HC Deb 21 October 1998 vol 317 cc1357-68

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'or repeal'.

No. 37, in page 19, line 10, at end insert— '() A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects:.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Order for Third Reading read.

8.21 pm
Mr. Straw

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House has made a number of changes to the Bill since it was introduced eight months ago. Some of those, such as amendment No. 33, have been detailed but necessary technical improvements. Some of the amendments have raised important issues of public policy, where we have sought to respond to the concern expressed both in this House and previously in the other place.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have contributed to the debates. I hope that it will be acknowledged that we have sought to respond in a like way and, whenever we could, to accept the spirit and, in some cases, the detail, of amendments and, where we could not accept the precise wording, to come forward with alternative wording to meet as much of the mischief identified in those amendments as possible.

Three sets of changes have been made as a result of concerns expressed here and in the other place. The first concerns remedial orders. We continue to believe that it should be possible to amend Acts of Parliament by a remedial order so as to bring them into line with the convention rights, but we have, after listening carefully to the debates, considerably restricted the circumstances in which they can be made, and we have significantly enhanced the parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny of those orders.

We have explained that any response to a declaration of incompatibility by the courts, whether by fresh primary legislation or by a remedial order, is a matter on which the Government will propose, but it is for Parliament to dispose. One of the Bill's many strengths is that it promotes human rights while maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers which underpins our constitutional arrangements.

Secondly, there is the issue of the Churches, on which we had an interesting debate some minutes ago, including an entertaining excursion into the history of the Church of Scotland. We were, for reasons that I explained, unable to accept the amendments made by the other place which would have exempted Churches from the Bill's public authority provisions in the few circumstances where they would otherwise have been regarded as public authorities. At the same time, we recognised their concern about what they saw as the Bill's potential impact on such matters as faith and doctrine. In that regard, I tabled an amendment in Committee requiring the courts to have particular regard to the rights of religious organisations to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and in so doing I believe that the Government and the House were able to go a long way towards meeting their concerns.

The third issue is that of the press. We never believed that the Bill would undermine the freedom of the press. The Strasbourg institutions attach a high value to freedom of expression, as is clear from a series of cases, including the "Spycatcher" case. Our courts will take that case law into account. But as with the Churches, we sought to meet the concerns of the press in a way which is consistent with the principles on which the Bill is based.

We did so with an amendment in Committee requiring the courts, among other things, to have particular regard to freedom of expression when they are considering granting any relief which might affect it. The amendment followed detailed discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Wakeham, and with media representatives. I think that the amendment was well received in the House and outside.

I have commented on three particular issues that have arisen from the Bill. More generally, it is clear to everyone that the Bill has significant ramifications. Its provisions will have profound implications for the conduct of all public authorities, for the interpretation of legislation and for the operation of the court system at all levels. It will be much easier for individuals to rely on their convention rights against public authorities, and I believe that they will take that opportunity.

Over time, the Bill will bring about the creation of a human rights culture in Britain. In future years, historians may regard the Bill as one of the most important measures of this Parliament. I talk about a human rights culture. One of the problems which has arisen in Britain in recent years is that people have failed to understand from where rights come. The philosopher David Selbourne has commented on the generation of an idea of dutiless rights, where people see rights as consumer products which they can take, but for nothing. The truth is that rights have to be offset by responsibilities and obligations. There can and should be no rights without responsibilities, and our responsibilities should precede our rights.

In developing that human rights culture, I want to see developed a much clearer understanding among Britain's people and institutions that rights and responsibilities have properly to be balanced—freedoms by obligations and duties.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, who is always courteous in giving way. It does not follow exactly from what he has just said, but when do the Government expect to implement the Bill? When will the measure be brought into force?

Mr. Straw

May I deal with that in a few moments after my next remarks?

As the Bill nears the end of its parliamentary passage, it is right to look ahead to its implementation. Precisely because the Bill will have such a fundamental effect, we need to prepare for it thoroughly. We are providing training through the Judicial Studies Board for all courts and tribunals to enable them to deal adequately with the convention points that will come before them in case after case. We have allocated just under £5 million in addition to the normal budget of the Judicial Studies Board and associated bodies for this judicial training.

