100 years is that the market worked so well that we took it for granted and began to make its operation more difficult.

It has been well said that in confronting social policy we should be inspired by love but guided by reason. My reasoning tells me that many noble intentions aired in debates such as this are likely to finish up doing more harm than good. Our concern should not be with the distracting and destructive phantom of equality. It should be with a realistic discussion of how we can revive our economy so as to afford a more humane minimum standard for those who cannot maintain themselves in the market. We would all agree—there would be no disagreement—that no one should be allowed to fall below what we judge to be an acceptable poverty level. But I want to ask why today's conception of a minimum standard is so much above what I will call the skimmed-milk standard that was applied by Booth and Rowntree in theie poverty surveys 100 years ago? The improvement owes far less to the secondhand generosity of politicians doling out other people's money than to the application of capital and labour in multiplying marketable output.

It is clear that greater equality has a powerful, emotional and even aesthetic appeal and effect on its advocates. But its danger lies in the conflict with the indispensable requirement of incentive for a free and an efficient society. My argument in a nutshell is that the disincentive cost of the British Welfare State has now become the major obstacle to the spreading of prosperity through the more effective operation of vigorous competitive enterprise. I agree with the tendency of much of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I express them in this way: our mistake in social policy has been that instead of concentrating help selectively on those in need—for example, as he said, by a reverse income tax—British policy has indulged the essentially collectivist folly of universal free services and benefits which are both inefficient to the recipient and inordinately expensive to the taxpayer as provider. That is why we now have at the same time excessive taxation going hand in hand with inadequate help for some categories of special need.

The cost and burden of indiscriminate benefits is damaging in a host of ways. I shall mention briefly four. In the first place, high taxes necessarily inflate labour costs; at the same time, they deflate the incentives to effort and enterprise. Secondly, the availability of universal services puts a premium on sloth and safety-first. Thirdly, the spreading burden of taxes down the income scale impoverishes millions of families who thereby become dependent upon multiplying state subsidies; and finally—for the moment—the narrowing or non-existent gap between taxed income from work and untaxed social benefits must increase voluntary unemployment and so reduce real output.

Sceptics will find much more interesting evidence than provided in the Diamond Report in a recent compilation by Ralph Howell, the Norfolk MP, entitled Why work? Why indeed, when taxation on a family—a man, wife and two children—starts at a wage of £41 a week compared with tax-free supplementary benefits on offer at £66 a week? Why work indeed when the head of that family would need to earn £115 a week to be better off than collecting unemployment benefit plus tax refunds? Why work indeed when the same breadwinner in a family of four earning £105 a week comes out of the tax-benefit mangle £11 better off than if he earned only £35 a week? Greater equality? My Lords, no—not unless we want, in Churchill's phrase:

"Equal sharing of miseries"

rather than

"unequal sharing of blessings".

I conclude that, instead of sliding with the noble Earl down the slippery slope of equality, we should urgently seek to reduce the half of the national income now spent by Government, to cut taxes and to widen differences of income both from work and investment. We should in my view pursue a deliberate policy of differential incentives in the long-run interests, not least, of the poor and the handicapped. If we really want to encourage employment and to enliven our economy, we need above all to free this economy from decades of self-inflicted political mutilation.

My Lords, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord has said. I do not suppose that your Lordships are surprised at that. When the noble Earl put down this Motion, I thought he was joking to start with; but I understand that he is serious now. We are the most unrestricted democracy in the world and we have more equality in this country than any other country in the world. I am not arguing with that. It is on the whole a good thing.

What has surprised me in this debate is that there has been hardly any mention of biology. The right reverend Prelate skirted around it. I presume that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a product of nature; he did not appear here by parachute from some heavenly being. Therefore, he must abide by the laws of nature. I would remind him that man is governed by nature's laws and not the laws of political idealists. Nature's first law is its infinite variety. If you take a microscope, as I have done often, and look at a handful of grass out of any field, you will see that not one blade is the same as another. You get your giant trees of the forest; you get your scrawny shrubs beneath them; you get your master stag and your king wolf. You can go throughout the whole of nature and the main thing that you find is the great variety and great inequality.

The higher the species in nature—and I suppose man is the highest—the greater the variety you get, the greater the difference among members of the same species. That is a biological fact. I have often quoted here the 18th century philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. They said that all men were born equally wise and virtuous, and all men were born free and equal. Regarding "equally wise and virtuous", I do not think history has borne that out. The philosopher said that it was only tyrannical government that made men not virtuous. However, history has not borne that out.

One is not born free, either. One is either born into a tribe or a community. We have to abide by the laws of that society. If we want to be free we have to take to the jungle and fend for ourselves. Then we would probably end up inside some animal. One is not horn equal, either. One is only equal when dead. One is equal then, I agree, so I think that will please the noble Earl. I am all for equality if it can be attained practically, but one has to remember that the great difficulty of economic equality is that no economic equality can survive the workings of biological inequality.

It is a fact of life that there are many who wish to have complete financial equality and the rewards of success without the responsibility, the work and the inconvenience that entails. Many people in fact wish to have their cake but they also want to eat it. But if you wish for equality you must be prepared to undertake the responsibility and the work. As I say, you cannot have equality with those who are more talented than yourself if you are not prepared to undertake the obligations that that entails, and many people are not prepared or fitted to do that.

Of course, it is easy to level down economically through excessive taxation, and to a great extent we have done that in this country, but it has a great danger because eventually it will drive out the country's brains and so dishearten others that they will not attempt to create wealth; and this will impoverish the people. There is a great danger in that because when we get down to real economic equality we shall get the triumph of ruthless men—men of force—who will rise up and enslave the people. And of course history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

I quite agree that it is very important for every human being, as far as practicable, to have equal opportunity. We have tried to engineer that in our country by our education system. We have had free education in this country for at least 90 per cent. of the population and probably more; but here again you are up against biology because not all the pupils will come from the same background. Some will have been brought up in the country and others will have been brought up in industrial areas. Some teachers will be good and others will be bad. You may have the same school curriculum and exams, but you cannot make all your teachers the same. One noble Lord was saying earlier that if public schools could be incorporated into the state system that would be good. That would be all right if we had enough teachers who were up to the required standard, but I can see no practical way of achieving it.

However, we must be thankful that in this country every man is equal before the law. Of course, we get some bad verdicts from juries, but here again the biological problem enters into it and we cannot get rid of that biological problem. There are plenty of examples of men who have had very little opportunity in life yet have risen to great power and great wealth; so we cannot put too much weight on the education system. I think the biological influence is really most important.

May I say, regarding equality, that there are many instances where we could have more equality. For instance, why should a man who is earning £12,000 or £14,000 a year have a council house? There are plenty of instances of such cases where people are being supported by far poorer members of the community who are paying rates to subsidise that council house. We have many instances like that. For instance, why should workers in the nationalised industries, which on the whole are loss-making industries, have got higher pay rises—20 per cent. generally speaking—than workers in the private or wealth-producing industries, who this year on average have only had about 7 per cent.? That is a question of extremely unfair inequality and there are various inequalities like that which I should like to see altered.

My Lords, I have had my 10 minutes now but would just like to say that—

My Lords, I think my noble friend has reached the end of his speech and he should sit down.

Yes, my Lords. I should just like to say that if we could get a really egalitarian society I can imagine nothing more dreary or boring and it would completely kill culture and the advancement of the nation.

My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity of debating this subject, which I regard as a highly important one. Clearly there is a growing need for greater sex equality in the United Kingdom than is available today. Although the Equal Opportunities Commission, established in 1975, is an important body in itself, it has achieved little to date and one need only consider the composition of the other place and of the Cabinet in order to realise the high degree of sex inequality which predominates in this country. Apart from the Prime Minister, all the remaining 22 Members of the Cabinet are male, all but one of the 29 senior Ministers who are not in the Cabinet are male and all but one of the 51 junior Ministers are male. Since the total numer of women MPs is only 19, one cannot expect to have a greater number in the Government as Conservatives.

If one hopes, as I do, that in years to come there will be sex equality in the political arena and that there will be approximately the same number of women as men among our MPs, clearly changes must be made in the hours of work of MPs and in parliamentary and constituency procedures. Once sex equality is accepted in the parliamentary sphere I do not think that this will be difficult to establish.

Today, sex equality in the political arena is due largely to the belief that married women cannot undertake both the responsibilities of family life and those of a Member of Parliament without neglecting one or other of these spheres. This is not an insoluble problem and if today we gave more thought to parliamentary procedure and the hours of work of MPs and their problems relating to travel, I have little doubt that both men and women could undertake the responsibilities of Members of Parliament without damage to their home lives and their children.

Once sex equality is established in the political arena, I think it will spread to many other fields of occupation now primarily occupied by men. These may include builders, decorators and bus drivers as well as poets and university professors. I would like, in conclusion, again to thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to discuss this matter and I hope it will be discussed in the near future by this House and the other place.

My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I do not think anyone wants to hear anything except the three winding-up speakers, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Longford, so I should like to confine myself to three points only. First, I should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate, which is a particularly suitable one to introduce in this House which, I believe, is called the House of Peers. I know that that, to many people, has an unpleasant connotation. It means house of equals. All Peers are not equally equal, but I cannot think of one who is more equally equal than the noble Earl, Lord Longford.

With great respect, if he will not mind my saying so, I should like to compare him to Saint Paul, who had an answer to everything. If you say "You know nothing about Protestantism, because you are a Catholic" he can say, "I was born into a Protestant family". If you say "You know nothing about prisons, because you have never been in them", he can say "I have been in them for years more than you". If you say, "You know nothing about practical politics, because you have never been on a Front Bench", he can say, "I have been on the Government Front Bench in this House as Leader". You can go on in that way on almost every subject. He is somebody who is worth listening to. He could even boast, although he cannot speak as rapidly as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that he can speak second best to him. He cannot possibly diverge as widely into theology and biology as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has done, but he can make a good effort at it. I think he has raised an extraordinarily interesting debate and I have listened to most of the speeches.

Secondly, in case I am accused of being a party politician, I should like to say that I do not always agree with every single word that is said by the Liberal Front Bench spokesman. In general, I agree with my noble friend Lord Banks and on this occasion I agreed with everything he said. I would also agree with what a lot of noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, have suggested, that this is not a question of equality, like equal triangles or, still less, like congruent triangles. No one has suggested that everyone in this House is as beautiful as any other, as verbal as any other or as experienced as any other. What has been suggested is that every Peer in this House has a right to speak for a limited time. I see that I now have two minutes left and I do not want to go beyond that. I just want to say why I am speaking at all; except that I want to wish all the best to the right reverend Prelate sitting there. The only time one turns one back on Bishops is when one is saying one's prayers. They do not seem to mind that. But we are the goats and they are the sheep.

To get back to the question, it is a matter of equality of rights. Some noble Lords have been a little optimistic in saying that we all have equal rights and equal opportunities in this country. It is perfectly true that we have more in this country than in many, but I should like to mention one class of persons—if one can call them that—as we had a debate about children the other day. I think that the noble Lord who introduced that debate would have some sympathy with me here, and would agree that it is not a subject to be discussed at this moment.

We had a debate about children in which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made an excellent speech, and said that we had to impose a limit. On the whole, children are people under 16. You could not call Abraham, who was one of the Children of Israel, a child, and Jacob's sons went on into old age. There is a maximum limit of 16. Is there a minimum limit? Almost everybody, including the right reverend Prelate, said that we all have a right from birth onwards. The point that I should like to make is that there are certain rights for unborn children, but only for a very limited time. There have been three efforts in another place to introduce a Bill saying that the date should be earlier, and that these children should have a certain right not to be killed off indiscriminately. I believe that such a Bill would get a large measure of support in this country; the idea is getting support in other places in the world.

If anyone suggests that a child before birth is not a person, then I should like to know what is the definition of a "person". If it is, in the ordinary legal phrase, the physical body of a human being, there is no doubt that the foetus in the womb is a physical body; otherwise, it could not be killed. There is no doubt that if it is a human being it cannot turn into anything else. I shall not go into that subject, but I can see no possible reason for denying one right which seems to be more fundamental than the right to good education or the right to anything else; that is, the right to the opportunity to be allowed to live. We talk about handicapped children, but the worst handicap would be to be handicapped out of the race altogether, before you had a chance. I throw that out as one of the ideas on which there is inequality with regard to a certain class; and that minority is, in fact, a 100 per cent. majority, because we have all been children at one time. At the risk of boring people, it is worth raising that subject from time to time. I apologise for taking more than five minutes.

My Lords, I think everyone will agree that this has been a debate of great interest and we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Longford for introducing it. The kind of subjects which legislatures have to discuss today are, as a rule, so full of detail and technicality that we often find we do not have time to look back and ask what kind of society are we creating; in what directions ought we to be moving? It is particularly valuable, therefore, to have a debate of this sort, and it is this House rather than the other which has the time to do that kind of thing. As was wittily said, this is, indeed, a House of Peers so let nobody be jocular at the expense of the idea of the Lords debating equality.

It seems to be agreed throughout that there ought to be in existence equality of opportunity, and agreed throughout that there ought to be equality of rights and equality before the law. But what we are urging from these Benches and what I would say, with respect, some noble Lords have not given sufficient weight to, is that if you have more than a certain degree of inequality of income you will suffer both in equality of opportunity and in equality of rights before the law. It is one thing to set up a legal aid service, but unless you put sufficient resources into it, it will still not give very much help to really poor people who are in danger of losing their legal rights. Practically every right you create must have some material resources put behind it, if there is to be anything like equality of enjoyment of those rights.

Early in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, rightly stressed equality of opportunity and I was very glad that he went on to make the point that equality of opportunity, by itself, is not enough. Excessive inequality of income can damage equality of opportunity. Take, for example, my Lords, the question of housing, which was very eloquently referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose departure from here we are all greatly regretting. He pointed out what a fearful handicap from birth it can be for a child to be inadequately housed. However good the education system is, that child will suffer unless the housing is reasonably adequate. Unless, therefore, you provide a limit to the amount of inequality between how the most fortunate are housed and how the least fortunate are housed, you are not providing equality of opportunity. I have given the other example of the legal aid service. Unless you pump more funds into that than are being pumped in at the moment, you will not get equality of rights before the law between the richest and the poorest. One of the objections to inequality of income is that it fights against that equality of opportunity and equality of rights upon which presumably we are all agreed.

Another evil of great inequality of income is this. Noble Lords should notice that I say "great inequality". Nobody is pretending that we want all incomes to be mathematically equal. But what I think undoubtedly is true is that the range of inequality today is far too high. If you look for any rationale behind why one person is richer than another it is often very hard to find. Great inequality is bound to create a divided and an unhappy society. It is possible today for a man to work all his working life, some 50 years, at a socially valuable service. He can be a postman or a railwayman and work for 50 years. In all that lifetime he will not earn as much money as can be made in a single day in a property deal which will add nothing whatever to the total wealth of the community. That is the kind of inequality we are talking about.

I believe, by the way, that one of the answers to the question put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey: why do we strive so hard to create greater equality but apparently do not get there? is the underlying influence of the ownership of property, in particular landed property. To my mind it is remarkable, particularly if one studies Lord Diamond's report, that the growth in inequality has not been much greater. All the work which has been done to promote greater equality has had a small result, but if it had not been done the inequalities would be very much more flagrant even than they are today. That is the effect, importance and justification of the increase in social services which we have noticed during this century, and in some cases a little earlier.

