§ Mr. WinnickI beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 5, line 7, after 'his' insert
'and shall have the right to appear in person, or by his legal or union representative, before the Tribunal.'.It is not clear whether somebody making a complaint to the tribunal must appear in person or can authorise his union or legal representative to appear on his behalf. The tribunal must first decide that the complainant has a case. The Bill makes it clear that if it is a frivolous complaint the tribunal will not consider it.Once the tribunal has decided that the complainant has a case to adduce, the Security Service will do its utmost to produce evidence seeking to justify what it has done. If the complainant cannot appear or have a representative, he or she will be very much at a disadvantage. For instance, I cite the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) which is being brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Clearly, she will have legal representation, but if the Bill were already on the statute book and she and Patricia Hewitt had made that complaint against the security services and the Government to the tribunal, she would not have been able to appear in person or have legal representation. That would have been most unfair.
I hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. If he does not and a complainant has no right to appear before a tribunal in person, it makes a complete mockery of the tribunal procedure. It emphasises once again the view put forward over the past two days by Labour Members, and by some Conservative Members, that there is no real control over the security services and that they are and to a large extent will remain a law unto themselves.
§ Mr. John PattenThere may be cases in which the tribunal considers that a complainant or complainants—I shall not consider the particular cases raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—should be asked to attend in person or to be represented. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's amendment gives me the chance to clarify that point.
Under the Bill the tribunal is free to determine its own procedure, subject only to the restrictions concerning the disclosure of information provided to it. The Bill does not, therefore, prevent the tribunal from hearing oral evidence from the complainant, or from others appearing on his or her behalf—for example, the trade union official to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, or a solicitor—where that would help the tribunal to discharge its functions.
If the complainant were invited to attend, he or she could ask to be represented or accompanied. There is certainly no bar in the Bill to a complainant taking legal advice or being legally represented. It is similar to the procedure under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Under that Act, the applicant is required to sign the form, which is a freely available document, but that is all. It makes it clear that he or she could ask a solicitor, for example, to submit the application to the tribunal on his or her behalf. In the same way, if oral evidence were needed from the complainant by the tribunal, the tribunal would be free to hear his or her legal representative or any other representative proposed by the complainant.
§ Mr. BuchanFor one golden moment, I thought that we were about to receive a better assurance from the Minister, but he is determined to end our debate on the same sour note of the past two days. There is no guarantee that a legal or trade union representative will be present in such cases. Why does the Minister not simply accept the amendment and write it into the Bill? If he will not, it means that he considers that there are cases in which that right should not be given to the complainant. Will he not accept the amendment even at this late stage? If that provision is not written into the Bill, there is no assurance that the Minister believes that a complainant can of right be legally represented or represented by his trade union. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen? If he cannot do that, will he accept the amendment so that he can give us that assurance?
§ Mr. WinnickLike my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I hoped that the Minister's opening remarks meant that he saw some reason or justification for my modest amendment No. 41. Surely it is a basic principle of British justice that if a person brings a complaint before a tribunal or a court, that person should be able to appear or to be represented. I have some experience of these matters. Before I returned to the House I represented people who lodged appeals on immigration cases. It was never thought that those people should not be allowed to appear before the adjudicator or tribunal or be duly represented.
If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, is he willing to say that the matter will receive favourable consideration in another place? Nothing in the Bill goes anywhere near what the Minister said.
Finally, I repeat what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). When matters are brought before a tribunal or court, decisions are made according to the Act passed by Parliament, not what a Minister said or what is written in Hansard. Therefore, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment because the Home Secretary is not around, and he needs his right hon. Friend's authorization—I understand that and am not being sarcastic—if he will say that the points that have been raised are worthy of further consideration, he will give some partial satisfaction.
§ Mr. CryerMinisters usually set out in statutory instruments the procedures to be followed by tribunals. That is to ensure that the tribunals are fair. I am sure that the Minister wants the tribunals to be fair in their adjudication on complaints. I should have thought, therefore, that he would have given at least some indication of the procedures that they should follow.
Although the tribunals are appointed by royal warrant—whatever that is—in practice they are appointed by the Government. As the tribunal is a creature of Government, the Government would normally inform the tribunal about the procedures that it should follow. Because it is a highly secretive tribunal, I am being indulgent. I believe that its rules should be set out in a statutory instrument, as for all other tribunals that Ministers in various Departments set up to adjudicate on various matters. In this case, however, I am prepared to indulge the Minister by saying not that there must be a statutory instrument making everything open and above board but that we expect the Government to inform the House about the procedures that the tribunal will follow and to allow the 309 right of representation. That should be made absolutely clear. The Minister has told the House that that process may be followed but he has also said that tribunals make up their own rules, so if a tribunal is determined to ignore the right of representation because that is convenient for it, it can presumably do so. Will the Minister tell us that it will be the Goverment's recommendation to the tribunal to accept representation? Despite the undesirability of the lack of clear rules, is the Minister prepared to do that?
§ Mr. WinnickI have invited the Minister simply to say whether the matter should be considered in another place. We are in Committee. Surely the Minister can answer yes or no.
§ Mr. John PattenI have given a very good explanation of the Government's position and I do not intend to add to it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without amendment.
§ To be read the Third time this day.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)We come now to motion No. 2 on Scottish housing.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI understand that motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not to be moved.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have not moved the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989 because of the lateness of the hour. I wish to place clearly on record that the reason that the hour is so late is the Government's obduracy in refusing to accept a single amendment among all the constructive amendments proposed to the Security Service Bill. It is scandalous of the Government to treat the House with the contempt that they have shown it tonight in every respect.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Adjournment motion has been moved, and hon. Members must be aware that they are now taking the time of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).