We are also ensuring that Government Departments and other public authorities are properly prepared for the obligations that the Bill places on them. They will need not only to review their legislation and practices for compatibility with the convention but to ensure that their staff are trained in an awareness of the convention rights so that those rights permeate all the decisions that they make. We need to work out how the criminal justice system can best accommodate the additional pressures that are likely to follow from the Bill.

To answer directly the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), that means that there is a great deal of work to do before the Bill can be implemented. We need to carry that out in a fair, systematic, balanced and positive way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to give a precise date for implementation. It cannot happen in the near future, and I hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give a precise date. We want to implement the Bill as soon as is feasible, but we must all recognise that we cannot do so straight away.

One exception is clause 19, which requires ministerial statements of compatibility. The clause, which is important for the presentation of Bills before the House, does not form part of the main scheme of the Bill, and could be brought into force well in advance of the main provisions. I am considering the options for implementing clause 19 with my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and others, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Maclennan

Before the Home Secretary leaves the matter of the date of the Bill's effective operation, will he tell us more about the criteria that he will apply in determining the practicality of proceeding? I understand that there is a need for judicial training, and the Home Secretary has spoken of the Government's efforts on that, but are there any other hidden obstacles to proceeding with implementation that he might want to disclose?

Mr. Straw

I do not think that there are any other hidden obstacles—I was trying to search my brain for secrets, but there are none. We are bringing into Scots law and English law—by which, for the avoidance of doubt, I mean also the law that applies in Wales and Northern Ireland—not only the convention, which is easily stated, as it is in the Bill, but its jurisprudence. It is crucial that we properly prepare our judicial system, including senior judges who have in many ways been living with the convention for a long time.

Often when the law is ambiguous, the courts use the convention and its jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation. However, the convention has not reached many Crown courts or county courts, and it has certainly not reached magistrates courts—it is outwith their experience. If we are not prepared and if we do not prepare those who serve in a judicial capacity, including 30,000 lay magistrates, we will find that sharp lawyers will seek to make disruptive points. We must be aware of that—we have always acknowledged it—and we must be prepared for it.

The Bill not only concerns the rights of individuals in a narrow sense, but will change our society's culture. For example, those who are charged with criminal offences have rights, and we must recognise and protect those rights, but others in society also have rights. It would be wrong to set sharp lawyers who have examined the jurisprudence against lay magistrates, justices' clerks, busy county court and Crown court judges who have not had the opportunity to do so. That would bring the Bill's implementation into disrepute. I want the process to succeed, so we need time to prepare for it.

I do not want to implicate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in the process, but he has been closely associated with the project, both in opposition and in government. I thank him for that contribution. He knows that the Bill is an important priority for the Government, and that there was considerable discussion about it in the joint consultative committee—of which he was a joint chairman—of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. He will recognise that we must get on with the project—I know that he is on the case—but we must balance that against the need for preparation.

My next point may further reassure the right hon. Gentleman and, with a bit of luck, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The work of preparing for the Bill's implementation is not for the Government alone. We recognise that many outside the Government have a keen interest in how the Bill is implemented and want to contribute to its success. We draw on their expertise, as we did in opposition, and we take account of their concerns.

As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said earlier, I have decided to establish a task force to assist the Government in the preparations for implementation.

The task force will be chaired by my noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn and will include my hon. Friends the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department. The membership will also include those non-governmental organisations which have made extremely valuable contributions to the project and have continued to offer their advice as the Bill has proceeded through Parliament. They will include Francesca Klug, from the Human Rights Incorporation Project; Anne Owers, from Justice; Andrew Puddephatt, from Charter 88; Sarah Spencer, from the Institute for Public Policy Research; Veena Vasista, from the 1990 Trust; and John Wadham from Liberty.