In that situation, it is no good preaching to people who earn their living, whether by hand or brain, the duty of restraint regarding the public interest. They live in a society which does not pretend to distribute wealth on principles of justice and public interest. It distributes it according to what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, called "biological reasons". Quite what kind of biological reason causes a journalist working on the late magazine Now! to be paid £15,000 a year, a postman to be paid a very much lower wage and the Beatles to get the large sized incomes that they do, I am not sure.

My Lords, the journalist working on the magazine Now! is paid more because, presumably, he is giving a service that few people can give. If you put a postman to work on the magazine Now! he would be unable to write articles in the same way as a journalist can. It is a question of supply and demand.

My Lords, if postmen had been supplied, the magazine might be still in existence. One cannot be at all sure that there is anything just or sensible about it. In a society where there are gross inequalities, many of which (I do not say all of them) are totally unjustifiable upon any rational principle, it is no good trying to persuade people who work for their living to accept restraint and to have regard for the public interest. We live in a society in which people want to get more. That perhaps is a common and an unavoidable human weakness. But one result of our positive worship of inequality is that people not only want to have more for their own enjoyment but regard it as a virtue in itself to have more than the other fellow: the evil which the Greeks called pleiomexia, the itch for having some more. It is that which over the years has made incomes policies fail. Some people conclude from that that one ought not even to try.

When a Government say that they are not going to try to have an incomes policy, we all know what it means. It means that they will let people in private industry get as much as their muscle will obtain for them and that they will solve the problem by bashing the public servants. That kind of injustice is bound to follow in a society where people will not respond to the idea of making an incomes policy work. And they will not respond because the whole ethos of that society urges them to believe that it is a good thing to try to get more than somebody else, never mind whether you deserve it, never mind whether the public interest justifies it, never mind whether you create so much inflation that in the end you will find it is not worth it.

The evil of inequality is that it breeds on itself. It encourages people to regard inequality as something to be praised on its own account. Against this, some urge that there are such drawbacks to the idea of greater equality that we must just put up with inequality, whatever its evils. This case was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who spoke to us about incentives. We must accept that one justification for some measure of inequality is incentive: to get people to put up better efforts, to train themselves for more skilled, more responsible work. This would be reasonable enough if, first, the degree of inequality were not intolerably great and, secondly, if there were a real relationship between how much you get and what your contribution to society is. But the plain fact today is that the largest incomes are not made by work. The largest incomes are made by the ownership or manipulation of property.

I believe that one of the things we ought to do if we are to remedy this evil is to see that a greater amount of land in this country is brought into public ownership. Three times Labour Governments have endeavoured to see that people should not make large, unearned fortunes out of land. Three times Conservative Governments have frustrated those attempts. The spectacle of people making large, unearned incomes goes on. It is no good, therefore, saying that inequality of this sort can be justified as an incentive to greater work. Inequality within moderate limits and inequality definitely related to function does make sense. What we have at present does not. It is not only, as my noble friend Lord Longford argued eloquently, immoral and repulsive to our senses. It is something which is actually injurious to society.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, rejoicing in our liberation from flypaper, linoleum and various other horrors of the past, ascribed all this to the virtues of private enterprise. It was plain enough towards the end of the last century when capitalism was really getting into its stride, that by itself it was quite incapable either of housing most people decently, or of providing education adequate to the needs of the society in which they were living, or of looking after their health properly. Those things had to be done by public action—that is, by mitigating the inequalities which society had suffered.

I say, therefore, that our rules for the distribution of wealth ought to be these. Let us regard equality in itself as something to work for and let us accept such inequality as is necessary—in deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, necessary for biological reasons. But this means that it must be moderate in amount and closely related to function: that if A is richer than B, you ought to be able to show, first, that he is not so much richer that he lives a life so wide apart from B that they can never understand each other and, secondly, that there is some solid public reason why A should be richer than B—that his advantage is not only an advantage to him but an advantage to the public.

How can we get nearer to that goal? Partly, I think, by dealing with the laws relating to inheritance and the transfer of wealth by gift. Capital transfer tax was introduced because death duties were so often avoided. I accept, as did my noble friend Lord Longford, that it is desirable that people should be able to pass on something to their heirs, but once again there should be moderation and proportion. For a man to be born into the situation where he inherits wealth to the extent that he need not (if he does not want to) do any work for the rest of his life is neither good for him nor justifiable to society. Therefore, I think we need to strike more at the passing of great fortunes in that way. As I said earlier, we want to extend the public ownership of land and reduce the opportunities for private persons to enrich themselves in ways that do not enrich society as a whole. There are other inequalities. My noble kinswoman Lady Stewart of Alvechurch drew attention to the inequalities from which women still suffer. In particular I think we need to get rid of the prejudice against the entry of women to certain employments, because it is that more than anything else which keeps women's wages down today.

I will suggest, perhaps lightheartedly, one very simple reform which we could introduce quite speedily: let it be a rule that titles descend to the eldest child, irrespective of sex. In a generation the composition of this House would be quite considerably altered and we should then have struck a blow for equality. In general, what we are trying to create is a kind of society with a different set of values, in which, while we recognise that there will be inequalities and there will be difficulties, we do not regard the mere acquisition of wealth—and particularly more wealth than somebody else—as a benefit in itself. We can encourage people to look at the other incentives to work: the interests of public service, which for many people are almost as powerful. As R. H. Tawney, who has so often been quoted, put it:

"To have useful and interesting work to do and enough money and leisure to be able to do it properly is as much happiness as is good for the sons of Adam".

My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this debate; but before going on to answer his argument I should like to pay my tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who made a most moving and wise speech and gave us all a great deal to think about. I know that I speak for all my noble friends in thanking him for his many important contributions in your Lordships' House and in saying that we wish him well in all that he does.

We have had a great many thoughtful speeches this afternoon and I should like to begin by stating two propositions on which I hope we might all agree. The first is that it should be the aim of the Government to ensure that vulnerable groups in our society, such as pensioners, the disabled, and the chronically sick, share in any general rise in living standards. I think it is fair to say that this has happened over the years. Between 1948 and 1980 the real value of supplementary benefit, the minimum income laid down by Parliament, has doubled. It is also true that since the war there have been similar improvements in real terms in all the main social security benefits and in addition, particularly under the last Conservative Government, a number of new benefits were introduced for groups like the disabled with the attendance allowance, pensions for the over 80s and certain widows who previously had no pension at all. The present child benefit scheme which combines the previous separate arrangements for family allowances and child tax allowances has brought about a considerable improvement in the provision for families, particularly at the lower end of the income scale, and we have given special help to one-parent families. Recent statistics have shown that in 1979, a typical family in the bottom 20 per cent. of the income distribution recovered benefits in cash or kind which increased their pre-tax income by 70 per cent.

I recognise that there are still blackspots of poverty and squalor in Britain today. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be agreement that the cause of these blackspots is often not necessarily because there is a shortage of money. For example, we all know the difficulties which many families have experienced through living in tower blocks. We all know that the problem of living a decent life in certain housing estates is not so much concerned with a standard of housing, which is often good, but with vandalism and crime, particularly burglaries and the breaking of windows, which makes life difficult for those trying to maintain good standards. This is particularly true in the case of the elderly.

The second point on which I hope there will be general agreement is that there is a need for an enlargement of opportunity, particularly for young people, both black and white, in our remaining blackspots of poverty. Here I listened with great interest to what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, said, but I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who wishes to call this the need for more equality of opportunity that I would not quarrel with him, provided that he is thinking in terms of levelling up rather than levelling down. However, I would emphasise that his Motion refers to the need for more equality, which is different from equality of opportunity, for it has frequently been said that the purpose of equality of opportunity is to enable people subsequently to become more unequal.

The call for more equality would be more understandable if the wealth of our country was indeed in the hands of a very small minority with the great majority of the population in real poverty—in other words, a minority of very wealthy people, the remainder of the population being very poor. But this is not the case. If we look at the distribution of income in 1972 as set out in the Royal Commission Report, incomes after tax were divided up roughly as follows: at the upper end of the scale, the top 1 per cent. of earners received 4 per cent. of income after tax; the top 10 per cent. received 24 per cent., and the bottom 10 per cent. approximately 3 per cent. of total income. These are not dramatic differences by the standards of other Western economies, nor I suspect, of many countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Turning now to the distribution of capital assets, there is of course the claim that 10 per cent. of the population own between 80 and 90 per cent. of all capital assets. But this calculation ignores pension rights, including state pensions. If pension rights are included we find that the top 10 per cent., own less than 45 per cent. of capital assets, which is a very different matter. Even this calculation is open to error because wealth is normally distributed unevenly between husbands and wives, old and young. When these distortions are allowed for, even the figure of 45 per cent. could well turn out to be an overestimate.

The truth is that over the years in Britain the very rich have tended to get relatively poorer, but both the poor or the relatively poor and those particularly in the middle ground of incomes have got richer—and more people have moved into the middle ground of incomes; and I, for one, welcome the changes which have occurred.

It must be appreciated that those who today are often described as poor because they are at the lower end of the income scale, would certainly not have been regarded as living in poverty, say, 40 or 50 years ago—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Thus, while one can have some sympathy with Professor Townsend's concept that poverty should be considered in terms of relative deprivation, I would not go all the way with him in saying, as he said in his recent book, that anyone is poor who cannot:

"participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong"—

It seems to me that this would mean that even if standards of living of everyone in the country, including those at the bottom of the incomes scale, were doubled or even trebled, the professor would still be making precisely the same criticism as he is today. The fact is that the concept of equality is in many respects a delusion. I believe, as a Christian, in equality before God, and I believe, as a citizen, in equality before the law. But today anyone who has attempted to define equality has run into difficulties.

I am sure we all listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Vaizey's most thoughtful speech and the difficulties that he has found, as an economist, in defining equality. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who called, among other things, for a simplification of the benefits system. But I think even he will accept that over the last years the social security system has been substantially reviewed. The contributions system has been remodelled, new earnings-related pensions introduced, child benefit introduced for all, non-contributory benefits have been introduced for the disabled and the supplementary benefits system has been reformed. We have made a significant start on simplifying the supplementary benefits system as we have spelled out claimants' entitlement by making the rules public in regulations approved by Parliament. But it is not an easy matter, as the noble Lord will know, once one begins to look at it.

The fact is that any attempt to impose an egalitarian society would in practice mean an ever-widening gap between the growing bureaucracy and the rest of the population, for the assumption underlying this demand is that people should be protected against making wrong decisions by having the state decide things for them. The fact that people make mistakes is something which must be accepted in a free society. Nor should it be supposed that there is some sort of ruling élite who would be better equipped to make decisions than the people themselves. Of course there is not; and even if there were, it would itself negate the concept of an égalitarian society because, put another way, some would undoubtedly be more equal than others.

The advocates of equality rely to a large extent on the fallacy that the profit motive is immoral because it appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, such as greed. But I believe this is a distortion of the facts, because one of the main incentives to work and to thrift is the desire to improve the living conditions of one's family—surely not an ignoble aim, and surely one central to the philosophy of both the noble Earl and myself; that is, support for the family. We should therefore accept the need for the profit motive, bearing in mind the words of Archbishop Temple when he declared that:

The art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands".

Noble Lords may, of course, say that this Motion does not call for a completely égalitarian society but only for more equality, and I accept that. But if the noble Earl is dissatisfied with the present pattern of income and wealth and is calling for greater equality, he must have in mind some specific pattern of distribution which he would seek to impose in some way in place of the present arrangements. What then is the pattern of distribution which he would seek to impose on us, and how would he impose it? He referred to the book entitled Inequality in Britain, by Frank Field, the honourable Member in another place. May I say that he is someone who I view as a man of great integrity. As the House will know, he has over the years been just as critical, if not more critical, of social reform records of Labour Governments as of Conservative Governments. I have read his book with great interest. He has made the way to achieve more equality in a no-growth economy; he believes in a major redistribution of resources and a complete reassessment not only of the traditional welfare state but also of four other welfare states, which he has identified as those provided by tax benefits, by companies, by private markets and by unearned incomes. He sees poverty in relation to the wealth of the community, like Professor Peter Townsend; he sees it as relative rather than absolute.

But, my Lords, interesting as his book is, I think there are two criticisms. Even if this massive redistribution of wealth were possible, he has made no allowance at all for any alteration in the behaviour of people as a consequence of this transfer of wealth. Let me give just one illustration of this. He proposes to extend capital gains tax to owner-occupiers selling their houses. This would inevitably affect the housing market. It would certainly affect the price of houses. Many couples want to sell their house, once their children are grown up, and move to a smaller house. Yet it would be most unattractive to sell under those circumstances. The population would become less mobile, with all the attendant disadvantages to young couples. And if tax relief on mortgages was confined to those paying the basic rate it would mean that fewer people would move to more expensive houses. The fact is that to introduce this massive redistribution one must take account of the effect this would have on decisions by a number of people. And the same argument, if I may say so, seems to me to apply to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, on the various land taxes that have been introduced, which have not had precisely the effects which their movers intended.

My Lords, this Government want to see a continuation of the social progress that has been made over the past 30 or 40 years. We believe in, and I would particularly like to comment on, the importance of child benefit, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we are very glad that we have been able to give a commitment to uprate it each year to maintain its real value. Indeed, it is being increased by 10½ per cent. next November. But we accept that the first essential is to conquer inflation, and there is no easy or painless way of doing this. We still have a long way to go before we achieve the goal of a property-owning democracy first put forward by Sir Anthony Eden in 1950. A great deal of progress has been made. Now there are 56 home-owning families out of every 100, as compared with 30 families in 1950. We must also go on to see a considerable extension of individual share ownership of industry. The present Government have taken a number of steps to encourage this. It is a fact though that through contributions to occupational pension schemes or life insurance policies the majority of households in Britain may be indirectly investing in the Stock Exchange. But the connection is too remote for there to be any feeling of personal involvement, and unhappily there are only about 2 million direct individual investors in British industry.

My Lords, the time has come when I must conclude my remarks. I would like to say that, although I cannot accept the terms of this Motion, I believe that in a free society it is the job of the Government to encourage equality of opportunity, and included in that must be opportunities for wealth creation. I believe at the same time that it is for the individual always to act with love, thought and responsibility towards his neighbour.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not have more time because I know she had a lot more that she wished to say. I am grateful to her for her last remarks. We all recognise their sincerity, indeed the sincerity of all her remarks, but we are particularly grateful for those. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate, and I repeat my tribute to the right reverend Prelate, all the more since we have heard his eloquent speech this afternoon.

I do not want to take up the time of the House any further. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, replied broadly to the Conservative arguments that had come up before the speech of the noble Baroness. I would say only one thing about what she said. It remains to me quite unclear whether she would like to see more or less equality—I repeat, quite unclear; I defy anyone to say whether she wishes to see more or less equality. She boasted in a discreet kind of way about what seemed to be the progress towards more equality. She certainly did not say she wanted to put the clock back—as Lord Harris clearly did—but I am bound to say, without dragging in party politics at the last moment, that the present Government have in fact stood for a policy of more inequality. No one doubts that. I am not saying it is out of any brutality or lack of compassion; it is just because they think that is what will make the economy work better. That is Mrs. Thatcher's doctrine and no one doubts this. We have not, of course, introduced such a difficult subject as that up to now, but I think we must say, when we are talking about this subject, that the noble Baroness's remarks bear no relation to the policy actually being pursued by the present Government. Having said that, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part, and particularly the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

rose to call attention to the future of the newspaper industry; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, newspapers have a wide fascination which acts like a magnet picking up diverse opinions—often uncomplimentary to the press and expressed with a reckless confidence and an awesome authority which have little relation to reality. This does not apply, of course, to the moderate speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and indeed we are indebted to him for keeping this important subject under current review. We are also indebted to my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris—who I am delighted to learn will be speaking later in this debate—whose Royal Commission on the Press produced an excellent analysis of its current state. Many of the report's recommendations still need to be implemented.

Suggestions that the newspaper industry is in dire straits are not true, and I am very glad that Lord Birdwood also took an optimistic view. The industry is alive, thriving and thrustful. The printed word, which is one of the most important facets of our civilisation, is holding its own. It is not being eroded by television or by radio but is being complemented by them. I will not go into the electronic forms because the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, dealt with them at some length. Printed words have a permanency and they do not rapidly disappear from the eye or the ear as do television and radio. Today, we in this country have 10 national daily newspapers with a total circulation of 15 million; a drop from the 20 million of a decade ago. We have seven national Sunday newspapers whose circulations have also dropped, but they have still maintained around 18 million sales. We also have a provincial press which is usually in a a very healthy state. The drop in circulations is a result, I believe, of the increase in cover prices which have now been pushed to the limit. The coldest draught has been felt by quality newspapers because half their advertising revenue comes from classified advertisements; so that when a recession hits hard, it hits these newspapers very hard as well. Yet the Sunday Express now has a colour supplement, the News of the World plans to introduce a colour supplement in September, as does the Sunday Mirror, and the publishers of the Daily Mail are talking about launching a new Sunday newspaper.

I share the doubts which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, about the proliferation of colour supplements because of the investment which goes into them and the competition they pose as giveaways to some magazines. I say this with feeling having once been the associate begetter and editor of Nova, where we felt that the colour supplements copied from our magazine and got off the ground free, which made them very difficult to compete with.

Returning to newspapers, we have seen the launch of a new Sunday newspaper in Scotland, the Sunday Standard aiming at a circulation of 170,000, and which will also be giving employment in that heavily depressed area, which is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred to the question of giveaway newspapers. I believe there are two sides to this question. Many of them are owned by provincial newspapers, and a number of good provincial newspapers which are flourishing today started life as giveaway newspapers at the end of the last century.

The question of changing patterns of ownership is currently posing some problems, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, touched on this point. I believe without any doubt that the sale of Times Newspapers should have been referred to the Monopolies Commission before it was agreed to. The result might have been the same; I accept that Rupert Murdoch is a professional newspaper man. But when one has a structure and a procedure, then it should be followed. I believe that the Government were quite wrong not to insist that this matter be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Meanwhile, Mr. Murdoch having given certain undertakings, I wish The Times well and will say at this point that it has had a very good rebirth. However, there should be an emergency procedure, because one of the reasons why this matter did not go to the Monopolies Commission was that Mr. Murdoch was unwilling to wait the three months required for this procedure; and when there is the likelihood of a newspaper closing down, or where there is a hiatus, it is impossible to expect that people will wait that length of time while the newspaper loses its advertising and goes down the drain. Perhaps the Minister would say whether the Government are seriously considering this; I understand that by the use of an emergency procedure it could be sorted out within two or three weeks.

Coming to the Observer, we have a different proposition. The problem here is not really one of monopoly but whether the particular ownership is for the public benefit. Owning great slabs of industry in Africa and the Lonrho style of management raises serious doubts as to whether it should own a newspaper whose reputation is now largely based on its coverage of African affairs. Now!, which since Monday has affectionately been known as "Then", had no chance from the beginning. There is little prospect in this country of an expensive news magazine with no passionate views, no soul and no campaigning spirit, standing up against competition from the national dailies and Sundays. Sir James Goldsmith made the mistake of thinking in the French context, where his l'Express is extremely successful, and that the same result would be achieved in this country, where we have a tremendous number of national dailies and Sundays.

One of the most important points to consider is the quality of newspapers. As a reader and journalist, I believe that the most important factor is that of content. This is what newspapers are all about, and in my view the tabloids, with a circulation of 12 million, cause the most concern. Many years ago the Daily Mirror, under the editorial leadership of my noble friend Lord Cudlipp, proved that a paper could be serious, campaigning and entertaining. Then we got the Sun—the rebirth so to speak—which started at the lowest common denominator yet still managed to descend editorially.

Unfortunately, the Daily Mirror went down market as well, debasing its own editorial currency in defence of circulation. That was a great mistake. The Daily Mirror is now pulling up; its content is more serious, it is crisp and very readable, and its circulation has increased. The lesson to be learned here is that you must not under-estimate people; once a market has been set and you know your product is acceptable and is being well read, you should try to hang on. Although I do not subscribe to its political views, the Daily Mail is a good tabloid. In recent days we have heard Lloyd Turner, the new editor of the Daily Star, say;

"I am not a tits and bum man",

and he has said he wants to turn it into a more serious Left-wing paper.

There is today a certain amount of cross-comment which is interesting, remembering the cultural and political gap there is in the pattern of our newspapers, a subject to which I shall come shortly. For instance, The Times, which has been considered all along as the defender and supporter of a Conservative Government, contained a leader on the Nationality Bill which was a sensible and constructive critique on what is being done on the subject. Yesterday it ran a slashing attack on the Contempt of Court Bill, which has left your Lordships' House for another place. That was not surprising in view of the thalidomide campaign which the paper undertook some years ago.

When speaking of quality, it should be pointed out that journalists themselves have a great responsibility. I speak from experience when I say that there are frontiers beyond which one cannot go. Nevertheless, most journalists take a pride in producing well-written work, material which they would like to read themselves. That is not to say that when one re-reads what one has written one could not make improvements in it. But journalists must heed their editors. There is a political and cultural gap and it is clear that we need in our pattern of newspapers a left of centre non-tabloid. A feasibility study is being carried out now by the TUC into whether it would be possible to finance a new paper of the Left. I agree with those who do not want newspapers subsidised by the state; that would be a dangerous and slippery path for newspapers to take in a free democracy. I also doubt whether the national printing corporation as suggested in the minority report to the Royal Commission report is necessary; there is ample printing capacity among the newspapers now in operation.

One cannot run too far ahead of one's readers. One has to reach the point where they are not underestimated. One can push an experiment, but if the point is reached when people do not want to read the paper, then one is undertaking a self-destructive exercise. I see the long-term improvement in quality as resting in the educational sphere. In my view, newspapers should be read and criticised as part of the school curriculum. I accept that certainly the better schools, in the sixth and even lower forms, have societies where this activity is undertaken. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords have been invited to speak to them and answer questions. That newspapers are discussed in schools today must be a necessary part of the curriculum if the readers of the future are to demand something better. Knowing something of what the various newspapers stand for must be of great help in that connection, and I am not thinking only of the political slant of newspapers. I am thinking of the differences between news and comment, what is missed and how some newspapers specialise in particular features and so on. Such informed demand would also be good for newspapers because it could only result in a greater demand overall for newspapers in the future.

A certain amount of monitoring of newspapers is done by the Press Council, which was established 27 years ago. However, it is concerned mainly with complaints. The Press Council got off to a flying start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, as chairman, followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross; but latterly it has taken quite a bashing, some of it justified in my view. Eight editors have refused to publish the adjudication. I accept that the council has put it out again and had it republished in other papers, but unless the newspaper industry supports the Press Council—for the benefit of the industry as well—I fear we shall see a dangerous situation arising. For the Press Council to be effective, it must be strong and be seen to be strong, it must be authoritative and show its authority, and it must make itself well-known as a protector of the public and not just as a tool of the industry. It should advertise itself and not have to go about begging bowl in hand; in my view, £200,000 is chickenfeed if the Press Council is to do an effective and well-recognised job. After all, unless it puts its own house in order, a statutory body with legal sanctions will replace it, and that would be an unfortunate development.

My union, the NUJ, had its representatives withdraw from the Press Council. My personal view is that that was a great pity, and if there had been a ballot, which there was not, I would certainly have voted against that decision. I say that because while they may disapprove of what the council is or is not doing, the representatives—there were four of them, the largest representation of any group on the Press Council—should have stayed and fought front within, even though a separate Commission of Inquiry has been set up by the Campaign for Press Freedom. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations about the Press Council, some of which have been implemented. For example, 50 per cent. of the members should be lay members. But, as the Press Council stresses, it is important that these members should be chosen from a very wide spectrum.

The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, spoke at some length and interestingly on the new technology. As he said, the new technology has made some strides, in particular outside London, and in this area it is fair to say that IPC has led the field. But progress is understandably slow. New technology means cuts in manpower, whichever way one looks at it, and it can be brought about only by union and managerial co-operation. The unions' move towards amalgamation of the number of print unions should be encouraged. This has been on the board for some time and I hope that something will come of it.

I think that there is a great deal wrong with what is happening in regard to restrictive practices and other matters. I do not make excuses here. But management has an abysmal record, and I believe that it is even more to blame than the unions for the industrial relations snarl-ups that we are suffering and which have been building up over a number of decades. Today management is trying its best to disentangle the situation and to create a climate of co-operation, but we are suffering from what has happened in the past. The Times management, when The Times was closed down, tried to get through the new technology without having enough consideration for the professional and social consequences.

Of course, restrictive practices and very high wage demands are millstones around the industry's neck. But the unions have a heritage in the industry going back 500 years. The human factor is of tremendous importance. In the 'thirties, 'forties, 'fifties, and 'sixties the proprietors were very weak. They never stood together; they certainly do not always stand together today. In those years restrictive practices and wage demands were encouraged in order to win the circulation wars against competitors.

It has been said that there is a mutual conspiracy in the industry between management and workers. Well, as Bernard Shaw said,

"Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity";

and so probably is every industry. But mutual conspiracy is really a basis on which one can sometimes get things to work. I think that a marriage probably has to be a mutual conspiracy if it is to be successful. But we must find a basis of mutual understanding as an infrastructure for the mutual conspiracy. That understanding seems to be slowly coming about, but if we are to look to a successful future, it needs to be improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred to the newsprint industry and said that in the United Kingdom it must be maintained. I believe that we must be clear that we cannot have a vast home newsprint industry. The main exporters of newsprint to this country are Scandinavia and Canada. But here there should be more recycling. As I saw when I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, the waste problem in this country is very grave. Whenever people were asked to save newspaper and other material—in particular newspaper—the complaint was that it was never wanted if they delivered it somewhere themselves, or it was never collected from them when they offered it. I would press the Government for help on this matter, though I must add that I think all Governments have been very remiss in this field. Help here would certainly not endanger press freedom, but would aid the industry.

Finally, despite the faults, the shortcomings, and the gaps in the political spectrum, we have throughout the country a wider variety of newspapers than there is anywhere else in the world. Although the quality is not always as good as many of us would like it to be, it is still a free, volatile, and fairly high quality press. The future is far from black. Let us improve it, but let us make sure that in doing so we do not erode its basic freedom.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in the debate. It was once observed, somewhat cynically, by a noble Lord opposite that perhaps the two simplest routes to your Lordships' House, apart from birth, were, first, being a Liberal Member of Parliament and, secondly, working for the Mirror group of newspapers. Well, here we both are. But my answer to that charge would be as follows. First, it is not very easy to become a Liberal Member of Parliament, and, secondly, I am quite sure that it is not easy to achieve in the press the degree of expertise that has been achieved by the noble Baroness. I listened with very great interest to every word that she said, and I am quite sure that her speech has been of immense help to us.

We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for giving us an opportunity today to bring a little light into a rather dark place. Recently a great deal of hysterical nonsense has been spoken, in another place and elsewhere, about the press and its various problems. I believe that your Lordships' House can be counted on to talk informed good sense on the subject, as indeed it so often does on many other subjects; and certainly we shall have informed good sense from the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who is to speak later. I am quite sure that what has been said, and what has yet to be said, in the debate will be of very great importance, but whether those concerned will actually take any notice is perhaps another matter.

At the outset I must make absolutely clear two points regarding the views of my noble friends on these Benches on this important question. First, we believe passionately that a vigorous, free and unfettered press is a vital ingredient in any democratic society. We also believe that the press discharging its vital functions effectively depends basically on the maximum number of journalists, editors, and others operating with the maximum degree of freedom and autonomy. Only in that way shall we achieve a proper and effective balance of opinion and outlook. The freedom and the autonomy of the individuals who are actually writing in the papers is much more important than the matter that has already been referred to—that of ownership, though I admit that that is of some importance.

In other words, on these Benches we do not believe that fairness, political balance, and adequate ventilation of minority points of view can, or indeed should, be imposed on the press by Parliament. What Parliament can do, and perhaps should do, is to pass a Freedom of Information Bill, so that the press can always find out exactly what is happening, instead of discovering it when it is too late to do anything about it. We also happen to believe that we should pass, too, a protection of privacy Bill and give some effect to the recommendations of the Younger Committee. We see no inconsistency in those two matters. Indeed, noble Lords on these Benches have a long history and tradition of treading delicate paths of this kind without falling over on either side.

Basically, I am saying that essentially this is a matter of communication between the press and Government, between Parliament and the press, between the people and Government; and it must be a two-way business. The Government must keep the press fully informed, and not push the press into a position where it constantly has to find out things. The Government must open up the books to clear scrutiny, perhaps a little more than is done in this country. I believe that in Britain we are still obsessed with secrecy. It must be a two-way affair. The press must be free to comment freely.

Of course, the Government are entirely free to read the comments with which they happen to agree; and I know that that is what Governments tend to do. I think it was Sir Harold Wilson who, as Prime Minister, was once described by someone with perhaps a clinical turn of mind as suffering from what was called the "Cleopatra syndrome". Noble Lords might recollect that Cleopatra, in her less amiable moments, was apt to execute messengers who brought bad news. If one does that, it is remarkable how soon the good news starts flowing in. Of course that is the kind of press that the Soviet Union has—a press with which the Government always agree. I hope that we shall always have a press with which no one always agrees and which always expresses different points of view.

Secondly, on behalf of my noble friends I want to make it absolutely clear that we believe that it is not Parliament's business to bail out an industry which two Commissions have shown to be suffering from bad management, deplorable industrial relations, thriftlessness and waste and outrageous and extravagant overmanning. We all know what is wrong with the press. It is in all these volumes—nearly 1,000 pages produced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and his colleagues, in their admirable report. We all know what is wrong; but, surely, the press must themselves sort these matters out, and if they want to stay in business they must put their own houses in order. Otherwise, they must just go to the wall, like other inefficient concerns.

That really means that the press has to come to terms with new conditions and has to adapt to new conditions and to new demands. We have seen that happening so often in the media as a whole. When films first appeared it was generally said that that was the end of the theatre. It was not the end of the theatre. It meant certain changes in the theatre, so that the theatre changed its techniques, perhaps, and developed in different ways. When gramophone records and recorded music were first produced we were told that that was the end of orchestral music. It was not; it was in many ways the beginnings of orchestral music. Live music had to adapt to recorded music.