The task force will help us to create the human rights culture to which I referred. Its tasks will include maintaining a dialogue between the Government and non-governmental organisations on the readiness of Departments, other public authorities and the legal profession for implementation and on its timing; working together to heighten public awareness of the Bill relating to responsibilities as well as rights; providing training opportunities for public authorities outside Government, and co-operating with other organisations in disseminating awareness, particularly among young people, of the rights and responsibilities inherent in the convention.

We are preparing guidance on the Bill which is designed to assist Government Departments and others, and I expect the task force to take a keen interest in that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Will the abolition of the death penalty take place soon, or does it depend on the deliberations of the task force?

Mr. Straw

That will take place on Royal Assent. It is a simple, straightforward and important matter. We do not have to wait a relatively long time before it comes into force.

I hope that the task force will be able to have its first meeting in the near future and will continue to meet regularly, at least until the Bill is fully implemented. It will be of great practical use. I am grateful to those who have accepted the invitation to serve on the task force, and I look forward to it starting its work.

I have looked to the future of the Bill because, with this Bill more than any other, the word is not the deed. We have started the business of introducing a formal statement of human rights into our law. That will not be completed until the European convention on human rights is embedded in our jurisprudence. Our immediate task is to complete our consideration of the Bill before it finally returns to another place.

8.38 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell

I welcome the Home Secretary's explanation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has to be abroad today, but he has been following and taking a close interest in the Bill and its development.

The Home Secretary is right to emphasise that rights also involve responsibilities. The short speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) brought home to those who were in the Chamber the extraordinary reach that the Bill is likely to have. A great many lawyers will look at every aspect of it and seek to stretch it as far as possible.

In respect of a human rights culture, it is important to stress that a human right given to one individual may adversely affect the rights of other individuals. It is important that the Bill be implemented in a way that balances the rights of all citizens fairly, or there will be some strange results.

The Home Secretary was also right to say—I may not quote him quite correctly—that we do not know exactly where this legislation will lead us. When we acceded to the European convention in 1951, few people would have expected some of its far-reaching effects over the past 47 years. The decisions by the Strasbourg Court have not necessarily been radical, but their effects have often been more radical than the decisions themselves. For example, it was decided that parents could choose the type of discipline to be imposed on their children in school, which had the radical effect of removing what many people regard as old-fashioned systems of discipline. Nobody would have expected that to happen at the outset.

We must be careful that cases brought before our courts do not lead to changes in our society that would not have the support of this House and of the country through its elected representatives. That is why it is extremely important that, when remedial orders are made, the House should have the fullest opportunity to consider them.

The Home Secretary said that Governments propose and Parliaments dispose. It is important that that phrase should be profound as well as elegant, because if we were to use too much of the fast-track procedure, the Government would be proposing and Parliament would have little option but to dispose. The history of this Bill has shown that real improvements have been made during its proceedings.

Although we may not have achieved all that we sought to achieve through remedial orders, we are grateful for the clear explanation by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), that "compelling reasons" means compelling reasons, and that the Government will consider it necessary or proper to use the fast-track procedure only in a narrow band of cases.

I am also grateful that the Home Secretary made it clear that the Bill is not meant to create a substitute written constitution for this country. It is simply to ensure that our law is kept in line with Strasbourg law so that cases are dealt with more swiftly, easily and effectively. I continue to hope that, while there will be no formal right of appeal—there could not be—for Government and public bodies to Strasbourg, ways will be found to enable the public to know when the Government or a public body are deeply concerned that a decision of our courts at the highest level is wrong. They should know that an effective method is available to drive the matter on to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and that the ultimate determination will be in accordance with the decision of our highest judiciary. That judgment will therefore be binding not only on the citizens of this country, but on those of every other member state of the Council of Europe.

I believe profoundly in the European convention on human rights, but it is a backstop. It must always be remembered that the convention was created after the war to prevent some dreadful things from ever happening again, and it should not start to reach into the nooks and crannies of the private lives of the citizens of these 30 or 40 countries. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind, and that reading the debates will encourage people to do that.

Although we have opposed aspects of the Bill, we now wish it well and hope that it will be implemented effectively, to the benefit of the citizenry as a whole.

8.45 pm
Mr. Maclennan

I also express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has handled the Bill—his openness to suggestions, and his diligence in pursuing arguments and proffering explanations. I believe that the Bill has benefited from the deliberations of Parliament, and that cannot be said of all our legislative activity.

For me, the Bill is something of a landmark in personal terms. Fifteen years ago, in December 1983, I introduced a Bill that enjoyed a great deal of support—not, alas, from any of the current members of the Labour Cabinet. Indeed, their absence was noted when the matter was brought before the House again in 1987, by Sir Edward Gardner, from the Conservative Benches. Only 15 Labour Members supported the proposal.

It has been a long haul to get to this point, and it is therefore a matter of great satisfaction that there has been such a clear movement of opinion—a movement that is, I believe, reflected in the judiciary. When one thinks of the arguments that were made 10 years ago about how such a measure might politicise the judges, and how that was considered to be a baffling obstacle to the reforms that are here encompassed, one can take great satisfaction from what has happened.

I pay particular tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has campaigned for even longer, and whose individual contribution to the debates is probably without parallel.

Mr. Straw

I should like to be associated with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Lord Lester.

Mr. Maclennan

My noble and learned Friend will be most grateful, as will my personal friend, David Selbourne, the philosopher, from whose home I returned on Saturday to read the Home Secretary's remarks about dutiless rights. They were most appositely chosen, for it is true not only that obligations balance rights, but that rights cannot be secured without duties being observed. Too often, that has been lost sight of.

A couple of questions remain, which are not entirely clear to me and which may not become clear for some time, about the impact of the Government's decision on implementation. I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has said about the task force on implementation. Some of the work that he proposes to assign to it might have been undertaken by a human rights commission, and he is clearly seeking voluntary help to fulfil some of the necessary groundwork. I hope that there will be urgency in implementation.

I am not entirely satisfied that these matters can be handled effectively by our courts until the matter has come before them. It is prudent not to rush into instant implementation, and thereby run the risk of discrediting the process. However, that is not a reason for long delay. It is clear from what the Home Secretary said in reply to my intervention that he shares that view.

Subordinate legislatures, to which power is being decentralised, could be in some difficulty if the Bill is not implemented. The Home Secretary will be aware that provisions in the Northern Ireland Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Act 1998 require legislative proposals to be compatible with convention rights as set out in this Bill. It would be unfortunate if legislative issues arose and there were some question as to whether the proposals of the three bodies concerned were incompatible with the Bill, and that could not be resolved because the Government had not given effect to this Bill.

Mr. Straw

As I explained earlier, it is my intention to bring clause 19 into force as soon as possible, and well before the rest of the Bill. Clause 19 requires Ministers, when they present a Bill, to give a clear statement on whether they believe, on the basis of good advice, that the Bill is compatible with the convention. That provision, as it affects the United Kingdom Parliament, will come into force earlier than the provisions of the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Bill, and should have an impact on those bodies.

The second point is that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. An intervention should be brief. The right hon. Gentleman's second point should be dealt with in the winding-up speech.

Mr. Maclennan

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his intervention. He has gone some way to removing my concern, which flowed from clause 28 of the Scotland Bill. That provides that the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence only in respect of matters for which there is no incompatibility with convention rights. I am greatly relieved if the declaration of a Minister is sufficient to remove that condition, and if that will be triggered by the earlier implementation of clause 19.

I do not want to conclude my contribution to the debate on a minor, perhaps querulous, note. The issues that are covered by the Bill are of historic importance. Although the Minister has said that the Government do not intend to take a step towards establishing a written constitution, I do not doubt that that is, in fact, what is happening.