We now have a situation in which the main purveyor of news to our people is not the press any more but is television and radio, and that means that the press itself has to come to terms with new demands and has to fill a new place. I think many papers have already done that admirably, and have realised that they are not the primary source of news for our people; they are the primary source of comment and perhaps further explanation, in-depth discussion and matters of that kind.

Further, I want to say that the suggestion that the loss of one or two so-called national newspapers would mean the end of a free press totally ignores the very important role played by scores of vigorous, healthy, thriving, regional and local papers all over our country which genuinely keep the flag of freedom flying high. If we look back at the record we shall soon see that time and time again a regional or a local paper, such as the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, for example, to quote just one—and it is one with which I have no personal connection—has unearthed a national scandal and been in the forefront of the civil liberties movement. If we look further back we see how much the so-called "national" papers have in fact damaged what were once powerful and influential opinion-formers.

Noble Lords may know that when Thomas De Quincey decided to edit a paper he did not edit The Times; he edited the Westmorland Gazette. When Matthew Arnold wanted to write to the papers to ventilate his very important and interesting views he did not write to the Guardian; he wrote to the Sheffield Independent. There are still excellent small papers all over Britain carrying first-class, informed and balanced leading articles—and well written, too, which cannot be said of all the quality dailies today. I think there are times, perhaps, when the old art of sub-editing appears to have departed, and when one could cover The Times, the Guardian and the Telegraph with grammatical corrections. I think that from time to time one will find a higher quality of writing in some of the regional and local press. But I am bound to say that the influence of regional and local papers has in fact been reduced and diminished by the excessive concentration and metropolitanisation of our press in Fleet Street.

I said "so-called" national papers because I think that some of them are not really national papers at all; they are London papers, local papers—and this time I am really using the term "London" in its correct, strict, geographical sense, and not in the normal Manchester sense. When we say "London", of course, we mean Cornwall, Devon and all points south of the Wash. But I really do believe that many of these papers are not "national" in any meaningful sense of that word. In fact, I think the national press does much to support and to maintain and preserve our excessive concentration of power and influence in London.

Noble Lords on these Benches have campaigned against over-centralisation in many fields, and we do not share this national hysteria about the London papers. It would be ludicrous to give financial help to the industry which pays the highest wages in London and wastes money in innumerable other ways. Of course, it is regrettable that the Scottish Sunday Express, I think, now has to be printed in Manchester, but perhaps that makes up a little bit for the Manchester Guardian now being edited and controlled and run in London. As a Manchester man, I could face the world provided I had an umbrella and the Guardian—but that leads me to my final point.

This excessive preoccupation with Fleet Street, this undue metropolitanisation of the press, I think has done much to diminish the value of the press. I do not say for a moment that the provinces, or what is done in Manchester, in Sheffield or on Merseyside is better than what is done in London. What I do say is that it is different. I think that what the regional journalist and the regional press can do is to look at national and international events through regional eyes and give a regional flavour to international and national themes.

Even in the field of television, because programmes are produced by Granada in Manchester—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, here—does not necessarily mean that they are better, but it does tend to mean that they are different. I think that one thing that happened with the movement of the Manchester Guardian to London was that it immediately affected recruitment. Once the seat of power was in London its recruitment was in London, along with that of The Times, the Telegraph and the other quality papers. So the difference has tended to be diminished, and I wonder whether distinguished journalists like Francis Boyd and Neville Cardus would ever have come to the fore had the Guardian been situated in London in earlier days; and I think that that question applies to many of our affairs.

I would close by saying that I think a great deal of the strength of our whole society in Britain depends upon its diversity. I now think that there is a danger that the weakness of our press lies in its lack of diversity, and I hope that sooner or later we will see our press thriving and flourishing, with a vast variety of control and operation, not just in London but throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the future of the newspaper industry, and I shall want to pick up a number of the points that he made in his admirable and extremely wide-ranging speech. The newspaper industry must be, I suppose, just about the most researched and investigated industry in the country. There have been three Royal Commissions since the war, the last reporting four years ago, and numerous other reports, books and articles of varying degrees of usefulness. One might well think that there was little new that could be said about it, but an old concern can take on a new emphasis in the changing environment in which our press has to operate. The speeches we have already heard show that, I think.

My own interest in the press stems, in the main, from an intensive three years as a member of the last Royal Commission, under the distinguished and wholly agreeable chairmanship of—and I am sure that on this occasion he will allow me to refer to him in this way—my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I should also record that I have a number of professional connections with the newspaper industry.

Inevitably—and I think the speeches so far have already shown it—one tends to concentrate on the national newspaper industry, and I shall be no exception. Notwithstanding that, I should like, as a north countryman, to echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on the importance of the provincial newspaper industry. Incidentally, he referred to De Quincey as being the editor of the Westmorland Gazette—the newspaper of my home town. I think that in fact he had to be removed from office because he was far too highbrow for the Kendalians of the time—but, still, it was an interesting event. The provincial newspaper industry is larger than Fleet Street in industrial terms. It is larger in terms of output and employment. Nor should we forget that the provincial newspapers are in general (excluding, perhaps, the present recession) reasonably profitable. I did not know that United Newspapers were being tipped, but, on the whole, they are reasonably profitable. They have been proceeding quietly and steadily with the introduction of the new technology, and, even if their manning levels are high by international good practice, they do not exhibit the same horrors as Fleet Street. They provide an essential service as a source of local news and opinion and an equally essential service which is sometimes forgotten, by creating a market place through their classified advertisements for the sale of goods and services. I doubt whether they will suffer seriously from local radio, something which some people think might happen. I think that local radio is partly complementary but partly a useful competitive spur in a situation where all the main towns now have only a single evening newspaper. I think that the relationship with radio will be a healthy one.

There is one feature of the development of the provincial newspaper industry over the last 15 years which is not satisfactory, and that is the growth of regional concentration in ownership. There are understandable reasons to do with production economics which in part explain this tendency. Nevertheless, it tends to reduce local competition and, perhaps more important, it carries the danger of lessening the variety of opinion and voices at local level. The last Royal Commission drew attention to this and I believe that the Monopolies Commission has taken note of our views. It would be helpful to hear the Government's views this evening.

We should remember that there are some half dozen journals of opinion—when I prepared these notes, I wrote, "not all flourishing financially", and that was at the weekend, before we learned of the demise of Now!—but we should remember also that there are large numbers of periodicals often referred to as "the alternative press" all of which contribute to a diversity of social and political comment. We would all agree, I am sure, that we should be much poorer without Private Eye.

But it is our Fleet Street newspapers that matter most and that is where the trouble lies. We have seen in the last 12 months the demise of the Evening News and the transfer of ownership of The Times and the Sunday Times which followed the failure of the Thomson Organisation's efforts to get them on to a proper footing. Now there is the prospective change of ownership of the Observer. Both these changes of ownership stem from poor, if not appalling, financial performance. Just before Easter it was announced that the Guardian had had a poor year which was not even covered by the profits of the Manchester Evening News and the other papers in that group. To set against this, we have only Lord Matthew's courageous enterprise in starting a new popular daily. One cannot help feeling that it is a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.

I do not want to comment on the specific issue of why the Government did not refer The Times's change of ownership to the Monopolies Commission while they referred the Observer change. I am fairly familiar with the circumstances in each case and I shall listen to what the Government have to say with great attention. There are involved here important issues both of policy and of its application in particular circumstances.

I want to concentrate on the general problems of Fleet Street which lie behind these recent events. Some would say that everything is due to the inexorable economic law that the economies of scale derived from larger-scale circulations tend to be self-reinforcing and that these economic forces will be so strong that the market leader in any one class of newspaper will drive out its competitors. I do not subscribe to that thesis. All the evidence I have seen suggests that Fleet Street is such an irrational place that it is wise to be agnostic and unsafe to make predictions. The failure of the News Chronicle was not the result of this law but had more to do with its management and editorial performance. The resurgence of the Sun in the 1970s—whatever one thinks about it in terms of quality, which is a value judgment—after it was acquired by Mr. Murdoch, should not have been possible according to this law. Its unit costs resulting from its derisory initial circulation should have been far greater than those of its larger circulation rival, the Daily Mirror. But, in fact, its unit costs were lower.

Like so many so-called economic laws, the reality of the market place is often very different. As I have already noted, it ignores the abilities of different managements adequately to control costs—manning levels and pay rates—in production, administration and editorial departments. This is such a truism as to seem scarcely worth stating. But all the evidence that I have seen suggests that once a newspaper becomes successful it becomes appallingly difficult to retain control. And one might add that it is not just successful newspapers that have difficulty—witness The Times. One might add: the richer the parent, the more difficult it is. Nor does the law take account of that simple but elusive factor, editorial flair. The mere spending of money on the editorial department is not a substitute for editorial flair and it does not ensure that you get the right readers in the right quantities. Finally, the categorisation of newspapers into simple classes fails to recognise—and I am speaking now principally about the quality press—that there is no such thing as a single quality advertising market. There is a whole host of different markets and sub-markets. The secret of success, in my view, lies in finding your market niche. A paper which strays outside its niche does so at its peril. Yet so often one finds Fleet Street managements chasing ever-larger circulations and ever-larger advertising volume. Large circulations in the quality press are not necessarily profitable; nor, necessarily, are large advertising volumes. The most notable example is the Financial Times, which has the lowest circulation of any of our national newspapers but which is much the most successful on the whole.

When the late Lord Thomson acquired The Times in the 1960s, he proceeded to push up its circulation from 300,000 to over 500,000. But he ran into larger and larger losses because the new readership did not have the pulling power and, therefore, the advertising profitability of his old readership. He had to retreat; and by 1973 he had just about got The Times to at least a break-even position. In the course of last winter, I was involved in the preparation of a business plan for The Times. This was for the purpose of a long-stop bid to preserve The Times should all else fail. At that stage, as people generally know, The Times losses were approaching 50 per cent. of its turnover an the manning levels were absolutely unbelievable. Yet the projections made by our extremely experienced technical consultant showed that it was perfectly possible to publish The Times profitably. Indeed, the manning levels that he postulated were somewhat above provincial levels. The composition at The Times would have been carried out based on an existing organisation which uses female typists and computer typesetting. The current rate of output of these girls, I am told, is over twice that of Fleet Street compositors and the girls earn about £6,000 a year. By contrast, some top compositors in Fleet Street now earn up to £30,000 a year. If it had been possible to break out of the Fleet Street straitjacket, with its customs and practices, not into some hypothetical world but into a world of relatively modest technical performance, the finance for this venture could have been found on strict business criteria.

Contrast the position of The Times with an example from one of the best-run United States newspapers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred, the Wall Street Journal. He gave some graphic descriptions of what the new technology can do. As a further illustration I may say that the Wall Street Journal—and this was five years ago—has a printing plant in Florida. Facsimile pages are beamed in from New England by satellite and the whole print for the southeastern States is run off by just 14 people. We were told that one of these 14 is a janitor and another a gardener. I do not think you would find that anywhere in the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that discussion among Fleet Street executives is not so much whether in an ideal world one could increase productivity by, say, 25 per cent. but rather whether it could be four times as high rather than, say, twice as high. That is the measure of the situation.

I therefore have no doubt at all that every newspaper in Fleet Street could be profitable, and some of them extremely so. I have no doubt at all that the TUC paper, which has been mooted now to my knowledge for at least six years, could also be profitable if it were properly manned and if it had the right editorial flair. But how do we achieve this, my Lords?

Five years ago during the last Fleet Street crisis, a joint standing committee of trades union general secretaries and newspaper managements, under the chairmanship of Mr. Bill Keys, negotiated a comprehensive package dealing with procedures for introducing new technology, voluntary redundancy, pensions, disputes procedures, and so forth. It was wide-ranging, imaginative and generous and it was put to the trade union members by ballot. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the production workers. It would be nice to think that another attempt would fare better. But there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it would. All the events of the past five years—and The Times stoppage in 1979 is a good example—suggest that while general secretaries may propose, the chapels dispose. I therefore see no reason to suppose that, for example, the proposed merger between SOGAT and NATSOPA will have any effect on the situation. I see no solutions, I am afraid, other than the chipping away by managements.

Every so often, as we have seen twice this winter, a parent company will get fed up and pull out; and every so often a new organisation will step in to try its luck. But it is a chancey business, and one of these days a major title will disappear, a title which in even a modestly rational world could have been profitable. If the British disease is a reluctance to accept change, the Fleet Street variety—Fleet Street 'flu if you will—must surely have few peers in virulence. Such is our fourth estate.

My Lords, I echo what every speaker has already said in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for initiating this debate. There have been authoritative contributions concerning the performance, the economics and the general distribution of the press. I do not propose to attempt to traverse ground which has already been covered so admirably. I intend to spend a few minutes discussing what seem to me to be two major threats to the freedom of the press at the moment.

A free society is easier to recognise than to define; but liberty of expression is a distinctive element in every definition. That liberty rests upon the opportunity to speak, write and publish whatever we wish without fear of punishment or penalty, save that the rights of other citizens must not be infringed. Newspapers are central to the exercise of this freedom. I do not mean only the national newspapers or the regional newspapers to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. I include also the periodicals—some 4,000 to 5,000 of them—as well as hundreds of community newspapers and the so-called "alternative" newspapers; that is, alternative to the established press.

These latter alternative publications range from the more extreme forms of politics and the more esoteric schools of philosphy to the more liberated forms of sexual expression. This branch of the press demonstrates that there are no ideas, however seemingly grotesque, absurd or offensive to ordinary folk, which cannot and do not find their way easily and cheaply into print. The right of minorities to publish and to circulate their views is at the heart of the freedom of the press, and the alternative press testifies to the maintenance of that right in Britain today.

Not all publications have to incur heavy costs of production. But we think mostly of newspapers in terms of their contribution to democratic politics. The great English editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, Frederick Greenwood, wrote in 1890:

"to suppose that in any country the influence of the press was ever a delight to the Government would be a complete mistake. It is a rival influence, often a conflicting influence and sometimes…a commanding and destroying influence … The press is sometimes a nuisance to Ministers because it preaches triumphantly from imperfect information; at other times because it discovers too much of the truth, and makes inconvenient exposures of neglect, error, fraudulent pretence and false principle. How should it be loved by those who suffer from the operation?"

Indeed, it is not loved. Relations between the press and politicians in democracies are, all over the world, always uneasy, suspicious and fretful. Another editor of great experience and repute, my noble friend Lord Jacobson, once observed in this context:

"relations between politicians and the press have deteriorated, are deteriorating and should on no account be allowed to improve".

That we may think is the proper circumstance in a democracy.

When I was chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press I quickly learned that many politicians were dedicated in principle to a free press but regarded existing newspapers as a conspiracy against them and their party. Indeed, I was astonished and much influenced by the intensity of dislike that I found among politicians for the press when revealed in private conversations. Of course, I recognise that this dislike sometimes stems from genuine grievances. James Margach, sometime political correspondent of the Sunday Times, has analysed the relations between 12 Prime Ministers and the press during the past 50 years. In his view, nearly all of them subscribe to Lloyd George's maxim that,

"What you can't square you squash, and what you can't squash you square".

He cited only two exceptions to this generalisation: Mr. Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. But he also described parts of the press as indulging during the past 30 years in "screaming irresponsibility".

Citizens in a democracy must reckon with two facts of public life. First, some politicians, though paying lip service to the indispensability of a free press, would shackle and control it if they could. Secondly, a free society which expects responsible conduct from a free press must go on tolerating some, often shocking, irresponsibility as the price of liberty. Independent newspapers must be as free to behave irresponsibly within the law as to behave responsibly.

The secret of a free press must always remain the courage to resist encroachments in a conflict which can never issue in a final victory. New threats to freedom arise constantly, and I shall mention two which I see as sinister omens today. Over much of the world denial of freedom of expression is the ordinary condition, news and information are suppressed and distorted, and deviant journalists are harassed, imprisoned, tortured and killed. There is nothing new in this. What is new is the role which UNESCO has played for 10 years, during which the politics of communication have become one of its chief concerns. Angry debates have resulted from resolutions put down by the Soviet bloc, urging the extension of state and international control over the means of communication. At the same time the resentments of third world countries over the control by advanced countries of communications and much of the packaged entertainment of the world have burst out as denunciations of a new colonialism manifesting itself in the form of cultural imperialism.

Many developing countries regard governmental control over the press as an indispensable means of promoting their national identity, cultural integrity, economic growth and political cohesiveness. They see these supreme aims as being undermined by the open criticism of Governments which exist in democracies. Such countries seek to redress what the Director-General of UNESCO described to the General Assembly of the International Press Institute two years ago as:

"the first and most fundamental imbalance which exists today in communication of separating the small number of over-developed and over-informed countries from the vast majority of the others".

It is a remarkable indication of the outlook of senior officials in UNESCO that they add the sin of "over-information" to the catalogue of wickednesses for which they hold accountable the countries who contribute the bulk of their budgets.

However, with the approval and support of UNESCO, the third world now demands a "New World Information Order". Five years ago some 80 Governments of the Non-Aligned Movement stated that the object of the new order was the emancipation of development of national communications media, which is an integral part of the overall struggle for political, economic and social independence. In their view, emancipation and development should provide a more equal distribution of the means to communicate which is in itself highly desirable and would recognise the sovereign rights of Governments to control the flow of information about themselves and their countries to the outside world, and would harness the media to the cause of national development by ensuring their loyal support for Government policies—a prospect, my Lords, which I find terrifying.

These aims explain why many developing countries, though by no means all of them, link a worldwide reform of the media with the North-South dialogue on economic co-operation to find ways of reducing inequalities of wealth between poor and rich countries. They hold that a new international order in matters of information and the mass media is as important as a new international economic order. These developments in UNESCO have received the full support of the Director-General, Mr. M'Bow, and it is therefore most encouraging that Britain has taken the lead in opposing his policy of imposing by ukase what has come to be known in UNESCO double-speak as:

"a free and balanced flow of information throughout the world".

This is no party matter. The responsible Ministers in this Government and in the previous one have made their voices most effectively and eloquently heard in the last two UNESCO general conferences in support of the virtues of a free press in all parts of the world. I understand that the Government have pressed the need for a co-ordinated Western policy upon our partners in the Community, who are now more fully aware than they have been in the past of the political aspects and political implications of this question. I understand also that similar steps have been taken within the Commonwealth, both at governmental level and by such bodies as the Commonwealth Press Union. Nevertheless, it would be heartening if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, could reassure the House about the Government's future intentions concerning this question.

Unhappily, I discern similar authoritarian tendencies of thought at home, although their sources and settings are different. I began by stressing the inevitable conflict in a democracy between politicans and the press, and the great importance that this situation attaches to the maintenance of the press entirely ndependent of Government. Broadcasting and the press are the two chief sources from which the public obtain news, information and comment. The Royal Commission was strongly influenced by a comparison between the press and broadcasting. In the case of the press, no legal restriction is placed on the right to buy or launch a newspaper. Consequently, there is no specific obligation on editors or proprietors to have regard in what they publish to the need to meet either the public or the individual interest.

The case of radio and television is very different. The notion that people should be free to set up their own television services would be fanciful because, under present technology, broadcasting frequencies are scarce national resources. Consequently, the law places specific duties on a television authority, which has to be appointed and controlled by the Government and is accountable to Parliament. Moreover, the broadcasting authorities observe strict conventions governing the way they handle political and controversial topics. Such authorities do not exist in the free-market world of newspapers. However, the press and broadcasting overlap greatly in their functions and especially in their sources of information.

The Royal Commission throught that the necessity for governmental regulation of broadcasting greatly strengthened the case for a press which owes nothing to the policies or favours of Governments. However, pressure for governmental intervention in the press has been growing steadily in recent years. Four years ago, for example, Mr. Moss Evans, at a conference on the press organised by the TUC, outlined an unpleasing programme which Mr. Wedgwood Benn and many of his friends have since been advancing. Mr. Evans said—and I am largely quoting from him:

"The problem of the mocha from the trade union point of view consists of establishing a means of monitoring the output of the media to establish balance, or lack of balance, devising a practicable code of objectivity, fairness and accuracy to govern the presentation of news and opinion and a means of policing"—

observe, my Lords, Mr. Evans' choice of words—

"and enforcing any such agreed criterion".

These and other tasks, such as issuing the operator's licence which Mr. Evans would require all publishers to obtain, and setting up a National Press Finance Corporation to enable, among other duties, trade unions to launch a national newspaper, would be discharged by a Standing Commission for the Media, which would be responsible to a Minister.

I am sure that everyone will welcome what my noble friend Lady Birk said about the feasibility study which is now being conducted, at the end of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said was a six-year programme, for filling the gap created by the death of the News Chronicle, and the long absence among the variety of the national press of a left-of-centre quality newspaper. But I am glad to see that the Trades Union Congress has, at last, decided that it may be possible for it to find the finance for such a newspaper from its own resources, rather than from public funds. Such thinking as I talked about earlier is dangerously prevalent among democrats who wish to liberate the press from the thraldom of capitalist ownership. In reality, they would hand it over to a Ministry of Truth and tell us that we had been granted a new freedom.

Schemes for Government intervention in the press, by way of subsidies from public funds or by reallocating advertising revenues from successful to unsuccessful newspapers, were rejected by the Royal Commission, because, among many other reasons, they were satisfied that such schemes would inevitably be a threat to the independence of the press, as a Government appointed body or agency would have to exercise what would, in effect, be the functions of a censor when choosing between applicants for assistance. And, again, in reaching this decision on such schemes, the Royal Commission attached the highest importance to avoiding any type of protection or assistance to the press, which would give Governments access to the possibility of manipulating the press by withholding, threatening to withhold or offering to continue such subsidies.

As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, made clear in his lucid and wide-ranging speech, there is great promise in the future of the press, and I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there is no cause for deep pessimism. But there is also a great peril in the future. The procedures of UNESCO, which are resulting in the legitimation of state control of the press in a number of areas of the world, are echoed here in proposals for similar types of control for similar purposes. I have spent time in discussing them because I think our best defence against such developments is exposure and discussion.

My Lords, today's debate has, once again, been both timely and useful. As it has shown, any discussion on the newspaper industry raises issues and principles which lie at the very heart of our society. It is therefore most appropriate that your Lordships should debate the industry from time to time, and we are indeed indebted to my noble friend Lord Birdwood, as every noble Lord has said, for giving us the opportunity to do so today. The debate provides a fitting opportunity for me to express my great regret at the recent untimely death of Lord Barnetson. A lifetime's experience in the newspaper world enabled him to speak with authority on many aspects of the press. He will be greatly missed by his colleagues in the industry and, doubtless, he would have taken part in this debate today had he still been alive.

When one talks of newspapers, the majority of people automatically assume that one is referring to the national press. But we should not, however, forget or neglect our flourishing regional and local newspapers, to which so many noble Lords have referred this evening. While the provincial press may not be as glamorous as the national press, it is nevertheless equally important and indispensable.

Today's debate has, however—inevitably, I suppose—concentrated on the national press and some mention has been made, both here and, indeed, outside the House, of its financial problems. The national press cannot blame its current difficulties exclusively on the recession. The industry's problems are deep-rooted, long-standing and, indeed, well-known. In the final analysis they will not be solved without major improvements in its industrial relations.

Industrial relations in the national press have long been the subject of much criticism. The most exhaustive recent study was conducted by the Royal Commission on the Press—chaired, of course, with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor— which commissioned two reports, published in 1976 and 1977, from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. While ACAS found industrial relations in the provincial press to be reasonably good, they saw urgent need for reform in the national press. Traditional problems—demarcation disputes, overmanning, the progressive collapse of management authority, the extreme fragmentation of the bargaining structure—had been further complicated by the challenge of new technology. Little appears to have happened since 1977 to modify those conclusions.

Unfortunately, the Programme for Action, agreed by management and unions in the industry in 1976, which contained many badly needed reforms, was rejected in ballots by the union members in 1977; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to that. All too often, worthwhile changes agreed at national level proved impossible to implement in individual newspaper plants.

None the less there remain some hopeful signs. There are discussions under way for union mergers which should do something to improve industrial relations. There have recently been some encouraging increases in realism among those primarily involved—reflected, for example, in agreements to reduce manning levels. The provincial press is showing that the challenge of new methods of production can be successfully met, without the catastrophic results predicted as inevitable by many critics of the introduction of new technology. On the contrary, disastrous consequences will occur if the challenge is not taken up. The future of the newspaper industry holds out much promise. It is, however, one in which outmoded and antiquated production processes have no place.

Several noble Lords have raised questions about the Government's response to the recommendations of the 1974–77 Royal Commission on the Press, which was set up by the previous Government to consider the state of the newspaper industry. There has been no Government response to the final report as a whole.

The Royal Commission's final report contained 70 recommendations, the majority of which were addressed to the industry itself. Of the 25 addressed to Government, these cover a wide range of issues and each must be considered separately and in the light of any opposing views from other interested bodies. For example, the Government are considering the Royal Commission's recommendation on the law of innocent dissemination in conjunction with an opposing recommendation from the Faulks Committee on Defamation which reported in 1975. I can however assure the House that the Royal Commission's recommendations are taken fully into account wherever action is contemplated on any issue to which they have given their attention.

For example, the recommendations relating to the involvement of the press in broadcasting were studied in drawing up last year's Broadcasting Bill. Section 36 of what is now the Broadcasting Act removed the right of a local newspaper to be offered a shareholding in a local radio contractor as recommended by the Royal Commission.

Noble Lords have referred to the freedom of the press and some have expressed concern that commercial requirements for success or survival have not been necessarily conducive to the true diversity of editorial opinion. Successive Governments have regarded an independent press as a fundamental feature of a democratic society and have recognised that restrictions on its freedom are undesirable. The editor of a newspaper, like any individual, is free to publish what he wishes, provided that he does not breach the law on such matters as defamation, official secrets, obscenity or contempt of court. The restrictions imposed by such laws apply no differently to the press than to all other citizens.

The Government support the view of the 1977 Royal Commission that questions of press conduct must be left to the influence of the Press Council, the industry's own self-regulatory body, and should not be subject to Government regulation. The Press Council lists among its objects preservation of the established freedom of the British press and the maintenance of its character in accordance with the highest professional and commercial standards. Some have suggested that to ensure the presentation of as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible the Government should actively encourage new publications. The Royal Commission rejected proposals to introduce special schemes of financial assistance for new newspapers, principally on the grounds of risk to the freedom of the Press, and the Government endorsed that view.

Noble Lords have indicated their concern at the growing concentration of ownership, particularly in the national press. Views have been expressed on the inadequate nature of the newspaper mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act and on the recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to monopolies and mergers in the newspaper industry. This was particularly a matter which was worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps in a moment I can develop that theme a little more. The Government are continuing their review of competition legislation in general, including of course the special provisions which relate to newspaper mergers.

Many would consider the future of the newspaper industry a rather gloomy one. However, there are even now encouraging signs that its future will confound present pessimism. A new Scottish Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Standard, was launched last Sunday, and I wish it well. Associated Newspapers is planning the launch of a new national Sunday newspaper. The Sunday Express Magazine which was launched on 12th April has made other Sunday newspapers seriously consider following suit. I gather—and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, confirmed this—that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is currently heading a feasibility study on the prospects of a new national daily newspaper which, as I understand it, would "reflect the interests of the Labour movement". This is hardly a picture of a dying industry. The increasing number of so-called "free sheets" to which my noble friend Lord Birdwood referred, now being distributed locally, is an interesting development, although I have to agree that it is not one which is universally welcomed by the existing provincial press.

May I turn now to some of the points which have been made this afternoon. First I should like to refer to the question of the Times Newspapers acquisition to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, specifically referred. In a debate in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade fully explained his decision to give consent to the acquisition of Times Newspapers by News International without referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He explained that he had an established preference for newspaper mergers to be referred to the Commission so that there should be a full and independent investigation of the implications for public interest, but in this instance he decided that there was a real risk that a reference would lead to closure and that it would therefore be appropriate to give his consent forthwith, but subject to conditions designed to safeguard the editorial integrity traditional in Times Newspapers.

I have noted the suggestion made by the noble Baroness that in cases of urgency a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on a proposed merger could be completed in just a few weeks. However, as I have said, the Government's review of competition legislation includes the newspaper mergers provisions. We shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness has suggested. May I be allowed to point out that if such a procedure were devised there would inevitably have to be some trade-off between the speed of the inquiry and the rigour with which it is conducted, bearing in mind that the final report would need to command general confidence.

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he would comment on the fact that the Times Newspapers acquisition was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The London evening dailies merger, of which there is a complete monopoly in the London area, was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and there was an immediate increase of 20 per cent. on the price of that article, while the Lonrho acquisition of the Observer, which by no standard represents a monopoly situation, was in fact referred to the commission. I wonder what is the logic of references to the commission.

My Lords, we have to consider each and every case on its merits. As the noble Lord knows, under the existing legislation there are procedures for these mergers to be allowed to proceed where the Secretary of State decides in a particular case that it is appropriate for this to happen. That is what happened in the cases to which the noble Lord has referred. As I have said, this is a matter which we wish to keep under review and we are doing so. I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of the consideration that is being given to that particular matter.

Several noble Lords referred to the proposed purchase of the Observer by Lonrho, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, just now, which has now been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission who are conducting their inquiry. On that particular matter I can say that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have undertaken to report as quickly as possible. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if in the meanwhile I do not comment in further detail.

The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in his most informed and interesting speech raised the threat to press freedom posed by developments, largely in the UNESCO forum, towards a so-called "New World Information Order". This is a subject of great importance. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government are concerned about it. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Blaker, set out the Government's position on these issues in his reply to the Adjournment Debate in another place on 8th December last. As my honourable friend indicated, the Government are actively pursuing with Western partners the question of coordinating a more effective Western response to these developments. We are already, and will remain, in close touch with the United Kingdom press interests concerned. Certainly the Government's serious reservations about some of the proposals that have been made in this context remain as valid now as they were when they were made by my honourable friend in another place, and indeed I have referred to the reservations that we have on this matter, in this House and from this Box from time to time in the past.