In drafting the Bill, the Government have been extremely careful to avoid the possibility of judges striking down the legislation of Parliament, on the ground that it would fall foul of fundamental law. That is understandable in the light of the current attitude of judges, who would not altogether welcome such a power. There can be no doubt, however, that judges have changed their minds to the extent that they broadly support this measure. I anticipate that, as they have inspired confidence that they would use the power judiciously, they will feel less reluctant to take the greater responsibility of deciding that Parliament has gone beyond the accepted view of people, as expressed in a written constitution. I do not consider that an embarrassing prospect; indeed, I think that many would regard it as highly desirable.

I also think that—as the Minister emphasised—the Government have sought to secure what they describe as the sovereignty of Parliament. Earlier, I expressed doubt about whether that was necessary or even desirable: I felt that the people were sovereign, and that their views could be expressed outside the House.

Mr. Straw

That is a Scottish point.

Mr. Maclennan

Indeed. It has always been understood by the Scottish courts that that is the position. However, such a philosophical argument, or discussion, is not appropriate in this context. In this Third Reading debate, we are discussing what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill is highly satisfactory. I believe that it will reinforce protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of our people, that it will not lead to a landslide of litigation, and that it will provide valuable support to ensure that those fundamental rights and freedoms are sustained, as all who have spoken today wish them to be.

8.57 pm
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to what is in the Bill. It may seem odd, on Third Reading, to deal with what is not in a Bill, especially given that, during today's debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady should not talk about what is not in the Bill, because the purpose of Third Reading is to talk about what is in the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Home Secretary has shown a willingness to take on the issues that have been raised, and to amend the Bill. It has therefore become more comprehensive, and deals more effectively with Labour's manifesto promise to bring rights home. It may not be able to fulfil that promise completely, owing to what the Home Secretary, on Second Reading, described as a fine balance. It has not incorporated article 13 of the convention.

It is said that the existence of the Bill creates an article 13 right. Interestingly, subsequent case law may suggest that article 13 constitutes a separate right, which can be considered separately. Someone whose human rights are not delivered by the institutions of government may have the right to have that properly investigated. In the Aydin case, the inability of the Turkish authorities effectively to use their power to visit the scene of the incident—this was following a rape—to summon witnesses and to call forensic evidence was queried. For example, no officers had been questioned in the critical initial stages of the investigation. I expect that that criticism of the lack of a domestic remedy might sound familiar to the parents of Stephen Lawrence.

I believe that we can deliver a domestic remedy within the framework of the Bill as it is. I hope that the Home Secretary, in his usual approach of finding solutions—the task force that he has incorporated to work with him on this will do that effectively—will ensure that, in practice, that domestic remedy is delivered.

We have done some radical things during this Bill. To the Government's surprise, we have incorporated protocol 6. That was an important step. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government announced their intention to introduce legislation that would mean that our laws were compatible with protocol 7, so that we could incorporate it. I urge a similar approach to be taken on the fourth protocol.

We have already made announcements—there was a series of announcements during the summer—about the rights of British dependent territory citizens. If we extended their right to reside in the UK, some of the difficulties in ratifying the fourth protocol would be avoided, but what we have done in the Bill so far has consequences.

The committee that—even though we have not approved the present setting up of a commission to establish the work of the Bill—has been envisaged in Ministers' statements should start work early on. It could assist Ministers in the business of making clause 19 statements; it would be good if that happened early on. I would be interested if the Home Secretary could respond to that point. However, I hope that the committee will also be able to look at the issues of ratifying the protocols that remain unratified because that is part of the unfinished business. If we do that, we shall do a better job of bringing rights home.

9.2 pm

Mr. Straw

With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made in the debate.

First, I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for the trust of his remarks. I had hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, it might be possible to deal with matters in a way that did ensure that there was some consensus behind it. I am pleased that it looks as though that may be the case.

Of course I understand that the official Opposition—it is not their right, but their duty, to express different views—have reservations about aspects of the Bill. Its implementation needs to be not only prepared carefully, but monitored with great care.

Earlier in the debates, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to our intention, which we had flagged up in the White Paper, to establish, or to propose the establishment of, a parliamentary Committee on human rights—it is a matter for Parliament, not for us, to determine—to monitor progress in implementing the Act and the way in which it develops and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to Parliament for changes that may be needed.

I should like also to thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his particularly generous remarks about me. I am grateful to him for those. As I said before, I am grateful not only for the co-operation but for the inspiration that he and his colleagues have provided. He was right to say that some of us have been later converts to the cause than he was. I should have taken more notice of the views of my former head of chambers, Sir Edward Gardner, when he was promoting his Human Rights Bill in 1987. He was a distinguished man, and I should have listened to him. Nevertheless, we have got there in the end.

Those of us who know Lord Lester know him to be indefatigable in pursuit of incorporation of the European convention on human rights. Although he is sometimes indefatigable to the point of exhausting his friends and colleagues, that only adds to our admiration of him. He has worked extremely hard on the issue and the Bill's passage, and he deserves our collective thanks.

I should deal with the points made on Scottish and Welsh incorporation of the convention. The Government's intention is that implementation will occur on the same date for all constituent parts of the United Kingdom. On the obligation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure either that their legislation is compatible with the convention or that, if it is not, they state that it is not, as I said earlier—in an over-long intervention—the Government's intention is that the obligation will not apply to those institutions before it applies to the House and to the other place. I should add that, in practice, both this Government and the previous Government have observed an obligation to attempt to ensure that Government legislation is compatible with the convention, albeit currently such compatibility can be tested only at Strasbourg and not in United Kingdom courts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked a question about article 13. Article 13 states: Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. Although article 13 mentions a national authority, the truth is that it is there to provide a remedy for the international Court at Strasbourg. For that reason, the Government thought that it would be inappropriate to include article 13 in the Bill to incorporate the principal operational parts of the convention that provide substantive rights.

English law and Scots law have been imaginative and innovative in developing new remedies. As proof of that, one has only to consider development of the idea of judicial review, which—from an almost standing start—has developed into a rather large industry.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

The Home Office knows all about that.

Mr. Straw

That is true. However, we end up being judicially reviewed more regularly than some other Departments because of the nature of our business. It is right that we should be reviewed more regularly, as we are daily dealing with crucial issues of the liberty of the subject. I personally have no difficulty about the fact that the quasi-judicial decisions that I have to make—like the decisions that the former Attorney-General had to make—have to be made with very clear application of the law and judicial review.

Judicial review and many other remedies have been developed, and the Government believe that the courts will be imaginative in developing other remedies if they are needed. If—as I do not think will happen—there turns out to be some gap in the remedies, the safeguard is that it will be possible for litigants to go to Strasbourg, where article 13 will arise.

I do not want to go into too much detail about the Turkish case, except to say that it involved the most extraordinary allegations of failure against the Turkish police, failure on a scale that no one could conceive would apply in this country. The case involved the killing of civilian by a Turkish police officer and the almost total and wilful failure of the Turkish authorities to investigate. It is impossible to conceive of such a circumstance arising in this country. We considered the matter carefully but do not believe that we lose anything by the omission of article 13. Indeed, we think that there could be problems if we included it.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening at the last gasp, but I do so on a narrow point that the Plymouth Brethren have asked me to put to him. The Plymouth Brethren occasionally have to exclude members, and they want a reassurance that, under clause 6, they will not be considered "a public authority". The Home Secretary kindly gave that reassurance in a letter to me on 25 June, but the Brethren would be grateful if he could confirm it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Straw

Yes, I can. I am smiling because I have very good relations with the Exclusive Brethren in my constituency

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

That is the old brethren.

Mr. Straw

The old Labour Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that from a sedentary position.

In the debate on 20 May this year, I stated: the regulation of divine worship"— and I mean regulation— the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood"— obviously, the term "admission" covers non-admission and exclusion— are, in our judgment, all private matters."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1015.] It could not conceivably be asserted that, when it comes to questions of discipline, the Plymouth Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren are standing in the place of the state. I am therefore happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

We have had a very interesting debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, and I look forward to the Bill receiving its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Forward to