My noble friend Lord Birdwood expressed concern about the problems of the supply of newsprint and perhaps I may deal with that matter in a little detail. Indeed, some have criticised the lack of Government assistance to prevent the substantial reductions in the United Kingdom's newsprint industry. I regret that Bowater has closed its mill at Ellesmere Port with consequential redundancies in an area already suffering heavily from unemployment and that Reed has found it necessary to reduce its capacity and declare redundancies at Aylesford and Gravesend.

There has been no lack of Government concern about the problem of newsprint. The Government had full discussions with Bowater and indicated that substantial financial assistance could be available for new investment at Ellesmere Port, for which the company had been making outline plans, to improve their performance as a genuine alternative to closure, but it was for Bowater to consider whether to invest against the cost to them of closing the mill. As the House knows, the company decided not to take up the investment alternative but the Government did all they could to help.

Concern has also been expressed at the uncertainty surrounding the operation of the EEC newsprint quota from 1984 onwards, when EFTA countries will enjoy full free trade with the Community. The Government are aware of the newspaper industry's reliance on imported newsprint and the need to maintain the present diversity of supply. The future operation of this quota system is under consideration by the European Commission which in due course will make a formal proposal to the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Government's decision on this issue must await action by the European Commission. In arriving at our decision we shall take fully into account the views expressed by my noble friend and others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also referred to the problem of recycling newsprint. It is true that some Government support has been provided for this in the past. The present problems are rather those of supply and demand. The fact is that the demand for old newsprint for recycling purposes has dropped very sharply recently and I believe that is at the heart of the present difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the closure of Now! magazine. I must confess that I personally rather enjoyed reading Now! every week and the closure is a disappointing end to a brave attempt to establish a new national publication, but the fact that the attempt was made is further evidence of the continued vitality of Fleet Street.

My Lords, today's debate has once again shown the great importance which your Lordships attach to the newspaper as a means of communication, notwithstanding competition from other information media. I sincerely hope that the newspaper industry, too, will take note of the issues raised and the recommendations made to it.

My Lords, it only remains for me to say a personal thank-you to the speakers today and to reiterate what I said in my opening words, that I was in the presence of experts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the TUC newspaper study, as indeed did the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord McGregor of Durris. It was interesting to me that in a recent article in the New Statesman the writer of that article came down firmly against this concept and in a piece of self-mockery, relatively rare in that particular periodical the accompanying cartoon showed a newspaper vendor with his box of TUC papers and behind him five others, all saying, "Paper, paper".

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the excessive preoccupation of Fleet Street and that Fleet Street is basically a London local writ large is very well taken and I would commend individual Fleet Street editors to have that part of the noble Lord's speech hung above their desks.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also mentioned the regional concentration of ownership. When he spoke about his recent experience with the management study on The Times, I felt that he had a lot more stories up his sleeve about over-manning and I should love to hear some of them sometime.

Coming now to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I could not be more grateful to him for bringing up the appalling UNESCO—I should like to say fiasco, but it is not. It is serious, indeed unbelievable, in its implications and thoroughly unpleasant, and anything that this Government can do to block it I think will be approved of by any freethinking person.

In this country we love our newspapers: they are rumbustious, raucous, irreverent—sometimes just silly. Alternatively, they are grave, articulate, earnest, or merely dull. They are financially healthier than people are led to believe and, as to their future, we wish them well. It only remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.

My Lords, may I invite the noble Baroness to consider recommitting this Bill? The extent of the amendments make it almost a completely new Bill. This is not a particularly full House but I have to say that the amendments tabled in respect of Scotland are not acceptable, and I have authority to say that from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Archbishop of Glasgow for the Roman Catholic Church, and the acting Primate of the Episcopal Church. We had a very thorough examination of this whole question in 1977 and, so far as I am aware, nobody in Scotland wishes to change the existing situation. I should have thought that it would be better and easier for the noble Baroness to recommit this Bill in order that the new clauses might be more thoroughly examined.

My Lords, if this Bill is further delayed there will be no prospect of its getting through Parliament this Session and therefore I should be extremely reluctant to recommit the Bill. I think adequate notice has been given on this occasion although amendments were tabled at a very late date. I am not prepared to recommit the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill a number of amendments were proposed which were, I think, not unfairly described as "wrecking amendments". Therefore, I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate that on this occasion he has produced an amendment which is moderate in scope and which definitely could not be described as "wrecking". Nevertheless, I see great difficulties in accepting it. I think that it ought to be clear to people without dispute whom they can marry and whom they cannot. I was willing to accept, though with a little reluctance, that the minimum age for marriage in these cases should be 21, because that is definite and you cannot have a dispute about it; either you are 21 or you are not 21. But whether you have been accepted as a child in a family is by no means so clear, and cases will arise—and I shall presently quote a case of which I know which will be very much in point—where it may be very difficult to decide whether or not a particular young person falls within that category.

The right reverend Prelate might also like to consider what will happen if someone protests a decision that he or she—and in the kind of case he envisages it is more likely to be she—was not accepted as a child; she appeals the case and it goes to court. Almost certainly what will happen is that the stepfather and the stepchild will live together as man and wife, though they cannot sanctify that relationship in marriage because, if she is over 16 and not married to anyone else there is absolutely—and this seems to be generally ignored—no barrier in law why they should not cohabit as man and wife. This will be a direct inducement to them to do so until the necessary period has elapsed, when they may or may not decide to get married. That may be one of the obvious consequences of the amendment.

Perhaps I could quote the actual case, which is extremely relevant in this context. A man whom I know personally, at the age of 25, married a divorced woman who had a little girl of 13. He played no part in the divorce and he had never met the woman's previous husband. Five years later the wife died. The child was left in the care of guardians and was at boarding school, and five years later she was approaching the age of 18. She left school and she wished to acquire further professional qualifications, so she came to London. As far as I know, but I cannot say for certain, she lived in her stepfather's house under her stepfather's roof. She was accompanied by another student from the same school, so that the two girls were together. After a year or two the couple—the stepfather and the stepdaughter—announced their intention to marry, and the child's guardians gave consent. None of them was aware of the bar in law, neither was the vicar, and the church wedding was duly arranged. Only at the last moment was it discovered that the marriage would be void.

Now supposing that girl had been one year younger, or two years younger, the question as to whether she was still a child would surely be open. According to the estimates that the right reverend Prelate gave, childhood would seem to continue for a long time, as he spoke of children of 22 and 23. A child in law is a child at different ages for different purposes. A child is a child at one age for going to school; at another age for appearing at a juvenile court, and so on. One would have to settle the age at which childhood would cease for this particular purpose, and the point in time at which this young person might, or might not, have ceased to be accepted as a member of the family. I do not know what she did in her school holidays, for instance; whether that would make her a member of the family. I should therefore not he willing to accept something so vague, because in order to establish it—whatever definition of childhood is taken for this purpose—it would be necessary to make very intimate inquiries as to the relationships of the parties over a period of years. I think this is one thing that is greatly to be deplored, and the one thing that we ought at all costs to avoid.

Then there are procedural difficulties. There are procedural difficulties because the amendment which I am to move next, which is a substitute for Clause 1, and a rather more elaborate substitute, does not take account of this particular amendment, and it would be necessary to re-amend the amendment that I am about to move if that should be accepted. There would be further procedural difficulties with a number of the other later amendments. I have not a list of them to hand at the moment, having only just woken up to this. On these two grounds—that I think that we ought not to impose conditions which involve intimate inquiries and that there are procedural difficulties—I would resist this amendment.

My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, who is always so much quicker to take up difficult points than some of us. I found this a difficult thing to follow so I am in some difficulty about the way to answer what she said. Taking the last point first about the procedural difficulties, surely there is nothing in our procedure which would make it impossible, if this amendment is carried, for the noble Baroness to bring forward at the Third Reading stage her substitute Clause 1, suitably altered to take account of this. That is a perfectly legitimate procedure so far as I am aware.

She has fallen back—I have to say, as has been commonly the case in the many debates we have had on this Bill and its predecessors over the past several years—as usual on a familiar hard case. I beg your Lordships not to be influenced by the sentimentality of the hard case. We all know that hard cases make bad law. She has asked what happens if this hypothetical couple are denied a valid marriage? She says, "Oh, they simply live together". I should like to make the point that that may in her view be the alternative. It is not the view of all of us.

My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? If I have always used the hard case, I have always used the actual case. My opponents have always used, so far as I can see, the hypothetical case.

Well, my Lords, we will let that point go because I am not an expert in this subject and I do not go around finding actual cases. I have not the leisure for that purpose. But there are in the noble Baroness's arguments—and we have had this over and over again—two alternatives. A couple want to marry and for some reason are refused a valid marriage, and the alternative that she presents is that they live together. There is a third alternative; that they live in continence. This point has not been made often. I think it should be made repeatedly. It is from that standpoint that I believe that her argument is fallacious. Just because two people cannot marry does not mean that they must, or should, or necessarily even will, live together. Even if in terms of human probability and human weakness the likelihood is that they will live together, that is no argument for sanctioning as a pretended marriage what would in fact be void.

The noble Baroness has put her finger on one point, not directly but by inference, which is that there is, or there can be, a great problem of ambiguity. She did not ask, although I thought she would, "How do you define 'child of the family'?" I am advised by legal friends—and one or two of them cannot be here to night but wanted this said—that, as a matter of fact, the term "child of the family" is well known in law. If a marriage is proposed, and it comes to the ears of the registrar that there is an impediment, then it is up to the registrar to make inquiries. If the result of those inquiries is negative from the point of view of the applicants, they can then apply to a family court. I am advised that such matters are well within the competence of a family court, and therefore one need not really be too disturbed about the problems of ambiguity in that case.

The noble Baroness said just now before we voted on the question of whether to go into the Report stage that if there is any further delay on this Bill she might lose it. May I say to her with the very greatest respect, and in as friendly a way as I can, that if she does not accept reasonable, moderate, compassionate amendments she will find a lot of trouble on Third Reading—a lot of trouble—and she may find more trouble tonight. If she really wants to get the Bill to another place for the possibility of consideration there despite all the hazards of their procedures, I wonder whether she may not feel that it might be in her interest to concede this amendment, and I very much hope that she will do so and not force us to divide on it.

My Lords, there is one point to begin with on which I would agree with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on this amendment, and that is the point at which he said that the definition of "child of the family" is one which is known to the law: indeed it is well known. I think that references were made to the fact that it is well known to the law in our last debates in Committee by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when we were considering similar matters.

Before coming further to the substance of the amendment, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his kind remarks about me. I should also like to join him in welcoming back to these proceedings on her Bill my noble friend Lady Wootton. Not only am I in the position of being pleased and delighted but I am also immensely relieved that she is back in charge of her Bill. It is clear that this amendment has been tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich with the very best of intentions. As he has explained, it seeks to limit to the 10 years prior to a proposed marriage the period during which neither party has been a child of the other's family.

I think it is right and fair to say that to this extent it seeks to meet a criticism that was made at Committee stage of an amendment proposed then by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, which would have prevented anyone from marrying a person who had been a child of the family of the other party at any time. Because it sought to meet one objection which was made by those of us who found themselves unable to support the earlier amendment, one approached this amendment with a very sympathetic attitude. Unhappily, like my noble friend Lady Wootton, I am afraid that I do not find myself able to support this amendment either.

In the first place, I believe that this amendment seeks to impose a time limit which is an arbitrary one, despite the explanation which has been given by the right reverend Prelate in his speech. In my submission we are bound to ask ourselves, what is the basis for a limit of 10 years? I must confess that I do not find myself persuaded that there is any substantial or logical argument in support of that, or indeed of any other particular time limit. As we have heard in the debate so far, such a time limit could still prevent marriage in some of those cases which are felt to be particularly deserving.

Perhaps I could take the case of a proposed union between a stepdaughter and a stepfather. She may have become a child of the family half way through the 10-year period. There may be other, very much younger, children. Their mother and her mother died, let us say, soon after she—the stepdaughter—became a child of the family. And she—the stepdaughter—has helped to bring up those other younger children. After a while, perhaps a few years, the stepdaughter and the stepfather decide that they would like to marry. I cannot believe it is really right that those younger children should be denied the loving care, of those who were already caring for them as parents. The young children may be at a particular stage of their lives—in their schooling for example—where it may be especially helpful for them to have parents once again.

Again, a person may have become a child of the family for only a very short time and then have gone away. After the death of that person's parent, the stepchild and the stepparent may decide that they wish to marry. There seems to be no real reason why they should be denied that chance, while in a similar case outside this proposed time limit those concerned would be allowed to marry.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether he is talking about hypothetical cases of the kind which I cited, or whether he is talking about actual cases of the kind cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton?

My Lords, I am trying to examine the sort of cases which we might well find would arise.

Then, my Lords, the noble Lord is talking about hypothetical cases?

My Lords, we are talking about a proposed amendment to a Bill which is not yet an Act. Therefore, if we are to do justice in debating this Bill we have to contemplate cases which have yet to arise. We must try to do justice to hypothetical cases and I am trying to join your Lordships in doing both—that is to say, to acknowledge the very real and quite sizeable numbers of actual, practical cases in being of the kind which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has placed before your Lordships on previous occasions as well as tonight, and also to try to do justice to the other half, the hypothetical cases, as well.

My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I have an actual case of precisely the type which the noble Lord has just described.

My Lords, once again, I am delighted and relieved. We should not overlook the fact that a child—and this has been touched upon a little in tonight's debate—may be or may become a child of the family at any age at all. There may be a tendency for people outside your Lordships' House to imagine a child of the family as being essentially a minor, which would of course be a mistake. There is no doubt that a time limit of this kind could prevent from marrying some of the very couples who my noble friend's Bill is designed to help—some of the cases which we have felt to be especially deserving.

In my submission, there is another fundamental objection to this amendment. Let us look at the definition of a child of the family, and I return to the point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about the definition. In Section 52(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—and the same words are repeated in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Court Act 1978—it is stated:

" 'child of the family' in relation to the parties to a marriage means—

(a) a child of both those parties".

We are not concerned with that category, of course, but it goes on to state:

"and

(b) any other child, not being a child who has been boarded-out with those parties by a local authority or voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both of those parties as a child of their family".

The question of whether a child has been accepted and treated as a child of the family may be open to dispute, as I and other noble Lords ventured to point out in Committee. If that is open to dispute the courts will have to be brought in to resolve such a dispute; there is no provision in the Bill proposed here—either in this amendment or elsewhere—as to how that should be done. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has mentioned, it is quite true that this particular definition, and an attempt to interpret it, is not something that is foreign or unfamiliar to our courts as they stand. But, with respect, I would say that that is not the question which arises here. The question which arises here is whether a dispute and the courts should be allowed to be brought in at all on matters of the kind which are being dealt with by my noble friend's Bill.

Here, as in other matters witnesses may need to be called; the parties may need to be represented; if there has been a divorce it is possible that old wounds will be reopened on these matters as on some of the others which we were discussing and contemplating in Committee. If one looks at the actual wording of the right reverend Prelate's amendment it states:

(b) neither party has at any time during the previous 10 years been accepted by the other party as a child of his family".

Of course the fact that those words "by the other party" are included in the amendment would not prevent an earlier spouse of that other party or indeed that earlier spouse's family, from intervening in any dispute and court proceedings with the necessary representation which would have to arise as a result of that.

For example, he himself may say that his proposed spouse has never been accepted or treated as a child of the family. On the other hand, his deceased wife's family may say that she has and may therefore enter into this dispute and be called and represented at court proceedings. Alternatively, the man's divorced wife or his divorced wife's family may wish to intervene and give evidence as to whether or not he is right in saying that his proposed spouse has never been accepted or treated as a child of the family.

We can immediately see just the sort of situation arising which so many of us saw arising if the courts were to be brought into this matter. There would of course be costs and the likelihood of delays. Again, where as the result of court proceedings the child is found not to have been a child of the family, one is bound to point out that such a dispute, with its accompanying court battle involving the families, is hardly the best way to start a marriage.

I hope, especially with the safeguard now in the Bill that both parties must be over the age of 21, which my noble friend Lady Wootton accepted, that we shall not encumber the Bill with further restrictions but will adhere to what I believe to be the clear, understandable and indeed sustainable and justifiable principles embodied in it. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, under the Adoption Act 1958, when a child is adopted by a family, think I am right in saying that the wording of the Act says the child is "of the family". Does that come into this category?

I am not sure how the two statutory provisions line up, my Lords, but the point I would make on that in connection with this measure—one which on earlier occasions has been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Mishcon—is that for these purposes an adopted child would anyway be in precisely the same position as a natural child of the couple concerned; that is to say, neither in the case of that natural child nor in the case of an adopted child could there ever in any circumstances whatever be any question of a marriage of that kind arising. Indeed, the question of adoption is perhaps something which could be used more frequently to avoid difficulties arising in the future.

My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who seemed to make very much a point for not having the Bill at all, let alone, in his opinion, not making this amendment. One wants to relate the complicated picture he presented on the one hand to the real cases which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, told us about, because I suspect that the real cases are all from what one might call honest, sensible Christian people. One should remember what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said; namely, that we need to see the outcome of this in the real world.

We must accept that there are avaricious and lustful people, and we must see how the children will benefit against that framework. Against that background—though there may be technical difficulties which perhaps can be put right on Third Reading, particularly if the next amendment is accepted—the principle of what the right reverend Prelate said is in my view a sound basis to protect persons who have been brought up as children in a happy family and who suddenly find themselves transformed. I should have thought we should accept the amendment with a view perhaps to having it further amended on Third Reading should that prove necessary for technical reasons.

My Lords, concerning the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, it may be necessary, if the amendment is agreed to, to look at its wording again. I shall not express a view on the merits of the amendment, because the Government have all along maintained neutrality on the merits of the Bill. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made it clear that the effect of the amendment would be to prevent, for instance, a stepdaughter marrying her stepfather, provided she had been as a member of his family before the age of 28, I would say that I am not convinced that the wording of the amendment would actually achieve that objective. That is the first technical point I would put to the right reverend Prelate.

The second is that the expression "child of the family" occurs in the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred to this aspect and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, referring to the Matrimonial Causes Act, explained the different definitions of "child" to be found in that legislation. If one looks at the Matrimonial Causes Act in, for instance, Sections 29 and 41, one finds that it is possible for a child to be defined as an adult person. Therefore on that ground, again, I think it would be necessary, if the amendment were agreed to, for its wording to be looked at at the next stage of the Bill.

As the House will recognise, it would be undesirable for legislation to be enacted in a form which required an application to the court to be made to ascertain with confidence whether or not a particular couple had the legal capacity to marry one another, and I felt it was right for that reason to point out those two technical points to the right reverend Prelate.

My Lords, while I thank the Minister for those remarks, may I ask whether he can help us a little further? I gather that since Committee he has been able to discover other and newer ways in which other English-speaking countries are dealing with the particular problem that underlies the amendment. I hope the amendment is clear, in that it is meant to protect people until the age of 28. I can understand the problem the Minister raises about whether the wording is effective or defective. However, I gather that the research he has been doing—and we are grateful that he has been doing it—may help us, because I gather that there are better ways in other English-speaking countries than we have so far heard of, although I appreciate that without notice he may not be able to answer that question or comment.

I have with me a wealth of information about foreign law, my Lords, but I do not think I have anything which would help the House in regard to the amendment, and I therefore do not feel I can add to what I said.

My Lords, in the light of the full discussion that we have had, I wish to press the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said concerning the advice which we have offered to her on the drafting of this amendment, but I should like to make it clear again that this does not mean in any way that the Government depart from their line of being neutral on the policy of this Bill. The only thing I should like to add as an explanation as to why the Government support this amendment at the technical level is that we think it is very desirable that any general alteration in the law relating to marriage, even if it is an alteration unlikely to affect many people, should be made in the main Act affecting this branch of the law in England and Wales. That, of course, is the 1949 Act; and this is what the amendment achieves. This, we believe, is the best way to change the law in this area, so that those concerned can most easily find out what the law would be if this Bill becomes an Act. That is all I would wish to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has said.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:

My Lords, so far as I am concerned there is nothing that I should deplore more than that any clergyman of the Church of England, or any minister of any other religious body, should be compelled to act against his conscience, and therefore I most gladly accept this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment, and I want to say why. The right reverend Prelate said just now that people have not quite realised what are the implications of this Bill. Heaven knows! Nobody in Scotland has even heard of it; it only appeared yesterday. I object in principle to just appending something to a Bill at Report stage and saying that it applies to Scotland without there being the slightest opportunity to find out whether it is wanted or what the feeling about it is at all. This is a totally wrong principle. I know it has been done previously to some extent, but I have never seen such a blatant case as this before on any occasion, and I think it is quite wrong. The noble Baroness mentioned homosexuality. In due course we adjusted it; but with consent. But there is a grave objection to adding something to an English Bill which has never been discussed. We have had no opportunity to examine it.

I have tried to glance through this. Nobody can glance through it without going to the legal library. Reading this Bill as it stands means nothing. It is unfair to expect people to know what this Bill means without the opportunity of examining it. The noble Baroness said that we have a wonderful Lord Advocate. I agree; but this is not the way to pass legislation. We do not employ a couple of Lord Advocates and dispense with Parliament. Parliament must do this; and we ought to have a reasonable opportunity of seeing what is meant. This is the wrong way to do it. On that principle, we should ask the noble Baroness not to press it. She mentions the Gretna Green situation. This is a minor matter; there is not an awful lot of damage done there.

I will say something else. I am going to ask whether the drafting is right. I am asking in this sense. If you look at Clause 5 it deals with criminal law. I do not know why in Scotland you must enter into criminal law and in England you do not. I know nothing about English law, and not much about Scots law. In the proposed new Section 13(c) one reads:

"a man and any woman related to him in the degree specified in column 1 of paragraph 2…is not incest".

What stands in paragraph 2? The son of a former wife. What is the son of a former wife? That is your son, possibly. I do not know. The law may say that this is not right if you take together paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1, but if you single out paragraph 2 that can be given a separate interpretation. It is a ludicrous interpretation; but I do not think we should accept this amendment without further examination. I asked that we should go into Committee for this purpose. The noble Baroness did not want to do so. I appreciate her reason but we should not accept this. If there is a demand—and it is clear from the quotation I made from the three major Churches that there is no demand—we are well satisfied with a quite recent Act, the 1977 Act. This whole question was closely examined then. I have no reason to believe there is not satisfaction with that Act. For those reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.

My Lords, as we plod along with this Bill which delights some and is distasteful to others, we must respect the noble Baroness's continuing and granite firmness of purpose—which we can only admire. I think we are in a position where a beautiful and gracious lady has dimples of iron and her charm looks fair to beguile us into an enchanted quagmire. The fact is that we are now presented with a new Bill. First of all, we are presented with it without a Second Reading relevant to the matters now proposed. A later amendment which is relevent to the points arising under this amendment will change the Long Title and, if the noble Baroness gets her way on that later amendment, the Long Title will be altered radically and yet this will happen when this Bill has almost finished its course. Yet the Long Title sets out the purpose of the Bill and is what the Second Reading is supposed to be about; but we do not have a Second Reading.

Instead of a Bill of two clauses we now appear to have one of not less than five clauses and very much more than twice as long. Much of it is unintelligible. It is legislation by reference. How these poor young people spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who are in this terrible emotional difficulty at the age of 22 or so are going to wade through this Bill and discover whether they are safe or not, I do not know. More serious still, Scotland is now being brought in overtly in place of what I am bound to say was a very unsatisfactory phrase (and I do not know why we let it go through):

"in or out of England and Wales".

But these are revolutionary amendments as far as the Bill is concerned as we knew it up to a few days ago. Such revolutionary amendments on such a scale, at such a late stage, have certainly evoked surprise in many quarters and real anger in Scotland. Tampering with Scotland's marriage laws before Scottish opinion has had the time to digest the proposals and make itself heard may be a bold undertaking but hardly a wise one.

Aside from the Scottish Office, who has been consulted in time to make anything different from what is being done or proposed now? Has the Scottish Kirk been consulted? Has the Moderator of the General Assembly been consulted? Has the General Assembly's continuing structure been consulted? Has the Church and Nation Committee been consulted? And what about other facets of Scottish life? More than half of all marriages in Scotland take place within a church. That is true of the whole of the United Kingdom, but in Scotland it is well over a half. Has the Roman Catholic hierachy of Scotland been consulted? Has the Episcopal Church of Scotland been asked for its views? Has the Jewish community in Scotland been approached? What evidence is there that Scottish opinion wants this?

There is a facile argument—and I will bet anyone here tonight a pound that we shall have it from the Front Bench; and my bet will apply to only one person and not to everybody—that it is better to have the marriage laws the same North and South of the border. No doubt, in an ideal world, that would be so; but what is now suggested is that the Scottish marriage law should be adjusted to what was conceived in an English setting. Surely, it would be just as logical and fair to suggest that English law should conform with the highest standards of Scottish law. Why not? Or is it a question of numbers, that the English can vote down the Scots at any time? The argument that the purpose of this amendment is to bring Scotland into line with England is an argument which is shameful in the ears of every Scotsman. At this moment the principal Scottish newspaper is not printing. By gum! if it was, there would be columns about this. We have the Glasgow Herald, which is short of space plus the Aberdeen P and J; but at the moment the most important section of the Scottish press is silent. When Scotland is half denied at this moment its normal means of expression, it is proposed by Englishmen that Scottish law should be brought into line with the English. I would rather see English law brought in line with Scottish.

But in any case, the Scottish marriage law has done very well up to now. There has been no clamour to amend it. It has not reached my ears, and I have not met any Scotsman to whose ears the clamour has been borne. It is much to the contrary. There is evidence that the main Scottish Church leaders, who are widely divided on some points of theology—not, happily as greatly as they were and who, despite their theological differences, are greatly united in Christian love—have come out strongly indeed on this matter.

I have just had sent to me a copy of a telex—a statement put out on Monday evening. They only heard of this on Thursday night. That is pretty quick work for Scotland, where people take time to answer letters. This statement was put out on Monday evening and I quote from parts of it as it would be too long to read at length. The telex was sent to me issued jointly through the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Press Office and the Press Officer of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I quote:

"Spokesmen for three Scottish Churches, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church have expressed concern over the social and moral implications of the Marriage (Enabling) Bill…In a joint statement issued on Monday night the right reverend Dr. William B. Johnston, Moderator of the Kirk's General Assembly, Archbishop Thomas Winning of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the right reverend Michael Hare-Duke, Bishop of St. Andrew's in the Scottish Episcopal Church, deplored the Bill's undue haste and 'the attitude which treats Scotland as an appendage to English legislation'.".

There is more of the same sort, but I shall not weary your Lordships too much. The statement goes on:

"Quite apart from the social and moral implications, which this Bill raises, as leading members of our three Churches, we deplore the attitude which…allows no time for a proper expression of opinion by the Churches or any other concerned bodies. Scottish views on family life are not necessarily the same as those South of the Border and need careful consideration".

I hope that when I lose my £1 bet to whoever is going to take it up, and we hear from the Front Bench that it is convenient that Scottish law should be brought into line with England—convenient of course to the English proposers—that will be said with a muted voice and downcast look, because such an argument is unworthy.

I want to make a very serious suggestion to the noble Baroness. It would be far better to withdraw these amendments—indeed, far better to withdraw the Bill—if she really wants to avoid a humiliating clash on Third Reading which might dash the hopes of reviving the Bill in the next Session. If she were to withdraw the Bill now she could return in the next Session with a properly drafted Bill, allowing decent time for consideration and, above all, make possible next Session a realistic Second Reading on a coherent context, which we are denied at the present time.

My Lords, I agree with every word of the magnificent speeches which the noble Earls, Lord Selkirk and Lord Lauderdale, have just made. They have taken most of my words out of my mouth. This Bill was, I believe, originally conceived by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, as a Bill applying to England and Wales only. Then, on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at Second Reading, it has been amended to apply to Scotland as well.

The Scots in the main know nothing of what is to be foisted on to them through this Bill. They have not had time. The amendment of the noble Baroness reached me only on Saturday and I do not suppose that it reached most other Scots Peers any earlier. That is four days ago. Ever since I can remember—and long before I can remember—British Governments have been in the habit of treating Scotland as a backward province of England inhabited by backward savages who dressed in tartan and woad. The result has been Scottish nationalism. This amendment is God's or the Devil's (according to your opinion) gift to the Scottish nationalists. Surely the way to deal with this situation is to see what happens to the Bill as applying to England and Wales without this amendment. Then, if it becomes law, bring in a separate Bill concerning Scotland which the Scots will have proper time to consider. My Lords, I beg all of you to oppose this amendment.

My Lords, I think that I can claim that I yield to no one in respect for the Scottish legal system and its distinctive principles. There is no question of this amendment having been drafted to bring Scotland's law into line with the law in England and Wales. The present position is that no part of this Bill is the law of England and Wales nor of Scotland. The suggestion that the Bill might go ahead so far as England and Wales are concerned, and then the matter should be considered whether it should be applied to Scotland, would, I should have thought, lead to exactly the situation that is being described: Scotland being treated as an appendage of England and Wales which should follow in the light of what happens here. Surely it is right that in considering whether you should have this Bill at all your Lordships should consider whether it should apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.

So far as the Government are concerned—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, made clear and my noble friend Lord Belstead has made clear on many occasions—they are, as is traditional in matters of this sort, entirely neutral on the merits of this Bill. This assistance to draft these amendments has been given to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, because we believe that on a matter of this sort it is important that the law of England and Wales and Scotland should be the same. However, we are not suggesting that it should be in accordance with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is proposing. That is a matter for your Lordships to decide. But we say that in a matter of this kind it would be highly inconvenient, and indeed very wrong, that the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales should be different.

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Is it not the case that the laws of the two countries are different now? My noble friend has been a distinguished practitioner in the law. The laws are different now and we have got on very well.

My Lords, the situation is that on the prohibited degrees arising from affinity the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales are at present the same. There is only a very marginal difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales on the prohibited degrees altogether.

As the noble Earl knows very well, there are many differences between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales—differences in concept, structure, and so on. In some areas it may not be very important that the effects of the law should be the same. In certain other areas it is important. So far as we are concerned, the way that we see it is this: if this Bill were passed in the form in which it is proposed without what I call the Scottish amendments, couples who are permitted to marry in England and Wales as a result of the provisions of the Bill would find if either of them was domiciled in Scotland that their marriage in England and Wales would be void in Scotland by virtue of Section 2(1)(b) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred. That is one obvious difficulty. Persons domiciled in England and Wales who are entitled to marry under the Bill would not be entitled to marry in Scotland because such a marriage would be void under Section 2(1)(a) of the 1977 Act.

It seems to us that from the point of view of technical drafting these are difficulties with which it would be right for the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, to cope in her Bill and the purpose of these amendments is to enable her to do that. But I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that we are in no way committed to having this as the law of Scotland, nor are we committed to having it as the law of England and Wales. That is a matter for your Lordships and one on which the Government take no stand.

My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend one question? Why was not this question brought up on Second Reading in the first place? What I am objecting to is the "tagging", and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is supporting "tagging" at Report stage. I am surprised that he does.

My Lords, I want to make it as clear as I can that I am not supporting anything about this Bill at all, but am pointing out what the difficulties are in relation to the Bill if some amendments of this kind are not put into it. I am not supporting this at all. It is the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and we have given her certain assistance in relation to these particular clauses because of the difficulties to which I have referred.

Before doing so, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took the precaution of inviting the views of the three largest Churches in Scotland—the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church in Scotland—by a letter which I think went out about the 13th of March. We understood it was unlikely that the views of the Churches could be made available much before the end of April, but in the light of that situation we felt it right to provide this assistance to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, in order that this particular point should be focussed at this stage in your Lordships' House and not left treating Scotland as an appendage. We felt that your Lordships should realise now what the problem is and should have in mind that, unless you are going to create difficulties of the sort here referred to, then either there is no such Bill, or, if there is such a Bill, the Scottish position should be taken into account.

My Lords, I am sorry to ask my noble and learned friend to give way again because he is so gracious in giving way, but he says that the invitation went out on 13th March and the Scottish Office learned that the Churches could not formulate an opinion before 30th April. I must ask him: then why the hurry? Why not wait until they had got the consultations and then table amendments or recommend amendments to be tabled? There is no great hurry about this. What is the hurry? What my noble and learned friend has said merely underlines an unseemly haste which does not do credit to the situation. It is something which, if I may say so, is quite unlike the Scottish Office—usually the Scottish Office is very slow. Now they are rushing ahead like a racing motor car and really I cannot see why they could not have waited for the reaction of the Churches.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I remind the House that this is a Report stage and, strictly speaking, noble Lords can speak only once on an amendment although there is provision, provided it is not abused, to ask questions. Only the mover of an amendment may speak twice.

My Lords, I am obliged. I have taken it that these interventions were intended as questions and have tried to treat them accordingly.

My Lords, it is a long question.

My Lords, some questions are longer than others but it does not make them any less questions. So far as haste is concerned, may I say that when the principle of the Bill was approved by your Lordships on Second Reading, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland thought it right to take some action. The Bill is not in our control. I have said more than once, and I say it again, that it is the noble Baroness's Bill and here we are at the Report stage. We thought these matters should be focussed at this stage rather than later and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Selkirk and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale have said, prominent leaders of the Churches have made their views plain. Your Lordships have these views now and possibly the tabling of these amendments by the noble Baroness has brought this matter very sharply to their attention so that the matter of whether this should be the law in the United Kingdom is one which is now being actively considered in Scotland.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for giving way and I hesitate to intervene in his speech along with others, but I wonder whether he has considered the fact that your Lordships were forewarned of the possible need to consider amendments of this Bill because of the differences between Scottish law and that of England and Wales, during the Second Reading speech by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on 25th February last. The noble Lord referred specifically to the possible need for amendments, and indeed he referred not only to the marriage laws but to the law of incest as it differs in Scotland from the law in England and Wales as well. So I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would not agree that it is the case that your Lordships were forewarned about these matters long since and were also forewarned about the possible need to consider matters of this kind as long ago as February 1979, at an earlier stage of one of my noble friend's Bills.

My Lords, if I might answer that question, certainly I was well aware that my noble friend Lord Belstead drew to your Lordships' attention on Second Reading the question with regard to the effect of this Bill as distinguishing the position in Scotland from that in England and Wales. These amendments, as I think is clear from what has gone before, have certainly focused attention on this point in a way in which my noble friend's speech on Second Reading, with all respect to him, does not appear to have done—because the addresses by my noble friends on the matter have been fuller perhaps on this occasion than they were at Second Reading.

May I also say a word or two about the method of draftsmanship that has been used?—because it has been suggested that these are amendments by reference. The situation is that in this respect the Scottish legal draftsmen have endeavoured to follow the recommendations of the committee of my noble friend Lord Renton on the Preparation of Legislation, and the idea has been to prepare amendments which fit into the existing statute. Therefore, if they became law the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, as amended, would be a free-standing statute with these amendments in, and the young couples who have been referred to would have the whole of the relevant provisions in front of them in the statute's revised form. Therefore, from the point of view of drafting, I think that these amendments, with the user in view, are very much drafted in the proper way.

The only other thing I should like to say is that my noble and learned friend Lord Selkirk drew attention to Amendment No. 5 and its effect on the law of incest. Perhaps I might take the opportunity of seeking to explain that in due course rather than dealing with it now, but it seems necessary to have regard to the effect of this Bill on the law of incest and to make some provision for the avoidance of doubt in that direction. Perhaps, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should emphasise that, although I have become involved in this discussion in a way that appears defensive of the amendments, I certainly do not wish to do that. These are the noble Baroness's amendments, which have been prepared with our assistance—

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down finally, may I ask him one question? He told us, I think, that on 13th March the Scottish Office wrote to the Established Church of Scotland. Could he, or his noble colleague who is sitting beside him, let us know the date—because it so closely affects the Established Church of England—on which the Government wrote to the general secretary of the Church's General Synod, to inform him of this Bill and to consider the advice of the Church of England?

I am sorry, my Lords. I do not have the information, and I think that my noble friend also does not have it at hand. I think it may have been anticipated that, because of the right reverend Prelates' position in this House, differing from the position of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the right reverend Prelates would know about the Bill, without the necessity of the Home Office communicating. But that might not be the explanation.

My Lords, I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Church of England is not as prelatical a Church. It is now a very synodical Church.

My Lords, in case the intervention of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale cannot be construed as a question, I, speaking for the first time on this amendment, should like to say that I feel as he did in his question, and inquire why we could not have waited after 30th April. I feel rather as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, felt on the subject of this amendment.

My Lords, if I may, I should like to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench, or somewhere else, this question. All the arguments which have been put for including an amendment relating to Scotland would, surely, apply equally to Northern Ireland. I am a little puzzled as to why that has not been included also in this Bill, for the same tidying-up reasons.

My Lords, I should like to make one or two points. I consulted the Government Front Bench about amendments that would be necessary, and was advised that the amendments relating to Scotland would be more conveniently introduced at Report stage than at Committee stage. I was prepared to have them at either stage. That is why the amendments have appeared at Report stage. I had to wait upon them for the drafting of the amendments.

I should also like to say that the law relating to marriages with relatives of one's spouse was extended for the first time in 1907. It was then extended in 1930 or 1931 and extended again in 1960. On each of those occasions, Scotland was included with England and, so far as I know, without any protest at all. My Bill sought to add the two outstanding lines of affinities, to which the prohibition of marriage still obtains. All these others were acceptable in Scotland and it was, I think, quite reasonable to assume that these extensions would also be acceptable. Therefore, I merely asked that I might have advice about the drafting of the appropriate amendments.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, before other noble Lords speak perhaps I might have an answer to the question which I asked in relation to the last amendment: Why, if all this argument is advanced for amending the law of Scotland, is there no provision in the Bill for amending the law of Northern Ireland? It seems to me that exactly the same arguments apply, particularly over the "Reverse Gretna" argument. I do not see why Northern Ireland is not given treatment equally as unfair and unreasonable as that for Scotland.

The difference between statutes that relate only to England and Wales and statutes that relate also to Northern Ireland is very substantial. Each case is considered on its merits, but normally new statutes of this kind are not extended to Northern Ireland, my Lords.

My Lords, forgive me for wearying your Lordships late in the evening, but this is an even more important amendment than the last one, and although I take the point that it may not be entirely proper for an English Prelate to talk much about Scotland I must remind the House that on Second Reading the noble Baroness made a very clear commitment on this matter. I quote from Hansard of the 25th February. The noble Baroness said:

"It is important to emphasise that this [Bill] has nothing to do with incest. I have been accused by people who ought to know better (since they are apparently in charge of a local radio station) of doing propaganda for the legislation of incest. There is nothing in this Bill which affects the present law about incest".—[Official Report, 25/2/81, col. 1115.]

That is the clear statement of the proposer of this Bill on the 25th February, which appears to be entirely negatived by this amendment. Therefore it seems that the amendment should be not only resisted but that it is apparently improper.

My Lords, the noble Baroness was complaining a little earlier that at a later hour of the night her memory sometimes forsakes her; but I think she is jolly good and I should like to give her three cheers for the way she battles on. However, having said that, I must also say that no doubt she has now learned that problems worthy of attack have a knack of hitting back. The tabling of this amendment confers one positive, if countervailing advantage, which is that by seeking to amend and ease the Scottish law on incest she has now focused on the heart of the matter. I was going to read out the quotation which my noble friend the right reverend Prelate has just read out, so that need not be repeated. The noble Baroness did say that there was nothing about incest, and she did say that her opponents and, by implication, unfair critics were accusing her, as it were, of dabbling in incest and of legalising it through this Bill. Now, of course, she is forced to admit that the crime of incest does lie at the heart of what she is trying to do. The tables of kindred and affinity in fact mark the outside boundaries enabling the desexualised circle within which sexual relations are legally incestuous or sexual desires are morally incestuous in their approach in the wider sense.

Therefore this Bill is about easing those boundaries, and, no matter on what eminent advice she is acting, by proposing to ease the Scottish law of incest, when there is not even any known desire in Scotland for this to be done, her case that the Bill has nothing to do with incest collapses altogether. So this is a Bill about incest, which is a nasty subject. It is about pretending that some of what was incest hitherto is no longer to be so. As a Bill about incest it is a Bill about shame. My Lords,

"Man is a beast when shame stands off him

Modesty once banished, never returns".

Once again I would appeal to the noble Baroness, unless she wants to go down to a really humiliating defeat on Third Reading, to reconsider what she is doing. The Divisions tonight have shown that the two sides are almost neck and neck, and since we have had since only last Thursday we have not had time to rally the support that her noble friends spontaneously give on her side; but that will not be so if the Bill goes to a Third Reading.

So I appeal to the noble Baroness, if she wants to see this Bill get a fair run, that she should withdraw at least this amendment or, better still, withdraw the Bill, to come back in the new Session in the autumn and allow us to have a proper Second Reading on a proper Bill, but not to inflict this monstrosity upon us just now. If the noble Baroness does not withdraw this amendment I hope noble Lords will support me in the Division Lobby. We should like to remember the noble Baroness—and I am sure we shall—as a great and gallant champion of sober and farsighted reform, but on the showing of this Bill I am afraid we might have to remember her as one born to make chaos cosmic.

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this matter concerning Scottish law, and I do not intend to do so on the details of Scottish law because those, I am quite sure, will be explained to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is so familiar with Scottish law. But I do feel it is necessary to intervene to make this one point. I think that those noble Lords who have criticised my noble friend for the reference she made in her Second Reading speech on 25th February this year about the question of incest do so, if not unfairly, certainly misguidedly, because, if I may say so, it is perfectly clear from the context in which she was speaking that she was referring to the circumstances as they apply under the law at the moment in England and Wales. Indeed the Bill at that stage, as it then stood, said, and the Bill which is before your Lordships at the moment still says, that it does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I do not want to weary your Lordships by making an extensive quotation from my noble friend's speech, but I do think it is necessary just to refer to this part. She said in her speech, as noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned:

"There is nothing in this Bill which affects the present law about incest".

But she went on to say this:

"Incest, as your Lordships know…"—

I leave out some words which are unnecessary—

"is a crime carrying a very heavy penalty. It is only applicable to persons having sexual intercourse with persons who are blood related. Persons who are not blood related, even if they were stepfather and stepdaughter, and who engage in sexual intercourse are open to no legal action whatever; and they can go on like that (as the law now stands) just as much as can any two persons who are totally unconnected in any way by matrimony or otherwise—total strangers".—[Official Report, 25/2/81; col. 1115.]

It is perfectly clear—and I do feel that it is necessary to emphasise this once again—that the context in which my noble friend Lady Wootton was speaking was that of the law so far as it presently stands in relation to England and Wales, and relating to blood relations.

There is the further point to which I have already referred on an earlier amendment, which was made in his Second Reading speech on the same day by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the Government, where he said at col. 1139:

"I am told that it would be necessary to amend the Scottish law on incest, which is somewhat more extensive than that obtaining in England and Wales".

So I do, with great respect, feel that the position was made quite clear to your Lordships on that occasion.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for clearing up that point. May I appeal to noble Lords to make their speeches as short as possible. I have myself been ill and I am not able to continue very much longer. Most of the remaining amendments are in fact consequential. If speeches could be shortened, I should be grateful.

My Lords, I shall certainly try to respond to that invitation. The situation is that under Scottish law sexual intercourse between certain people related by affinity, for example stepparents and their stepchildren, is within the crime of incest. Yet people of that category will be permitted to marry, provided they are at least 21, if this Bill is approved with the provisions that have already been discussed. While it is unlikely that a court would hold that anyone who marries in pursuance of the Bill would be guilty of incest in consummating the marriage, there is more room for doubt as to the position of people who have sexual intercourse when not married. I am sure the House would agree that this is a matter with which, if the Bill is to apply to Scotland, the Bill should properly cope.

The principle of this clause was previously given statutory effect in Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1938 in relation to the alterations in the prohibited degrees that had been made by the statutes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred earlier. The new clause which has been drafted would amend the 1938 Act to square with the law of marriage in Scotland as it would be if this Bill were passed. This seems to be a proper consequence to take into account. Again, I am not commending it; I am simply saying to your Lordships that this is an issue with which the House requires to deal if it is to consider this matter properly.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I might ask him a question. Do I understand from Section 13(c) that at the age of 20 it is incest and at the age of 21 it is marriage? Is that the right interpretation of Section 13(c)?

My Lords, as I understand the position, the Bill as amended allows people in the particular relationship with which the Bill deals to marry, provided that they have attained the age of 21; that is to say, if they are 21 years or over. The provision with regard to incest just mirrors that and says that they are permitted, if you like, to have sexual intercourse without being guilty of incest if they are within these degrees but are 21 or over. So it is a mirror image of the provision with regard to the power to marry.

My Lords, I take it that under the age of 21 it is incest?

My Lords, yes, for these people so far as it would be incest now; because under the age of 21 they are not empowered by the Bill to marry.

In Scotland, my Lords.

My Lords, they are not empowered by the Bill to marry and as regards Scotland it would be incest, and therefore, the provision of the Bill requires to deal with it in that sense.

My Lords, that is what is commonly termed a "lash-up".

moved Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendment No. 7:

moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9: