Lords Sitting of 3 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

The Independent Living Fund
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to revise the eligibility criteria for the Independent Living Fund (1993).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the new independent living arrangements and the community care initiative of which they form part have been in operation for only 10 months. We have no plans to revise the criteria at the present time.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that many severely disabled people are denied payment from the new Independent Living Fund because of local authority incompetence? No matter how severely disabled they are, even if they are paralysed, they receive no money from the new ILF if their local authority fails to provide a specified number of services. Is the Minister further aware that in no fewer than 57 of the 132 local authority areas not one severely disabled person receives one penny from the new ILF? In many cases that is due to the local authority's failure to provide its part of the package. Does the Minister agree that that is a shocking state of affairs, and that as a minimum we need a revision of the eligibility criteria?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the 1993 fund is not a straightforward continuation of the old ILF, but an entirely new venture which is based upon the provision of joint care packages in partnership with local authorities. Some local authorities have adapted to the new way of working more quickly than others, and that has affected their ability to work effectively with the fund. The fund has issued detailed guidance to local authorities. The director has met the Association of Directors of Social Services and agreed a joint way forward. Of course, 75 local authorities have applied successfully. There are only 13 local authorities from which there have been no applications. Decisions are still pending in the remaining 44 local authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Government's mind still open about direct payments by local authorities, which were available previously? It was a much simpler and effective system, and was advocated by some of us when the Bill was before the House in May last year. Is my noble friend aware that the trustees are now likely to recommend reintroducing that system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Cash payments were one of the most popular aspects of
1370
the old fund. Of course cash payments have been retained by the fund. Payments from the 1993 fund continue to be paid to the disabled customer, not to the local authority. Local social services departments have recently taken on new responsibilities for providing flexible care packages for disabled people. We believe that we should wait to see how well that goes before rushing into another major change in the way in which they operate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister look at the forms that severely disabled people or their carers have to fill in? Is he aware that they are complicated and a bureaucratic nightmare, and that it is not surprising that people get into a muddle?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am never surprised if people sometimes get into a muddle when they have to fill in complicated forms. The forms are available from. local social services departments, which also have information on the fund. The forms are a matter for the fund's trustees. I shall bring the forms to their attention and ask that they look closely at them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Baroness, is the Minister aware that I have received the most heartbreaking representations from those whom the fund is supposed to help in regard to a specific kind of bureaucratic requirement contained in the forms? Is the Minister aware that I am referring to the requirement that the name, address and national insurance number of each carer must be supplied? Is the Minister cognisant of the fact that in the hard, real, sometimes cruel, but nevertheless courageous world in which these people live that requirement is a hardship? Many people resign as carers when they learn that they have to supply these particulars. That is especially difficult when wives do not always keep husbands informed of their part-time employment Will the Minister look into that matter because it is causing many heartbreaks?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that it is reasonable for the trustees of a charity to ensure that, if a payment is made for the purpose of buying care, the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that that payment is spent on care and not on something else. Payments from the new fund are not a benefit entitlement but grants made by a charity. A public body which has a budget of about £120 million must take the minimum of reasonable steps to ensure that proper records are kept of how that money is spent. A review that the trustees have undertaken in order to collect carer's national insurance numbers has uncovered a number of examples of where ILF money has been used for purposes other than for the purchase of personal care, and where overpayment; have resulted.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, if in the future the Government consider reducing the £200 limit up to which local authorities must provide services, will the Minister say whether the Government would then allow disabled people direct access to the fund?
Viscount Astor: My Lords., the fund is not the only source of help for disabled people. It is an integral part

1371
of the Government's community care initiative, providing an additional option for a small and specific group of people with severe disabilities. Parameters have been established within which the fund is to operate; the £200 threshold of local authority services and the £500 limit on the total value of joint care packages are two of them. Of course we shall reconsider those limits in the future if it seems reasonable to do so.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does my noble friend consider it right that, where the package from the local authority costs more than £500, the severely disabled person is then ineligible for help from the ILF and can obtain proper help only by being put into a registered home, which often costs considerably more than that? It is normally well in excess of £600.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is up to local authorities to try to make the appropriate arrangements. It is of course all part of community care. All the evidence suggests that the local authorities have made a good start in implementing the community care changes. The new arrangements offer users the opportunity to have services which are better matched to their needs and wishes. The reforms are an agenda for change over many years, but elderly and disabled people all around the country are already benefiting from the more flexible care packages.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in 1991–92 the ILF made 7,300 new awards, and 10,600 awards in 1992–93, but in the 10 months of this financial year just 108? That is over 10,000 last year but barely over 100 so far this year. Thirteen per cent. of its budget has been spent at the moment and its total budget will be severely underspent by the end of this year. Does that not show that the ILF for 1993, as constructed, is failing to reach and help the severely disabled? Will the Minister respond to the anxieties expressed in the House today and to the views of the disability organisations and local authority social services directors that the scheme does not work, and in my view cannot work? It must be amended if we are to help the disabled.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the average time from application to payment is currently 16 weeks. The most common cause of delays in payment is difficulty in agreeing the costings for components of the care package with local authorities. It is wrong to view the fund in isolation. The extension fund continues to maintain awards to some 18,500 former clients of the old fund and will spend an estimated £120 million this year.
I should also say that the Government have made increased resources available. In addition, £64 million, rising to £99 million next year, will be transferred to local authorities in recognition of their primary role in providing opportunities for independent living for all disabled people. That is in addition to the core funding for community care that authorities have received. Moreover, £11 million has been allocated to the 1993 fund for 1994–95.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has given some very disappointing replies this afternoon? Will he investigate the allegations that have been made, because the figures that I gave derive from the ILF this morning?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that community care and the ILF are working. As I have said, there have been delays and difficulties in the granting of applications. But the fund has been in existence for only 10 months. We should give it time to operate before we begin to speak of radical changes being made.

EC Budget:Scrutiny
3.12 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the departmental briefing for each entry in the EC preliminary draft budget for 1995, as co-ordinated by the Treasury for presentation to the Budget Committee and COREPER by the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative, is at the same time presented for scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government's broad objectives in considering the preliminary draft budget are set out in the explanatory memorandum which is submitted to Parliament in the weeks leading up to the Budget Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the purpose of the Question is to elicit the Government's response to the suggestion, repeatedly made, that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to have an input into the budget discussion before the Government take up an attitude in the Council of Ministers? Is the noble Lord aware that in answer to a Written Question that I tabled over 18 months ago, the Government stated:
"The basis for the United Kingdom's consideration of the Commission's Preliminary Draft Budget is a careful consideration of each entry in it by the United Kingdom department with policy responsibility for that spending programme. Consideration is given to the amount proposed by the Commission, the cost-effectiveness of the programme and the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to the programme. The Treasury co-ordinates briefing for each entry, to enable the United Kingdom's permanent representation to argue the United Kingdom's position in the Budget Committee and in COREPER"?—[Official Report, 15/7/92; WA29.]
Is there any reason at all why the Government are afraid of either House of Parliament being in possession of the same facts that are in the possession of government departments when they consider the preliminary draft budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will put his views across and we shall take note of them. Obviously —and I believe that even the noble Lord would accept this—in any negotiation, and particularly on detailed

1373
matters of an international nature, one does not disclose one's negotiating position in advance. It would be unreasonable to expect the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to negotiate effectively if our detailed position were known in advance at the outset of those negotiations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, invites Parliament to usurp the function of Ministers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should not like to accuse the noble Lord of that. I am trying to make it clear that we shall not disclose our negotiating position in advance; but as we have made clear to the noble Lord, we shall provide explanatory memoranda to Parliament at all the appropriate stages of the budget process. However, we shall not disclose our negotiating position in advance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that nobody is asking the Government to disclose their negotiating position and that contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one of the functions of Parliament is to control and question the Executive? Is there any reason why Parliament should not be able to have available the same facts as the Government on the preliminary draft budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's position as regards the function of Parliament. However, I do not accept that means that we should disclose our negotiating position. Whatever the noble Lord says, that is exactly what he is asking us to do.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce has his views on the European budget; and whether or not we disagree with him, we all have our own views on it. We should like to know what is going on. Why will the Government not tell us?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government make their position clear. They will not disclose their negotiating position in advance. If the noble Lord cannot accept the validity of that point, I do not know that I can say anything further. I suggest to the noble Lord that he next tries to play bridge with his cards face up on the table to see how he gets on.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does not the Government's determination to maintain secrecy over these matters make everybody feel more disgruntled with Brussels than they otherwise would be? Are we to have no open government at all as regards what is going on behind the scenes before we present our case to Brussels?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is a little disgruntled. Perhaps I can make him a little more "gruntled", as P.G. Wodehouse put it. As I believe the noble Lord is aware, in accordance with agreed practice, at all stages of negotiation of the EC budget the Government submit explanatory memoranda which set out their broad objectives. That allows Parliament to inform the Government of its views.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in setting out the Government's broad objectives, as the noble Lord put it, what allowance is made in departmental Treasury briefings for the exercise of additionality?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I go back to what I have tried to make clear to the noble Lord's noble friends. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not give details of discussions which precede the formulation of government policy. We stick by that.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I was not asking for detail. I was asking for the general principle which the noble Lord said in his earlier answer that he was happy to provide.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the matter any further.

Israeli-PLO Peace Initiative: Syrian View
3.17 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in securing the agreement of Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, President Clinton and President Assad met on 16th January. We hope that that will give new impetus to the negotiations between Israel and Syria which resumed in Washington on 24th January. Syria made it clear on 10th January that it considers the Israeli-PLO declaration of principles a first step towards a just and comprehensive peace.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the great peace process initiated by Israel and the PLO is now being stalled by Syria and Lebanon? Despite the 26–year occupation, the Golanese will not accept Israeli citizenship. Will she acknowledge also that the United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, should try to bring more pressure to bear in order to reach a successful conclusion? He may wish to use the British Foreign Secretary as an example of how such matters should be tackled. He is inviting people to talk to him to try to find a solution. It is a pity that the United Nations Secretary General does not emulate the endeavours of the British Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is wrong in that view. I do not think that Syria and Lebanon are trying to stall the discussions. I know that Prime Minister Rabin of Israel said yesterday that it could take weeks. We believe that that is probably a more cautious view of the situation than was given by Foreign Minister Peres. However, it is quite clear that great efforts are being made towards achieving peace.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be easier to supply the security guarantees that Israel wants on the Golan Heights when

1375
Israel ends its occupation of Jericho and Gaza? Can she tell the House what pressures are being put on the Israeli Government to end its occupation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is all part of the overall discussions. Israel is well aware that it must under the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967. That, of course, includes the Golan Heights. That is why all those interlinking aspects of the problem are taking, as Prime Minister Rabin said, some weeks to resolve.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while it is argued that the Golan Heights are needed to protect Tel Aviv, it could also threaten Damascus? Does she agree that all the members of the United Nations Security Council must enforce peace or the whole idea of the United Nations will crumble? That is most important. While the British Government and the British Foreign Secretary have shown an example, I believe that we are now entitled—
Noble Lords: Question !
Lord Molloy: Why do not noble Lords wait a little now and again? I know that patience is in very short supply on the Benches opposite.
However, if our Foreign Secretary could go to the United Nations to help to resolve the problem, I am quite sure that he would receive the hearing that he so well deserves.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are doing our best. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was with the Secretary General all day on Monday.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether it is in order to read and ask long supplementary questions?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, as I understand it, I believe that reading is probably not in order. However, I was not aware of any reading. I thought that the noble Lord was simply taking a little time to make his point.

Grant-Maintained Schools:Advertising
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the current advertising campaign by the Department for Education for grant-maintained status for schools is costing the taxpayer.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the present series of advertisements, which will run for a period of five weeks and are designed to provide factual information on grant-maintained status to parents, governors and schools, will cost about £200,000.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister feel that it is proper to spend that or, indeed, any sum of money on advertisements which must only doubtfully be in accordance with the relevant code of practice of the Department for Education which states—I trust noble Lords will allow me to read what it says—that information,
"should be full and accurate, and should not mislead".
Is the Minister aware of an advertisement from the Department for Education of 25th January which said:
"Going grant-maintained transfers financial control of a school to the people who best understand its needs—the head-teacher and governors."?
However, local education authorities must currently delegate 85 per cent. of their schools' budgets to the governors who will decide how to spend it and will shortly be delegating 90 per cent. of their schools' budgets.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I should welcome information from the noble Baroness about anything which is not accurate and which may be misleading. The information contained within the advertisements consists of actual statements by the very people in grant-maintained schools who have experienced GM status at first hand. Secondly, it is entirely in line with the code of practice. As for the third point made by the noble Baroness about funding, I must tell her that however the authorities fund their schools, the amount of money that they hold back for central services is handed over to the grant-maintained schools, so there will always be a plus factor. For example, even when the sum of money is 90 per cent., there will always be a plus factor for grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's response perhaps I may pursue the matter further. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee recently announced that it found the £13.6 million paid to grant-maintained schools "unacceptable"—and that was an all-party committee. One advertisement says that extra teachers are being supplied to grant-maintained schools. However, is the Minister aware (I am sure that she is) that a number of counties that have now fallen under the control of opposition parties have provided extra teachers for schools and that the Department for Education does not make equivalent funds available for those who oppose grant-maintained schools? Does the Minister argue that that is a level playing field? Is she willing to submit such advertisements to the Advertising Standards Authority for independent judgment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is absolutely absurd that a government should fund an organisation opposed to government policy which has been subjected to parliamentary approval. The way in which grant-maintained schools are managing with the same money —it is the money that would have been held back by the centre —to provide more books, more teachers and to ensure that the money is better deployed in the schools is substantiated by all the evidence. Whatever an LEA passes on to its own schools it nevertheless holds money back at the centre to spend centrally. That proportion is

1377
handed on to the grant-maintained schools. All the evidence shows that the grant-maintained schools make better use of it.
As regards the Public Accounts Committee, the noble Baroness refers to what was known as "cash protection" for the early wave of schools which came out when a sum was assumed for central services and held back. That point has been entirely addressed. As the noble Baroness will know, that cash protection is being phased out. All the schools for the past two years, have received pound-for-pound the money that was held back by each local authority.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have information as to whether any public money has been spent by local authorities in opposing schools while they are considering becoming grant maintained? Does she agree that any such opposition would be a great pity because grant-maintained schools are proving to be such an overwhelming success?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend asks an important question. The answer is very definitely, yes. Considerable sums of money are being spent by local authorities in opposing that policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will know that the code of practice states that a ballot can be set aside if advertisements are misleading in deciding the outcome of that ballot. However, the point that my noble friend and I are making concerns. precisely the issue of misleading information. Will the Minister look again at her reply? There is no question but that the advertisements give the impression that extra teachers and equipment are restricted to grant-maintained schools. That is not correct.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Baroness genuinely believes that our information has been misleading and that it breaches the advertising standards rule, I invite her to refer her complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not a fact that the reason that this huge sum of money is being spent on advertising is that the Government's objective with grant-maintained schools is not being met? After about three years, out of a possible 23,000 schools—and the Minister will probably confirm the figures—the number of schools that have been given grant-maintained status is only 869. Is it not now time that the nonsense was stopped?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, over 1,000 schools have now voted to go grant maintained. I wonder why the noble Lord is so exercised about the matter. If he thinks that over half a million children being educated in grant-maintained schools is such a derisory number, I wonder why it is that we take so much time in the Chamber being so concerned with the issue. The schools that achieve grant-maintained status do so because the parents vote for it. As regards whether the money could be spent on other things, the totality of the money spent on grant-maintained schools' activities, information and advice since 1988 when the Act was passed is less than 20p per pupil.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the reason that I am concerned is that better use could be made of the money. I did not say that the figure of 869 schools out of a possible 23,000 was derisory; but it is certainly not a success.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, less than 20p would hardly buy a pencil.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say, with reference to her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, what LEA has submitted an advertisement the, size of the one I am holding up which appeared in many newspapers? Has she any evidence as regards what advertisements have been put in newspapers by LEAs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not the point put to me by my noble friend Lady Cox. My noble friend asked whether money was being spent on opposing the policy. The answer is definitely yes, and the sums have been considerable.
Baroness David: My Lords, I asked about an advertisement the size of the one I have before me that appeared in many of the broadsheets.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the matter would not be conducted in that way. The methods used are much more subtle.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if these schools are so attractive, why is it necessary to spend £200,000 of taxpayers' money on advertising?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important policy. It breaks up the monolith of every school being in the same comprehensive mould. Under the law, governing bodies now have to address the issue, on behalf of parents, of whether they wish to pursue grant-maintained status. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that they have information about that status. That is the whole point of providing information and the method adopted is a cost-effective way of doing so. The cost of this particular advertisement works out at less than 2.5 pence per pupil.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone:: My Lords, is it not somewhat paradoxical that when the Opposition do not approve of something they show great consideration about spending taxpayers' money, but when they want to spend money they call it investing in education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point. I should make it clear that local authorities are entirely free to give information to parents and if they want to pass on to those parents information presented to them by an organisation that opposes grant-maintained status, they are as free to disseminate that information as they are to disseminate information that is pro-grant-maintained status.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think we should move on.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 4 to 18,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 19 and 20,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clause 21,

Schedules 7 to 10,

Clauses 22 to 36,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 37 and 38,

Schedule 12,

Clause 39,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 40 to 62,

Schedules 14 to 17.

—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

On Question, Motion agreed to,

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:
Lord Jerkin of Roding Lord Jerkin of Roding moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) This Act extends to England and Wales only.").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [The Director of GCHQ]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No: 1
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The object of this amendment is to restore fundamental human rights to the staff at GCHQ but by way of agreements worked out on the ground which may be a more satisfactory way forward. The amendment is narrower than that moved in Committee in this Chamber. I regret that I was unavoidably absent on that occasion. I wish to explain the amendment's argument carefully because this may be the last time that the matter can be considered here, or indeed in another place, before international condemnation of the Government for this episode is finally pronounced.
Your Lordships will know that 10 years ago the Government banned membership of trade unions for GCHQ employees, with immediate effect, using their powers under the Royal Prerogative and under legislation. The Government pleaded the needs of national security and, to some extent, a conflict of loyalties at that place of employment; and required the staff to renounce their union membership immediately. The Government offered cash to those who would do so and threatened dismissal for those who courageously refused. Some employees were sacked, not because they broke or threatened to break any employment obligation or duty of loyalty—that is not alleged against them—but because they insisted on the basic right to be members of an independent union of their choice. Ever since, the Government have sought justifications both on the facts and in law.
On the facts, the Government have said the justification is that there had been some industrial action about four years earlier. However, it took that long for the Government to decide that the only solution lay in a draconian ban on union membership at GCHQ—a membership which had existed for some four decades before that. The Civil Service unions offered then, and offer now, agreements guaranteeing that no such stoppages will interrupt the work at GCHQ, but the Government have refused even to negotiate on that basis.
As regards the law, mainly international law—in fact exclusively so—the Government have been found to be in breach of their international obligations on freedom of association by everyone except themselves. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify the 1948 Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation—an agency of the United Nations. That ILO convention provides in Article 2 that workers,

1381
"without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and … join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation".
The only exceptions are the armed forces and the police. GCHQ staff had enjoyed those rights for many decades. In 1984 it may be said— some foreign commentators have said this—that they were put on a quasi-military footing.
The Government's main legal argument has been that a subsequent ILO convention—No. 151—dealing with aspects of the right to organise in the public sector, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1980, gave the Government an unfettered right, whatever Convention No. 87 had said, to strip civil servants totally of their freedom of association in trade unions in a number of areas. That is the argument which has been advanced repeatedly by the Government. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also mentioned it in Committee at col. 276 of the Official Report. It is the bedrock of their case.
Apart from the inherent improbability of the argument—at least as it seems to me, because Convention No. 151 preserves more favourable rights, and Article 19 of the ILO constitution also seems be against the Government—the argument has been rejected by every forum to which it has been addressed over the past nine years. Everyone other than the British Government has come to agree that the argument is wrong. It has been rejected by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, by the governing body, by the Committee of Experts and—as the TUC pointed out to the Government last month at the ILO conference—by spokesmen for employers, workers and governmental representatives.
In 1991 an employers' representative said:
"Even if only 13 workers had wished to make use of their right freely to choose a union,"
—those were the workers who had been dismissed—
"it was the duty of the [British] Government to ensure that their freedom of choice was guaranteed".
At the ILO conference which is to be held in 1994 the United Kingdom is in grave danger of being the subject of what is known as a condemnation by special paragraph. That is the final condemnation accorded normally, in this agency of the United Nations, only to authoritarian regimes. In its reports, the ILO Committee of Experts has annually, since 1985, both rejected that argument and also deplored the Government's refusal to negotiate. The guarantee of Article 87 has, as the experts put it in their last report in 1992, been seen to be based on a very broad consensus that has emerged in the ILO supervisory bodies.
The ILO Committee of Experts, to which the Government appear not to pay too much attention, is not a scratch team of hack lawyers. Its members include former judges of the international court, judges from national constitutional and high courts, many with experience in labour sections or tribunals, together with eminent scholars in the field of labour relations law. Yet the Government have addressed the same argument to the committee year in, year out, for nine years on the trot.
I thought that there was a touch of irony when I read that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had
1382
chided the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in Committee (at col. 277 of Hansard for 13th January) when the noble Lord criticised a decision which had gone against him elsewhere. The noble and learned Lord said:
"when one loses, one perhaps sometimes holds a less generous view of the quality of the judgment than one would hold in other circumstances".
He is right. It is a well known phenomenon. It is perhaps excusable once or twice, but not nine years on the trot. Simply to put aside a judgment which goes against you in every relevant body for nine consecutive years needs some justification.
The amendment suggests negotiation at the place of work, where problems can be solved by agreement between the director of GCHQ and the Civil Service unions—including, as the unions have offered, any problems about continuous operation—as a means by which a step forward can be made. But negotiations must be with real trade unions. Government spokesmen at the ILO have claimed that the staff federation set up in 1984 with sole rights to represent staff at GCHQ is "a workplace-based union" which "operates like a normal union". In his Written Answer of 13th January in another place (at col. 255 of Commons Hansard) the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister spoke of the staff federation, as other Ministers have, as a:
"registered trade union for GCHQ staff'.
The courts have decided that the staff federation is nothing of the kind. First, it is not registered, because we have not had a register of trade unions for some 20 years. More important, it is not even an independent trade union. Both the certification officer and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have rejected its claim to be in any way independent. It failed to prove that it was free from:
"the dominance or control of an employer"
and:
"not liable to interference by an employer … tendirg towards such control".
In giving judgment on appeal last December, Mr. Justice Wood concluded that the federation was at the mercy of management at GCHQ and also at the mercy of the Government. Therefore, he said it:
"operates under a basic constraint that its continued existence depends upon the approval of the Director".
The federation is, and has been judicially pronounced to be, a puppet in the hands of the employers.
Sometimes the Government do not seem to understand why they are seen in such a bad light abroad on this matter. Perhaps they should reflect that it is somewhat unusual these days to find a government with pretensions to democratic values setting up a company union for its own employees and sacking the employees who resist. That reaches back to the notorious precedent of 1852, when masters closed down their works in Lancashire and London to compel their workers to sign what is known as the "document" renouncing trade union membership. However, I hasten to add that the history books disclose that Members of this House honourably went to join the subscriptions list to add to the funds to defend those workers. Sidney and Beatrice Webb described those dramatic events as turning points in the history of the trade union movement.

1383
The Government could mark a turning point now. I beg them to consider doing so very seriously by accepting international standards for their employees at GCHQ and saying to the real unions that it is a special workplace which needs special agreements. Experienced officials of real trade unions are well practised in negotiating and administering jointly agreements suited to the workplace. As a first step on that road, and to avoid further and perhaps final condemnation at the ILO, I entreat the Government to accept this moderate amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. As he said, it is now 10 years since the announcement of the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ. Last Saturday there was another demonstration in Cheltenham, led by the TUC. I was there. Again we marched through the town with our banners flying. The local Member of Parliament—a Liberal Democrat—marched at the head with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place. Again the people standing on the pavements were largely welcoming and supportive. It was a very well supported and enthusiastic demonstration, although it would have been nice to have been able to say at that demonstration that the Government had at last changed their mind about the GCHQ ban.
The Government persist with this unpopular ban on the plea of national security. I am glad that in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed the charge that the Government had acted, as they had, in the belief that trade unionists in general were some sort of threat to national security. However, many ordinary trade unionists feel that their patriotism has somehow been called into question. They constantly cite instances of actual convicted spies who were not union members, and indeed were opposed to joining unions.
The reason, we are now told, is that the Government require continuity of operation and there could be strikes which would disrupt that continuity. In fact, there have been no disputes since 1981, almost three years before the ban was imposed. According to one of the trade unionists from GCHQ who has been steadfast in his refusal to give up his union card—and lost his job in consequence—and who was one of the speakers at the demonstration last Saturday, even in those days cover was provided during the dispute. Moreover, since then times have changed considerably. The Government themselves have made it much more difficult for any dispute action to be called, and the unions, as we know, have offered a no-strike deal.
We are therefore left with a situation in which pure obstinacy seems to be the only reason left to the Government for their persistent flouting of ILO conventions. In Committee it was claimed that the Government had met the desire of the staff for independent representation by government agreement that the staff federation which has been established could join the Council of Civil Service Unions.
1384
However, the Government's own legislation has provided a definition by which a trade union can be regarded as independent. The certification officer who operates under that legislation has refused to certify that that in-house staff organisation is independent. I understand that the certification officer based his judgment on the fact that its existence is dependent upon the approval of the GCHQ director, and the staff had no option to join any other union. Moreover, if that organisation wanted to assert a truly independent right and merge with another union, perhaps a union affiliated to the TUC, it would not be allowed to do so. So much for its independence.
Our amendment seeks to provide that there should be arrangements for consultation with one or more independent trade unions in respect of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed at GCHQ and of the conditions, if any, on which such persons may, if they so choose, become members of such a trade union.
This is a minimalist amendment. It is about as little as can be provided to staff to ensure that they have a real right of choice. Do not the Government constantly talk about how necessary it is that people should have choices in their everyday lives? What could be more important than the choice of an independent union? As I said in Committee, there still remain people in employment who would want to belong to an independent union if that did not endanger their employment. It required a great deal of courage, even back in 1984, for individual staff members to refuse to tear up their union cards and to lose their jobs in consequence. That has happened to a number of former GCHQ employees, who have found it very difficult to get back into any sort of employment.
We really must try to bring about an end to this sorry chapter in the history of British industrial relations. As I said earlier, the amendment moved by my noble friend is about the minimum that could be provided to ensure that people have the rights that they ought to have under ILO conventions. It gives me pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to support the amendment which also stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I made a full speech at Committee stage. I shall therefore not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments because I have already given my main reasons for supporting the approach.
However, the amendment does not confer any right to engage in or threaten industrial action. As has been said, it is the most minimalist amendment that one can think of. It provides a framework for consultation with independent trade unions at GCHQ. If the Government oppose the amendment, as I suspect they might, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor two questions.
First, why have the Government not sought to enter into a legally binding collective agreement with the Civil Service unions, giving membership rights but forbidding any rights to take industrial action? I raised the issue at Committee stage, I believe in an exchange

1385
with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing out that, under Section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a collective agreement can be made legally binding with the consent of both parties. If the Government wish to respect membership of trade unions as a constitutional right, I can think of no good reason why they could not make the collective agreement legally binding. Alternatively, if for some reason the Government thought that that approach was inappropriate, why could they not introduce a clause in the Bill giving statutory effect to what I have suggested—that is to say, membership rights but no right to strike?
That is exactly what the Government are doing in another place in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in relation to prison officers. I do not say that I support that measure in another place, but it seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate way of conferring the substance of trade union membership without any of the adverse consequences of strike action.
If there is no satisfactory answer to those questions, I for one will conclude that the situation is a continuation of a narrow-minded, mean piece of bullying of a defenceless group of employees who are dedicated public servants. The best comment that I can make upon it was given by Shakespeare through Isabella's mouth in Measure for Measure when, in answer to Lord Angelo, she said,
"O it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant".
If the Government persist in their obstinate position, I believe that only a change of Government will remove this minor but important form of tyranny.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to me, and I should have thought to any fair-minded person, the amendments appear to be a most reasonable and moderate pair of amendments, fully deserving of your Lordships' support.
The operative word in the second and substantive amendment is "conditions". If stringent conditions relating to a continuity of operation are not agreed to, then, reasonably enough, trade union membership will not be permitted. One would not disagree with that. On the other hand, if continuous operation is guaranteed —and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in Committee about three weeks ago said that assurances in regard to continuous operation have been forthcoming—there is no problem and no reason not to agree to trade union membership.
It is rumoured that the original ban was imposed at the behest of the Americans at the height of the Cold War. The Cold War is no longer with us, thankfully; and the Americans have not been exactly helpful to Her Majesty's Government over the past 72 hours. I therefore suggest that there is no longer any need to pay too much attention to American sensibilities in this matter.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I am totally against the speeches so far. The background to my remarks is this. I commanded the mission to the Soviet Army in East Germany. It was called the British Exchange
1386
Mission BRIXMIS. We toured Germany and photographed the 20 divisions there. We sent our photographs to the War Office where they were interpreted and used. There were other organisations, but the parallel organisation was GCHQ which listened to what the Germans or Russians were saying.
The point of the Bill is this: is GCHQ an intelligence gathering operation, or is it a non-intelligence gathering operation? It is clearly gathering intelligence and should not be treated differently from the British Services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. To impose on GCHQ special conditions for having trade union status is totally inappropriate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I agree with what was said in the last speech. GCHQ is part of the defence arrangements of this country. It was accepted by the noble Lord who moved the amendment that one would not have trade union representation in the police or armed forces. I suggest that the role of GCHQ is absolutely parallel. It is of the greatest importance to the whole of our arrangements for national defence. In my view it would be taking an undue risk to agree to the amendment and to trade union representation. I therefore hope that the Minister will resist the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put this point to him. He says that GCHQ is analogous with the armed forces of the Crown. I hear and understand the point. In that case, why is it not manned by armed forces of the Crown? It is perfectly open for the Government to man it with soldiers if they so wish. They have chosen to man it not by people who are subject to Army discipline but by civilians. We are talking about the right of civilians, not of armed servicemen.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may reply since the remark was addressed to me My point is not whether or not the forces were armed. It is whether they are part of the defence arrangements of this country. It is quite clear—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows this as well as I do—that GCHQ is part of the defence arrangements of this country. That, rather than the question of whether they carry arms, is the material point, which he has simply ducked.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, GCHQ is manned by people of sometimes considerable age, many of whom have served in the forces. They retire and go to GCHQ. The forces are, quite rightly, paid a great deal of money at present. GCHQ employment is far cheaper. That is why it is totally inappropriate to make it part of the armed forces.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I had not intended taking part in the debate. However, I am bound to say that I feel somewhat provoked by the remarks of the noble Duke and the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may make the position, as I see it, perfectly clear. We are not talking about the rights or non-rights of servicemen. We are talking about the rights of civilians. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter,

1387
wished GCHQ to be manned by servicemen, the Government would be perfectly entitled to do so. Whether or not those people are armed is, frankly, neither here nor there. The fact is that the Government have chosen not to man GCHQ by servicemen but by civilians. We are therefore talking about the rights of civilians.
Those persons may be undertaking sensitive work, but so do many other people in this country. I merely pose this question. It is conceded that civilians have worked loyally for many years at GCHQ. Why should they be deprived of the rights that other civilians in sensitive areas of our society are granted?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope not to prolong matters, but at the Committee stage I gave a full answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has just said. The problem is the potential for divided loyalty from which any trade union member must always suffer between his employer and the trade union. I said at Committee stage that when, 30 years ago, we were considering turning what is now GCHQ into a civilian force instead of having it in the armed forces, we were seriously worried whether it would be right for it to have a trade union.
The reason was that there has been good experience to show that it can come about that the people involved have a problem with not knowing which orders to obey. It is important, and I trust that your Lordships will get on and defeat the amendment as quickly as possible.
4 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am bound to say that the last argument is one of the most disgraceful that I have heard advanced in any democratic assembly. I speak as one who has been president of a trade union for 15 years and a member of my union for 50 years. No more patriotic set of people can be found than those with whom I have worked in my trade union. I deeply resent the suggestion—which I am glad to say the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor discounted on a previous occasion—that there is any conflict of loyalty between trade unions and their employers. The noble Lord is really telling us that we should have no trade unions at all because inevitably there will be a conflict of loyalty between a trade unionist and his employer. That is not the case.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not mind me saying that his logic was faulty when he suggested that it would be totally wrong to have trade unions at Cheltenham, and that dealing with high level defence matters is a unique situation. It is not a unique situation. People in the Department of Defence at a very high level, dealing with exactly the same matters, are members of a trade union. No one suggests that the Department of Defence is full of people who are a threat to the safety of the realm. That is a nonsensical argument.
The other point I wish to make in passing is that trade union membership at GCHQ is of very long standing. I defy any Member of your Lordships' House to produce a single incident in the whole of that period where anyone might suggest that trade unionists had a conflict
1388
with their employer or the state and where they had acted adversely. The noble Lord opposite shakes his head, and I am glad to see it. I presume that he agrees that no such evidence can be produced.
What it comes down to now is the prejudice which has been rejected by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before and in all the speeches we have heard so far, that there is an inherent possibility of disloyalty or treachery on the part of people who happen to be members of a trade union. That is what Members opposite are saying. On behalf of millions of sensible, loyal trade unionists who have served this country well in the forces in times of great peril, I wish to say that we resent that innuendo.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I wish to address the amendment on two levels: first, and most important, on the point of principle. As has already been mentioned, your Lordships debated and disagreed to an amendment to Clause 3 on much the same topic during the Committee stage. It is plain that the purpose of this amendment, although modified, is to traverse the same ground.
It is obviously a subject about which many noble Lords have strong feelings. The principles were debated at some length in Committee, and I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, saying:
"We have had a very good debate on this issue".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 278.]
I agree with that. Of course, different views were expressed and that is what makes a good debate. I certainly do not object to revisiting the matter now; but I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat what I said at Committee stage. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the Government's position has not changed since we last debated the subject.
The key issue is to ensure the continued effective operation of GCHQ by making it free from external pressures of a kind that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The kind of conflict of loyalty which was spoken of in that connection is the conflict between keeping the operation going and pressure to stop the operation in the interests of a particular trade union dispute.
I wish to make it as plain as I can on behalf of the Government that, in saying what I have just said, there is no suggestion that individual staff at GCHQ were disloyal, nor that trade unionists are inclined to be spies or anything of that kind. There is no suggestion of any treachery of that kind in this. What is suggested is that by the very nature of the arrangement a question is put into the mind of a trade unionist in that situation whether, assuming an instruction were given by the union which would have an effect on the operation of GCHQ, it would be obeyed rather than the requirement of the employer—namely, Her Majesty's Government —to keep the operation going.
It is the Government's firm view that the changes to GCHQ's conditions of service in 1984, which put GCHQ on the same footing with regard to these matters as the other intelligence and security services in the United Kingdom, were absolutely necessary for GCHQ to operate effectively and without risk of disruption.

1389
On that matter, I suggest that the principle which my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the Duke of Norfolk enunciated applies precisely. The same conditions apply in GCHQ as apply to the other intelligence and security services in the United Kingdom.
I understand that in the aftermath of the 1984 ban two Civil Service unions' national conferences specifically rejected the idea of a no-strike agreement relating to GCHQ. There were discussions between the unions and the Government in 1992 and 1993. I understand that those discussions took place on a confidential and without-prejudice basis by agreement with both sides. I therefore feel inhibited from discussing the details of what was then suggested.
I believe that the Government have not been obdurate. For example, they have considered the suggestion that GCSF—the staff federation—might affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions. That represents a genuine shift in the Government's previous position, while enabling the essential requirements of national security to be met.
My remark at the Committee stage about the treatment by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, of the decision in the case before the Commission has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, as my "chiding" the noble Lord. That is about the last thing I would wish to do. I just wanted to put his remarks in context in relation to what he was saying about the Commission or the tribunal, for which I personally have considerable respect, even though from time to time I have found it necessary to disagree with its decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked me two questions under the threat that if I did not answer them to his satisfaction then fairly drastic action on his part would follow. That at least encourages me to try to answer them. First, with regard to enforceable agreements, I remain of the view that I held last time; namely, that I, for my part, need to see in writing the detail of the agreement in question before I can conclude whether or not it is enforceable at law with the effect to which he referred. Also, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put any provisions in the Bill in relation to GCHQ when, as I explained, the other security and intelligence services are under arrangements of exactly the same kind. In principle the present situation is the right one.
I should point out that paragraph "(a)" in Amendment No. 2 should perhaps be paragraph "(c)". That is a minor matter. The effect of the amendment would be to place a duty on the director of GCHQ to ensure that there are arrangements for consultation with independent trade unions in two respects: the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed at GCHQ; and the conditions on which employees may become members of trade unions. I have to say that those matters are not fully within the director's powers. The general framework of those conditions is laid down centrally, although the director has discretion to vary some aspects. Furthermore, the instruction to change to conditions of service was made not by the director, but by the then Prime Minister in her capacity as Minister
1390
for the Civil Service. Consultation on the matter therefore needs to take place not with the director but with the Prime Minister or his appointee. That has already happened, as I mentioned last time, with the meeting on 20th December last year with the Prime Minister. As I said and as the Prime Minister indicated, the Government are willing to discuss any further proposals the unions may have.
My primary purpose in opposing the amendment is on the basis of the principle to which I referred at the outset. I do not know whether or not your Lordships would wish me to go into the legal arguments in detail regarding the relationship between Convention 151 and Convention 87. I believe that the Government have a good argument on that matter and no binding decision has yet been taken that would suggest that the Government's view is wrong. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, not to press his amendment. But, if he chooses to do so, I hope your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him, for my own enlightenment despite the legalese, whether the legislation as it stands—unamended —prohibits a civilian employee at GCHQ, whether or not a member of a labour union, from taking or joining industrial action under any conditions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the legislation does not deal with that matter at all. I explained at Committee stage that it would not be appropriate for this legislation to deal with matters of that sort. With regard to the terms of service, the decision was taken by the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service in the exercise of her powers in that connection, and the question of whether or not those powers were properly exercised was the subject of a binding legal decision al the highest level.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and without seeming, to press my questions too hard, perhaps I may seek clarification. I, for one, am left in a state of puzzlement regarding his answers. As I understand it, the Government regard this as a point of principle and. under no circumstances will allow pressure to be put upon employees of Cheltenham GCHQ by any third party. That I entirely understand. That form of pressure and instruction is normally one associated with threats of industrial action. But I cannot understand why the Government cannot concede the principle of consultation with trade unions while forbidding any pressure of that kind, whether in a collective agreement which they put forward to the unions as their draft or in the form of legislation. That seems to me to leave the Government devoid of any principle and I would be grateful for clarification.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we may be in danger of forgetting the rules of Report stage but perhaps I may ask for leave to answer that question. The situation is that the Government have left open and are

1391
willing to discuss with the unions any proposals that they may put forward. I believe that it is not for the director but for the Government to be involved in those discussions, in the person of the Prime Minister.
In answer to the reformulated question of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, we await the proposals. Those matters are the subject of discussion and there is no point in discussing the matter in the abstract. The principle is perfectly clear and definite. The way in which it might be met is a matter for discussion and a matter for proposal. But there is no point in dealing with proposals in the abstract, except proposals that are actually made. I have said before and I repeat that it is unwise to take a view about the legal effect of documents which are not available and which have not been the subject of proposals.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, there are two or three matters on which I ask your Lordships to reflect before we decide what to do. I am extremely disappointed with the reply from the noble and learned Lord. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the paragraph should have been "(c)" rather than "(a)". However, the notion that there is grave danger that external pressures from these trade unions—as has been pointed out, trade unions which organise in the middle of the Ministry of Defence—will disrupt the nation's security procedures is about as empty an argument and about as likely as saying that pressures to do so might come from the Carlton Club.
Noble Lords: More likely!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friends have other views on that matter; I do not have any view myself. On the technical matter of the amendment of terms and conditions, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord this time compare oddly with what he said in Committee and indeed with other government statements. He said that we cannot accept the amendment because the terms and conditions are not to be discussed or consulted upon with the director. On the contrary, such consultations have taken place in the 40-odd years of the GCHQ. That is not the machinery by which they are fixed. But all sorts of consultations take place and it seemed to us right, in the minimalist amendment that we are putting forward, to see whether we could get conditions at the grass roots, at the place of work where some forward step could be taken on the matter.
My understanding—based upon what was published and having nothing to do with my knowledge (which is nil) of negotiations between the Civil Service trade unions and the Government; it was published and has never been denied and I apprehend it is the understanding of those Civil Service trade unions—is that the Prime Minister, in his interview with them, ended by saying that there were no conditions that they could offer which would satisfy a step back away from the Government's decision.
If that is not so, and if the noble and learned Lord is saying that there are conditions, such as those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which might justify the
1392
Government taking another look, why do they not say to us, "All right, we think that your amendment is technically incorrect and is not the proper vehicle, but we admit to the spirit of it and we shall go away to see whether anything can be done, either at Third Reading or elsewhere"? I understand that the noble and learned Lord is not saying that. Unless he is saying that, in my view we should divide on the amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I) shall be agreed to?
* Their Lordships divided:Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 162.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cobbold, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mulley, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Glasgow, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hamwee, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L.

White, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boardman, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aldington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterfield, L.

Alport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Cadman, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Caldecote, V.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bird wood, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Carver, L.

Blyth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

1393

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Mancroft, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathome, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Digby, L

Norfolk, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Erne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Polwarth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pym, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Haddington, E.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayter, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Ilchester, E.

Torrington, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Keyes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wakeham, L.

Knollys, V.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Waverley, V.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury, L.

Leigh, L.

Wharton, B.

Long, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Lucas, L.

Wynford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[* The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 162 names. The Clerks recorded 161 names.]
4.29 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Authorisation of acts outside the British Islands]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
1394
Page 5, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert ("The power of the Secretary of State to give an authorisation shall be restricted so that any authorisation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State's authorisation for intelligence activities outside the United Kingdom is clearly limited. Clause 7 allows acts to be authorised outside the United Kingdom which might otherwise breach the civil or criminal law in the United Kingdom. As far as I understand the clause, it will do two things. First, it will provide control of the activities of the intelligence services outside the United Kingdom; and, secondly, it will authorise those acts in law so that those involved in illegal acts cannot suffer liability in this country. In fact, most illegal acts abroad would only give rise to liability in this country in very particular and restricted circumstances; for instance, perhaps where the illegal activity was directed at a British subject.
This clause does not of course change what is illegal under the law of another sovereign state. No Act of Parliament passed in this country could make what is illegal into what is legal in another country. However, what is of some concern is that subsection (4) allows authorisation to be given both individually and specifically for acts abroad, but also allows for a general authorisation by description; in other words, a licence to act illegally.
The reality of such a licence is that it is possible, and indeed quite likely, that it will allow the delegation of authority to quite junior officers and at the same time deprive us of the safeguard that authorisation for such acts is given by the Secretary of State himself. This is a controversial and important power and as such should be exercised only by the Secretary of State personally.
I hope that, in responding to this amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not fall back on the argument that the Secretary of State has too little time to authorise individual activities and that therefore he must ultimately simply trust the professional expertise of the heads of the services and indeed of their staff right down, as I have already suggested, to quite a junior level.
I hate to bring in controversial matters of this kind, but if we consider the investigation by Lord Justice Scott into the Matrix Churchill affair, we can see precisely what can go wrong if Ministers do not have a real grip on affairs. If the Secretary of State has to take responsibility for illegal acts, that should ensure a degree of accountability previously absent. After all, that is what this Bill is about.
If the House is to be denied information about operational matters—I shall come back to that question in a later amendment—it is all the more important that this amendment is accepted and that the Secretary of State should be directly responsible for all these activities and for authorising them. We do not accept the view that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in Committee, that it is enough to rely on the powers of the commissioner who will have responsibility for reviewing the exercise of such authorisation. As we all know, the commissioner is to be

1395
a senior judge. Almost certainly he will be primarily concerned with issues of legality. We want to be assured that control of these quite draconian powers is in the hands of the Secretary of State and that, as an elected politician, he is answerable for the use of them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that reference to "lines 41 and 42" in this amendment is a misprint for lines 42 and 43.
I understood the noble Baroness to be concerned that the Secretary of State should be personally responsible for granting these authorisations. She referred to the present investigation going on under Lord Justice Scott. Your Lordships will not expect me to refer to an unfinished investigation. I prefer to wait until Lord Justice Scott has finished and come to his conclusions before expressing any view in relation to that.
As regards the question which arises in this particular amendment, I would like to point out that under Clause 7(5) of the Bill,
"An authorisation shall not be given under this section except—
(a) under the hand of the Secretary of State".
That means personally using his own hand and nobody else's and not by an official, or,
"(b) in an urgent case where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised it to be given and a statement of that fact is endorsed on it, under the hand of a senior official of his department".
Subsection (6) states,
"An authorisation shall, unless renewed under subsection (7) below, cease to have effect—
(a) if the authorisation was given under the hand of the Secretary of State, at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was given;"
and
"(b) in any other case,"
and that is in any case in which it was done by a senior official acting on his behalf—
"at the end of the period ending with the second working day following the day on which it was given".
In other words, authorisation must be given, as a general rule, by the Secretary of State personally. If, in a very urgent case, the Secretary of State is not available to sign the authorisation, then the procedure in subsection (5) (b) has to be followed. But, in addition, the authorisation itself falls at the end of the second working day following the day on which it was given.
These conditions are intended to address precisely the problem that the noble Baroness raised. I believe that they address the problem as fully as the circumstances could possibly allow.
Turning to the actual amendment, I believe that there may be some misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 7(4). The effect of subsection (4) as it stands is to give the Secretary of State the power to include conditions or descriptions of various kinds in any authorisation which he may give. The purpose of the subsection was to make quite clear what may not otherwise have been apparent —that the authorisations may vary in kind.
The effect of the amendment is to attempt to turn the all-embracing description contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) into a restriction. It seeks to say that you can only do what you have described yourself as able to do. I would suggest that the subsection as drafted already
1396
achieves precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve. Thus, under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may authorise acts of one of the three descriptions specified in paragraph (a); he may address the authorisation either to a particular person or to persons of a specified description, such as any persons who would otherwise be liable for acts done overseas; and he may specify certain conditions.
The noble Baroness's amendment expresses itself as dealing with paragraphs (a) and (b)—that is to say, (a), acts and the descriptions of acts; and (b) refers to the person or persons. The amendment does not address itself to paragraph (c) and I am not surprised. It would be mighty difficult to apply this doctrine to that paragraph. This amendment is trying to turn what is essentially a description into a restriction. As I have said, the test is paragraph (c) and to try to apply this doctrine to that paragraph does not make sense at all. Of course the noble Baroness does not seek to do that. It is very difficult to think of a restriction in this way which applies to a person of a description specified by the Secretary of State. That is about as full a description as you can have and so it is not a very good phrase to have in a restriction. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to envisage a single example of an authorisation which would not fall within paragraphs (a) to (c)—the very ones she intends to be a restriction.
I cannot think of any example, and I have applied my mind to this ever since the amendment was tabled. To allow the Secretary of State to give any authorisation he likes, as described in paragraphs (a) to (c), and then to describe that as a restriction upon him appears to me to be somewhat contradictory. As I have already pointed out, Clause 7 places a number of restrictions on the giving of authorisations and the one that was particularly addressed by the noble Baroness in moving this amendment I have already mentioned; namely, speaking generally, the Secretary of State is required to give authorisations personally. If in very exceptional circumstances that is not possible, it can be done only by a very senior official and in very exceptional circumstances and, if so done, it falls after two days.
We have tried to make these restrictions as important and considerable as the circumstances properly allow. I believe that these restrictions, taken with the others in the provision, ensure that the Secretary of State will not authorise acts lightly but only where there is good reason and where they will be properly carried out. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment, on the footing that what she seeks to achieve is sought to be achieved in a slightly different way by the drafting which we have adopted and that our drafting is on the whole more suitable, particularly having regard to paragraph (c).
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I of course accept that there are a number of restrictions on the giving of authorisations embodied in this clause. I also understand that subsections (5) and (6) create a time limit for these authorisations and also make it absolutely

1397
clear that only as a matter of urgency and in restricted circumstances should this power be delegated to a senior official in the Secretary of State's department.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarification of subsection (4). This amendment was in many ways a probing amendment, to tease out the meaning of that subsection. I am reassured by what the noble and learned Lord has said and I accept that the current wording looks as if it should be satisfactory from the point of view of my anxieties. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 10 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert:
("(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of sub-section (6) below.
(6) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services or, as the case may be GCHQ, the Committee shall exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament but shall send a copy of the full report to the Prime Minister without any matters being excluded.
(7) In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ as appropriate, as to the matters which should be excluded from the Committee's report that dispute shall be resolved by the Prime Minister.
(8) Any matters not in the annual report as a result of subsection (6) above shall instead be included in a report by the Committee to the Prime Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a return to the charge after the discussion we had in Committee and I hope that the Government, and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will consider seriously the matters which are the subject of this amendment, which we moved in Committee in substantially the same form. There are now of course some significant differences.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the committee's report is presented directly to Parliament. It is terribly important that, if this Bill is setting up scrutiny machinery— and it is going to have a committee of parliamentarians to scrutinise the workings of the intelligence services and of GCHQ— the link between that committee and Parliament is an overt one and not merely a covert one. If the report is presented directly to Parliament the link is clearly directly established.
This amendment would also allow possibly sensitive contents of the committee's report to be discussed with the heads of the three services and for sensitive issues to be left out of the report to Parliament—I totally accept that— but to be included in the report to the Prime Minister. I believe that that was something which the noble and learned Lord was anxious about when we last discussed the matter. The amendment also provides for
1398
the Prime Minister to adjudicate on any dispute about the content of the report and on what should or should not go to Parliament.
The Bill as drafted fails to give real and substantial control of the work of the services to Parliament itself: so be it. I accept that. The role of the committee, after all, is to represent Parliament and therefore the committee should report directly to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. It should be clear that the committee is responsible to Parliament and not to the Executive. As such, the report should be so directed. I totally accept, and indeed it is in the amendment, that the annual report of the committee should be very carefully shorn of any information that might damage national security. Currently, Clause 10(7) gives the Prime Minister the right to censor the report if it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the services.
My amendment accepts that matter which could be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of the services should be taken out of the report before it goes to Parliament. I accept that, but the question is: who decides what should or should not go in? The Bill at the moment might prevent the disclosure of matters where there has been some abuse of the functions of the service or some kind of scandal which still could, on the Prime Minister's view, damage morale and thus the continued discharge of the functions of the services. I am not sure that we should rely only on the Prime Minister's view as to what would be prejudicial to the discharge of these functions. The amendment restricts disclosure only if it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the services. The initial decision as to what should or should not go into the report would be taken by the committee and not left for censoring by the Prime Minister. The amendment puts the committee under a duty to consult the heads of the services before reporting, and then gives the Prime Minister a final right to adjudicate in any subsequent dispute over this.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opposed this amendment on, among other grounds, the ground that—and I quote from col. 301 of the Official Report of 13th January 1994:
"So far as the net result of these operations is concerned, it will be much the same".
In other words, whether we have the structure which is set out in the Bill or the scrutiny mechanism embodied in my amendment, it amounts to very much the same sort of thing and the noble and learned Lord considers that it arrives at more or less the same conclusion. If that is the case and it is much the same, our amendment would allow a greater input by the committee without risking security issues. Therefore why cannot it be accepted? If it produces much the same result with just as great or as little risk attached to it, why cannot the overt link between the committee and Parliament be accepted by the Government?
The noble and learned Lord also stated in the same debate over our previous amendment in Committee— and I quote from col. 302—that,
"the full report of the Committee, without limitation and without pulling any punches whatever, should be sent to the Prime Minister."

1399
We have taken on board that point and have included it in this amendment. In view of the fact that on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord said that the point did not make very much difference and that since then we have taken on board his point about sending the whole report to the Prime Minister, I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment in its amended form. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have reconsidered this matter carefully in the light of the discussions that we had in Committee and out of respect for the care and detail of the arguments that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
I remain of the view that the result of what is now proposed so far as what ultimately reaches Parliament is concerned may not be very different from what we are proposing—that is even more so, given the addition in the amendment. However, it is important to look at this matter in its full context. The first effect of this amendment would be that the oversight committee would report directly to Parliament, rather than to the Prime Minister, after making any necessary security excisions. As I said at Committee stage, it is, quite rightly, the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters. He is the person responsible to Parliament and the country for intelligence and security matters. I believe that, having regard to the nature of these matters, it is absolutely vital that that should remain the case: namely, that it should be the Prime Minister and not Parliament who has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters. It is the Prime Minister who appoints the members of the oversight committee after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It follows, I believe, that it is the Prime Minister to whom the committee should report. It is important that it should be able to do so directly. After all, the Prime Minister has overall responsibility and he, with the help of, and after consultation with, the Leader of the Opposition, appoints the committee. Therefore, it is surely right that the committee should report to him.
Under the Bill as framed, the committee's report to the Prime Minister will then go from the Prime Minister to Parliament, subject only to necessary excisions. Parliament will receive from the Prime Minister the report of the committee (which he has appointed after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition) with only such excisions as are necessary in terms of the Bill as we have framed it.
The second effect of the amendment would be that the committee would consult the heads of agency about matters to be excluded from the version of its report which was laid before Parliament. The Prime Minister would be referred to as required to resolve any disagreement over matters to be excluded. It is a little strange that the noble Lord should seek to include the heads of agency in this process. It is the committee's job to review the expenditure, policy and administration of the agencies, and it would, I believe, be quite wrong for the agency heads themselves to play any role —even a preliminary one—in deciding on how much Parliament
1400
should learn of the committee's work. After all, the committee is intended as an oversight committee for the agencies, including the heads of agency. Would that not come close to the agency heads being placed in a position where they could influence the reports of the very committee which is to oversee and act as an independent safeguard on, the agencies and to report on that to the Prime Minister?
Finally, the amendment would have the effect of restricting the committee to one annual report. It would remove its powers to report to the Prime Minister at any time on any matter relating to the discharge of its functions. That may not be an essential characteristic of the amendment for all I know, but, as the amendment is framed, it has that effect. I consider the committee's power to be able to report as and when it feels it right to do so to be an important one. I am not sure of the reason behind the proposal to cut it out, which is why I said that that is perhaps not an essential feature of the underlying idea.
Under the Bill as drafted, the committee would have direct access to the Prime Minister at any time. Apart from the obvious ability this gives it to act immediately on any issue of concern, this power should also encourage a closer and more effective relationship between the committee and the Prime Minister.
On a practical note, I believe that the noble Lord may perhaps have intended to omit subsection (8) of the amendment when tabling it. I am not certain of that. Given the provision in subsection (6) that the committee should forward a copy of the complete report to the Prime Minister, it would seem unnecessary to make separate provisions in subsection (8).
As I have said, I have considered carefully what the noble Lord said in Committee when he tabled a very similar amendment. He expressed the view that Parliament's confidence in the committee depended on a direct link between the committee and Parliament. I understand his concern. But the Bill does, of course, provide links between the committee and Parliament. I do not believe that the additional proposed link is justified. I would also re-emphasise the importance of the direct link between the committee and the Prime Minister. Parliament, so far as I know, has no quarrel with the Prime Minister's overall responsibility for security and intelligence matters. Indeed, it is my belief that it values the fact that it should be the highest Minister in the land who should hold such responsibility. It will, I believe, enhance Parliament's confidence in the committee to know that the committee has direct access, not just to the heads of agency, but, far more importantly, to the Prime Minister himself, not only once a year but at any time on any matter relating to its remit.
Therefore, although I accept that the matter is extremely important and was enunciated very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in Committee, and we have considered carefully what was said then, we remain of the view that, in principle, it is the Prime Minister who should be responsible to Parliament for the agencies; that the committee appointed by him with the help of the Leader of the Opposition should be a committee reporting to him as its appointer; and that the

1401
link with Parliament should be in the form of the Prime Minister reporting to Parliament what the committee has reported to him, subject only to such excisions as, on his responsibility, he thinks necessary to achieve the purpose of such excisions as stated in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain to me and the House how Parliament will hold the Prime Minister accountable for the job that he undoubtedly has to do as the head of these activities, bearing in mind that in every other sphere of government activity where a Minister is held accountable, there are other mechanisms for getting information to Parliament about the operations of that department? In this one instance of the intelligence services, there is legally no other mechanism for Parliament to be informed other than through the Prime Minister or, if the amendment is agreed to, by the committee's report direct to Parliament. Unfortunately, if the amendment is not accepted, the only way in which Parliament can be informed is by the Prime Minister.
It seems illogical that a Prime Minister should inform Parliament about acts or omissions in which he may or may not have been involved which would cause Parliament to question his actions. However, there would be a mechanism for Parliament to be given a different view of what was going on if the committee could report direct to Parliament. That would enable Parliament to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his actions.
Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as this question was addressed to me before I sat down, perhaps I should answer it before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says what he wishes to be done with the amendment.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to introduce new statutory arrangements for the intelligence services and GCHQ, and to introduce a new arrangement in respect of the Security Service. In considering what those arrangements are to be, one has to have regard to the functions of the agencies. There is no point in having a secret service which publicly reports. It is generally accepted that is a rather unsatisfactory arrangement. Therefore, the reporting arrangements must fit in with the idea that there is to be a secret service.
At present the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for that service. The Bill enhances the arrangements for that accountability by providing that the Prime Minister should appoint a committee of parliamentarians after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That committee is to be responsible for consideration of the expenditure, policy and administration of the services, and will be the extra part of the new arrangement or enhancement. The only important issue between the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and myself on behalf of the Government is whether that committee should report directly to Parliament or the Prime Minister should submit the report of that committee to Parliament. What I say to your Lordships is that a system whereby the Prime Minister has direct accountability to Parliament is better served by an
1402
arrangement under which the committee reports to the Prime Minister and he is under a statutory obligation to submit that report to Parliament.
Nobody has suggested—in particular, I include the noble Lord, Lord Richard— that the Prime Minister should be cut out of questions about what should be excised from the report. In the event of a dispute between the heads of agency and the committee, the amendment of the noble Lord suggests that the Prime Minister should be the referee. We all agree that the Prime Minister's role in this matter is crucial. I say that it is more logical to recognise that fact and impose upon the Prime Minister the obligation to lay before Parliament the committee's; report, with only such necessary excisions as the reasons given in the Bill may require, rather than that the committee—not appointed by Parliament but by him—should report directly to Parliament through the Prime Minister. Under the arrangement proposed in the amendment, the Prime Minister would have the opportunity to consider any dispute between the heads of agency and the committee, assuming that was a suitable arrangement in the first place, on what should go in the report.
I suggest to the noble Lord that the answer to his question is that the committee is the additional feature, and that its report will go to Parliament in an appropriate way under the machinery proposed by the Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Lord explain again why he thinks that this matter should go to the Prime Minister direct and from the Prime Minister to Parliament, rather than from the committee to Parliament. I find his argument just as unconvincing as he obviously finds mine.
It seems to me that if a committee consisting of, parliamentarians is to be set up, even if it is done by the Prime Minister, as it has to be under the Bill, the object of the exercise is that that committee should exercise some kind of scrutiny over the expenditure, administration and policy of the services. It is there to provide a flow of information from the services on the one hand to Parliament on the other.
It does not seem to me that the fact that it is set up by the Prime Minister detracts for one instant from the object of that committee; nor does it derogate from the function that the committee will have to fulfil. If that is the object of the exercise, one should not forget that the six people on the committee will undoubtedly be carefully chosen by the Prime Minister after consultation with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. Presumably, they will be people who have already been vetted, or perhaps are so great and good that they do not need vetting, if any such exist in this country. If they do, they are the kinds of people we are talking about.
In those circumstances, the committee can have an important say in what Parliament is entitled to be told. This is nothing to do with the accountability of the Prime Minister for the operation of the services; it is only to do with the flow of information about the services from the services via the committee to

1403
Parliament. It seems to me that the formality of the links between the committee and Parliament is important and ought to be expressed.
However, I am conscious of two matters. First, I am unlikely, to put it mildly, to convince the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the strength of the argument that I put forward. Secondly, I do not think that this is an appropriate subject on which to divide the House. Therefore, I beg the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Investigation of Complaints]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 13, after ("above") insert ("and paragraph 4 below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 7 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 8. The amendments have been tabled in order to make clear the respective responsibilities of the tribunal and the commissioner in dealing with complaints about activities abroad which are alleged to have been committed by the Intelligence Service or GCHQ. The schedule follows closely the similar provisions for the Security Service Tribunal in the Security Service Act 1989 which states that complaints about property will not be investigated by the tribunal but will be the responsibility of the commissioner. This reflects the responsibilities of the commissioner to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers to issue property warrants.
In the same way, it is the intention that complaints about activities abroad which are or should have been the subject of an authorisation given under Clause 7 should also be the responsibility of the commissioner rather than the tribunal. This will also reflect the commissioner's responsibilities to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers in granting authorisations. The commissioner will be in a much better position than the tribunal to deal with all aspects of a complaint concerning an authorisation, since he will regularly be reviewing the giving of authorisations. The amendments are intended to make the provision clear in accordance with that policy. They are of a technical nature, and I commend them to your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 22, leave out ("that matter") and insert ("so much of the complaint as relates to the doing of that act")
Schedule 3 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, leave out lines 17 to 28 and insert:
("(2) Information shall be disclosed to the Committee unless the Secretary of State is of the opinion that

(a) it is sensitive information;

(b) its disclosure to the committee would damage national security; and

(c) that notwithstanding sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above it is not in the public interest to disclose it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment looks at the committee from the other point of view. It is not concerned with what the committee does with its
1404
deliberations and conclusions but what information it gets in order to deliberate and reach conclusions. In the amendment we have sought to clarify the situation as set out in Schedule 3 on page 13 of the Bill. We have some anxiety that the committee will not be able to carry out its work properly because of the danger that it may be denied the information that it needs to make proper assessments and judgments. Lest people throw up their hands in horror, I remind them of what I said in relation to the previous amendment. The people who will sit on the committee will be very carefully selected. I would have thought that prima facie it ought to be entitled to see just about everything it thought it necessary to see.
So far, the Government have said very little that reassures me on the point. The schedule is already structured in such a way that the onus is put on the committee to request information rather than that there is a presumption that information is automatically available to it. At the very least, the responsibility for providing information to the committee must be that of the Secretary of State. In our view, he should be the only person able to deny information to the committee.
Since the Committee stage I have thought about the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I have to say that I do not believe that the schedule, as currently drafted, is better. I do not feel that it is appropriate for the heads of the services to have placed upon them the responsibility, in the first instance, of denying information to the committee of parliamentarians. I did consider the possibility that the heads of the agencies might be more liberal in releasing information than some Secretaries of State. On the other hand, even if that were to be the case, it is likely that the Secretary of State would be involved closely in the decision, regardless of the attitudes or leanings of the heads of the agencies or the directors.
What is more important, the necessary act of balancing the need for sensitivity and security, on the one hand, against the need for appropriate accountability to Parliament, on the other, is one that can be exercised only the Secretary of State himself. It is he or she who must account for any refusal to the committee, and ultimately to Parliament itself. Having considered what the noble and learned Lord told us on a previous occasion—we have taken on board some of his helpful words in other ways—we have set out in the amendment the tests that the Secretary of State would need to follow when deciding whether information should be disclosed. To deny a request for information would require the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that the information was sensitive and that its disclosure to the committee would damage national security. I believe that to be right and sensible.
The Secretary of State finally will have to consider whether, despite that danger, it was in the public interest for the information to be disclosed. The tests are not novel. They are extracted from the Government's drafting of the existing clause. We do not wish the procedures to be adopted under the Bill to cause any danger to those who work directly for those services or those who, sometimes at great risk to themselves, assist

1405
them in their work. The issue here is not total disclosure; the issue is disclosure to this small hand-picked committee.
What gets from the committee to Parliament, and therefore out into the public arena, is something that we discussed in relation to the previous amendment. Clearly the committee should have access to a greater flow and amount of information than Parliament itself will have eventually, as we know that censorship machinery will be built in to be exercised by the Prime Minister. That is the amendment. It simplifies the existing procedures set out in the Bill. It places responsibility for refusing information firmly on the Secretary of State, and it defines, fairly precisely, the grounds upon which the Secretary of State can refuse the information. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord. It is difficult to understand how the amendment is supposed to work. The result of the amendment would be a great inconsistency between the existing provisions of paragraph 3(1) and the amended paragraph 3(2). The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must disclose information unless it meets all three criteria listed. At the same time, paragraph 3(1) already provides that the heads of agencies may withhold sensitive information. From the description given by the noble I. Lord Richard, I understood that he intended that the heads of agencies should be cut out altogether. However, I may have misunderstood that, and, if so, some amendment of paragraph 3(1) will be required.
As I said, I am not certain that the amendment sits comfortably with the existing text. However, perhaps I may try to deal with the matter on the assumption that the three conditions specified in the amendment should be read cumulatively and be of general application; that is, all three conditions must be met in full before the Secretary of State may withhold information from the committee. I believe that that is the essence of what the noble Lord was proposing. That being the case,
"notwithstanding sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above"
contained in sub-paragraph (c), would have little purpose.
The amendment may be prompted by a misunderstanding of the scope of the Secretary of State's power to withhold information from the committee. Perhaps I may be permitted this opportunity to re-emphasise that the Secretary of State's power in that respect is limited and clearly set out in the Bill. He may withhold only information which it would not normally be appropriate to disclose to a departmental Select Committee but not on national security grounds alone. That is attempting to deal with the fact that this is a special committee operating very much in the area of national security. It will operate as closely as it can to a departmental Select Committee from the point of view of receiving information, but whereas for an ordinary departmental Select Committee national security grounds alone might serve as a proper reason for withholding information, that will not be so in relation
1406
to this committee. That is a reasonable and limited provision which will not hinder the committee's ability to fulfil its functions. The Secretary of State is always able to overturn a decision of an agency head to withhold information if he considers it to be in the public interest.
If the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to oven-tile, on the grounds that disclosure did not harm national security or was in the public interest, a decision by the head of the agency to withhold sensitive information, it would limit dangerously the type of information which may, arid often should, be withheld. Sub-paragraph (2) (b) of the amendment introduces a new test into the Bill; namely, that information should not be disclosed if it would damage national security. However, while there are circumstances in which disclosure of certain information could not be said to pose a threat to national security, those same circumstances could be of a nature which might identify and therefore put at risk an individual.
From what the noble Lord said earlier, I am sure that he agrees that it would be wrong to put at risk the life of an individual who is, for example, informing on a major drugs operation, merely because the information requested had no direct consequences for the security of this country. In a large criminal drug operation it might be dangerous if the identity of an individual were to be disclosed. Indeed, we have sad examples of the ruthlessness of people involved in those operations. The noble Lord would not wish to put at risk anyone who was giving information on such an operation.
The amendment places on the Secretary of State the onus for determining which information should be disclosed to the committee. The provision in paragraph 3(2) that the head of the agency may decide to disclose sensitive information to the committee if he considered it safe to do so is the passage to which I referred earlier. It seems odd that there should be any wish to exclude the head of the agency's positive role in that respect, especially when in relation to an earlier amendment the noble Lord argued that the heads of the agencies should be involved closely in discussing with the committee what information should be withheld from the annual report to Parliament (on the basis of a strong working relationship).
The point of note in the Bill is that the Secretary of State may, by virtue of paragraph 3(3) overrule the head of agency's initial decision to withhold information, on the basis that disclosure is in the public interest. That is a useful power. It is a power tending to release information to the committee.
The amendment also deletes paragraph 3(4) which provides that the Secretary of State may withhold information which he would normally think it proper not to disclose to a departmental Select Committee, other than on national security grounds. The guidelines covering the procedures of Select Committees stipulate that a variety of matters, including for example, the advice given by a law officer, matters which are sub judice, legislative proposals 'which are not yet public and information on individuals given in confidence, may be withheld. I can see no reason why the committee

1407
of parliamentarians established under this Bill should have greater access in this respect than a normal Select Committee, nor can I see why their functions require them to have access to such information.
I hope that my explanation has allayed some of the anxieties which underlie the amendment. I have sought to deal with the principle of the amendment as the noble Lord explained it; but I must point out that there are certain difficulties with the drafting of it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has allayed any of our worries but he has certainly exposed the inadequacy of the drafting of the amendment. Therefore, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall take careful note of what the noble and learned Lord said about the drafting. While one does not wish to give any warnings as to what may happen at a subsequent stage, it may be that if we can get the drafting right, we shall return to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("it safe to disclose it") and insert ("that the disclosure to the Committee is unlikely to damage national security").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any problem with the drafting of these amendments. Amendment No. 10 is simple. Subparagraph (2) states:
"The fact that any particular information is sensitive information shall not prevent its disclosure … if the Director-General … considers it safe to disclose it."
The amendment seeks to take out the words "safe to disclose it" and to insert the words:
"that the disclosure to the Committee is unlikely to damage national security".
Amendment No. 11 deals with very much the same point, save that it is in relation to line 22 rather than line 19.
We are concerned that the committee will not be able to carry out its work properly because it will be denied the information that it needs. The expressions used in the sub-paragraph are too imprecise. It is not clear what "considers it safe to disclose" may mean. It may mean politically safe rather than the meaning which we assume the Government intend. We should prefer the test to be specific. It should be targeted upon the mischief to be avoided; namely, whether disclosure would damage national security.
As I said earlier, I should not wish any of the procedures adopted under the Bill to be a danger to any of those who work directly for the services or to those who assist them. I remind the House that the issue here is disclosure to a small hand-picked committee. In our submission to the House, these two amendments would make clearer, more precise and therefore more comprehensible the procedure whereby the committee has access to information. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, I understand that one of the main reasons for moving these amendments is a worry that the heads of agencies and the Secretary of State may withhold information, on some unspecified criteria, which should properly be made available to the
1408
committee. I agree that the terms "safe" and "public interest" are somewhat general. But there are practical reasons for the choice of these words in the drafting of the Bill. It is fairly plain that in the context of the Bill, the word "safe" is not used in the sense of politically safe, assuming that there is any such thing. It is used in the sense of safety of the people involved.
It would not be right to replace the test of "safety" by one of national security. There are circumstances in which the disclosure of information would not harm national security, but where it might, for example, put at risk the life of an individual who has given information about a drugs operation to the services. The judgment about whether it is safe to disclose information which comes within the categories of sensitivity listed in the Bill must be left to those most closely involved. Each case must be considered individually in the light of all the relevant circumstances. It is crucial that the head of the agency should be able to decide whether it is indeed "safe", in a particular case, to disclose the information requested.
That does not mean that information which could reasonably be disclosed to the committee will be needlessly withheld. That is very much against the spirit of this legislation. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, the agencies are very much behind the Bill. They wish it to be enacted because they believe that it will be in the interests of the proper administration of the services and will be for their general benefit.
The first test which the head of agency must apply is whether the information falls into the category of "sensitive information" as defined in paragraph 4. If it does, he must then consider whether it is, nevertheless, safe to disclose it. He has a discretion to disclose it if he believes, in all the circumstances, that it is safe. The Secretary of State may then overrule any decision by the head of agency to withhold information if he considers it in the public interest to do so. Therefore, in a sense, that is directing more information to the committee. Notwithstanding the sensitivity of the information, the head of agency can allow it to be disclosed. The Secretary of State can disagree with the head of agency and can allow disclosure, even against the will of the head of the agency.
The first test which the head of agency must apply is whether the information falls into the category of "sensitive" information as defined in paragraph 4. If it does, he must then consider whether it is nevertheless safe to disclose it. The Secretary of State may then overrule any decision by the head of agency to withhold information if he considers it in the public interest to do So.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to delete the phrase "public interest" and replace it with the "national security" test. Again, national security is not the only appropriate consideration here, for the reasons I have given. Furthermore, the amendment may be unnecessarily limiting. As currently drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to order the disclosure of information even if it impacts on national security. I should have thought that such a provision would be welcomed because, as the noble Lord has said, the committee is looking at matters which are very close to national

1409
security. Therefore, even if national security were involved, it might still be appropriate for the Secretary of State to think that the information should be disclosed. It is intended that the committee should have access to as much information as possible to enable it to fulfil its remit. Conceivably, almost all information relating to the work of the services could be withheld on the grounds of national security. I consider it one of the strengths of the Bill in relation to the committee that the Secretary of State may not make a decision to withhold information on national security grounds alone. I consider that to be an important proviso as regards the openness of the committee. As I said, that in that respect, the amendment goes in the opposite direction, although I am sure that is not what the noble Lord intends. However, that is its effect.
I hope that in the light of those explanations, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it seems to me that I criticise the words "safe" and "in the public interest" as insufficiently precise, and the noble and learned Lord criticises the words "national security" on the grounds that they are over precise and unnecessarily restrictive. There are arguments on both sides.
I should have thought that somewhere between the generality of the words "safe" and "public interest" on the one hand, and the restrictiveness of the phrase "endangering national security" on the other, it may be possible to arrive at a phrase which would satisfy both the noble and learned Lord and me. Between now and Third Reading we shall try to see whether we can achieve that. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert:
("5. For the purposes of section 10(1) of this Act the expression "expenditure, administration and policy" shall include operational matters and subject to paragraph 3 above the Committee shall therefore be entitled to examine them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment defines the meaning of the words "expenditure, administration and policy" and thus the remit of the committee's work, subject to certain safeguards. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said:
"The committee is there to look at expenditure, administration and policy, not at delicate operations".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 281.]
The noble Baroness is something of an expert on such matters. She was not, of course, speaking for the Government. However, it is fairly clear that her views are not simply those of the services concerned but also those of the Government. If the committee is not to have at least some broad and general information about operations, how can it have any real role?
I am not suggesting that the committee needs to be given detailed information about individual covert acts. For example, I do not believe that the committee need know the date, time and method of breaking into the Ruritanian embassy. Surely, however, it should be told about the general extent of different classes of
1410
intelligence work by the Secret Intelligence Service arid GCHQ. A committee cannot assess the level of expenditure without knowing the level of need, how the resources are being targeted and how efficient and effective the services are, given the resources that they are allocated.
Similarly with administration, discussions of policy without any understanding of how that policy is being implemented is, frankly, pretty useless. It would be unacceptable and, indeed, laughed out of court in arty other area. Perhaps I may give the House an illustration. It may be said that it is an appropriate policy to collect intelligence on the development and possible use of nuclear weapons by other countries. Clearly that would be a perfectly good use of such services. However, should that include spying on American bases? Further, what kind of techniques should be used? We may think it quite acceptable to bribe and blackmail members of the armed forces of Iraq to ascertain more information about chemical weapons in that country. But are we to authorise the use of torture to gain such information? How much information on policies relating to particular methods of operation will be available to the committee? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can enlighten us. Will there be any information at all? If there is, what kind of things will be involved? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can provide some illustrations.
I return to the amendment. Is the use of particular methods an issue of policy or does it stray into discussion of what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to in Committee as "delicate operations"? Again, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can inform the House. If the Bill was amended to allow discussion in the committee about which countries and in what circumstances particular techniques were used, that could surely be done without disclosing details of individual operations and certainly without disclosing the names of the persons involved. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that problems of efficiency or lack of effectiveness, as well as problems with the way policy is implemented, are sometimes only discovered or illustrated by looking at the actual way that a system is operated? Of course, scandals are often individual lapses, but they are illustrative of wider problems.
As we were happy to concede in Committee, we would not wish the procedures adopted under the Bill to cause harm to any of those who work directly for the services, or those who, sometimes at great risk to themselves, assist them in their work. The issue here is disclosure to a very small, hand-picked committee, all the members of which, we assume, will be vetted for security clearance by the services themselves and who, as such, can surely be trusted. Contrary to what was said by one noble Lord in Committee, the notion that those six members will be helped by two or three researchers who would have access to sensitive information is surely absolute nonsense.
If the Government are genuine in their wish to make the services more accountable, they will accept the amendment and thereby make the legislation meaningful rather than leaving the committee which the Bill sets up to work with its hands tied behind its back because

1411
of insufficient information and, therefore, unable properly to fulfil its remit to scrutinise the work of the services. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment specifies that, subject to the provisions regarding access to information in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, the remit of the oversight committee will include "operational matters". In Committee, your Lordships debated the provisions for the oversight committee in some detail. I am grateful for the further opportunity to set out some thoughts on that committee and to reassure the House of the importance the Government attach to its playing an important and effective role.
The remit of the committee, as set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. That is a very wide remit; it is meant to be so. It is the Government's intention that the committee should be given as wide a mandate as possible to enable it to play an important and effective oversight role. It is for that reason also that the Bill provides for the committee to have unprecedented access to security and intelligence information.
As regards the information the committee can obtain, the answer is provided in the earlier provisions of the schedule. I should weary your Lordships if I were to repeat them because we discussed them in relation to an earlier amendment. Basically, all information about the service is available to the committee for the purpose of discharging its remit unless it is excepted under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule. Perhaps I may refer to the latter. The provisions prevent information being given to the committee in some circumstances if it is "sensitive". The term "sensitive information" is defined in paragraph 4(a), (b) and (c). So, even if it is sensitive, the information may still be given. Moreover, if the Secretary of State thinks that the director-general was wrong in not giving it and that, although sensitive, it should be given in the public interest, the Secretary of State shall disclose it. Again, under paragraph 3(1) (b) (ii) the Secretary of State could determine that it be not disclosed but only on the grounds allowed under paragraph 3(4) which we have discussed. Therefore, there is ample provision for full information to the committee about the matters covered by its remit.
I suggest to your Lordships that it is a confusion to put into the description of the committee's remit the reference to "operational matters". The purpose of the remit is to define what it is that the committee is supposed to report on. The committee is supposed to report on the matter referred to in its remit; namely, scrutiny of the expenditure, administration and policy of the two services and GCHQ. It is not intended that the committee should review the operations of the agencies, nor that the operations should in any way be subject to the committee's approval. The proposed amendment might, if operational matters are put into the remit of the committee, lead to the idea that one of the purposes of the committee was to explore operational detail.
1412
I would suggest to your Lordships that we have the balance right. What we have done is to say what is the appropriate remit of the committee, and indeed I did not perceive the noble Baroness, in supporting the amendment, as wishing to enlarge that remit. Her concern is whether the remit can properly be discharged. Her concern is that, because information might be withheld, it would be impossible to discharge that remit. I am saying that under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 3 there is unprecedented access to information for the purpose of this remit being fulfilled.
Accordingly, I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not appropriate to alter the remit to insert in it operational matters. I also suggest that that is not necessary in order to secure that sufficient information on operational matters will be available properly to enable the committee to discharge its remit, having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4. I believe that these paragraphs represent the protections necessary to secure the information, having regard to the nature of the services in question, and no more. Therefore I believe that the balance of the Bill is right. My particular objection to the amendment is that it seems to alter the remit itself and I believe that that cannot be right in the circumstances. Indeed I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to alter the remit in that way. Rather, her concern was as I have sought to express it, and I believe it is met by the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he can try to explain something to me. My understanding is that the object of the Bill is to ensure that Parliament can be satisfied that the security services are operating satisfactorily, and also to check the correct expenditure of public funds. Obviously the committee needs to have the ability to look into the expenditure of the funds to ensure that that expenditure is properly administered, and to ensure that the policies of the intelligence services are what might broadly be termed legitimate policies that Parliament could accept. But given the nature of the services that we are talking about—the very clandestine and secret nature of these services—one of the difficulties is how we in Parliament will be sure that the activities of the services comply with the stated policies, if one can use that as an example.
Initially, the remit of the committee to have oversight of the financial expenditure would seem to act as a close control. However, one only needs to remember the Iran/Contra affair, led or organised by Oliver North in the United States, when a clandestine operation took place which was self-financing in the sense that arms were being sold in one area and the proceeds from that were being used in another area. The expenditure for the CIA was minimal and therefore would not have been picked up by a check of the financial expenditure. It would seem to me that for the committee to be able to report to Parliament that the activities of the intelligence services were such as Parliament would approve of, the committee needs to have some ability to relate the

1413
expenditure, the administration and the policy to what happens on the ground. In that sense the amendment before us seems to be a mechanism to do that.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again I believe I am entitled to reply as, theoretically, I have not sat down. However, I ought to ask for leave to do so just in case it might be thought that I am trespassing on our rules. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, accepts that the remit should be to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the three agencies. He then asks how one can find out what are the expenditures, administrations and policies of these services. The noble Lord referred us to Oliver. North and his activities.
One of the points about this is that the agencies will require money. They will have an administration and they will be following some sort of policy. The committee is not required to examine those matters in the air, but rather to examine them against the facts of the situation and the information about the activities of the agencies that is made available to it. If, for example, the committee discovered that one of the agencies was making money in the manner described by the noble Lord, I would think it might wish to report that something of that kind was going on within the agencies, and consider whether that was proper.
The question of obtaining the necessary information in order to do that is what is provided for by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the third schedule. I have said—I believe it to be true —that paragraphs 3 and 4 give the committee really unprecedented access to such information to enable it to fulfil its remit, and give it access to all the information to which it is reasonable that it should have access in the circumstances of the work the agencies do. I would be surprised if, in the light of those provisions, anything significant in the way of expenditure, administration and policy could be undertaken without that coming to the attention of the oversight committee. It is not as though the committee is asked to examine these three matters in vacuo; it is asked to examine them in the light of the information made available to it under the paragraphs I have mentioned.
As I said earlier, I believe it causes confusion to include in the remit the matter of operations. The information on operations is not part of the remit; it is part of the material that the committee requires to obtain in order to fulfil the remit. That is the logic of the way in which it is treated in the Bill, and I believe that that is correct.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he will make what he is saying absolutely clear to me. Am I right in thinking that he is saying that there is absolutely no reason why information on operational matters will be withheld under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, which concerns access to information? Will the committee be able to have such information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said is that all information in the hands of the agencies is available to the committee subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4. These provisions relate to sensitive
1414
information and the committee would not, in the ordinary course, have access to sensitive information. However, the sensitive information is very closely defined and is intended to show the sort of information that is of a character that is so detailed that it is likely, if disclosed to anyone, to" have damaging effects, perhaps for individuals and certainly for operations. The answer is that the committee will have access to operational information but only in so far as that does not transgress the criteria for sensitivity and the other criteria for withholding information, which are specified in the paragraphs of the third schedule I have referred to. I repeat, I believe that these criteria are the minimum criteria necessary for securing—as the noble Baroness wishes to secure—the safety and integrity of the operations covered by the services.
The full answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that the committee will have access to operational information in so far as disclosure of that information to the committee is not prohibited under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the third schedule. Those prohibitions are the minimum necessary to secure the integrity of the services as defined.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. It is clear from what he said that the committee will have access to operational information subject to the safeguards in paragraph 3 which he mentioned. In the light of that reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cadet Training:Future
5.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the future of the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadets.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask my Unstarred Question I must first declare an interest in that I am a vice-chairman of the Army Cadet Force Association. That is a purely non-executive position, but it enables me to keep abreast of cadet affairs generally —a matter in which I took considerable interest during my time at the Ministry of Defence some years ago.
Everyone recognises that the defence budget is under considerable pressure these days. Some would say that the peace dividend has been gathered in more than once. Be that as it may, all aspects of defence expenditure are now under close scrutiny, not least the cadet forces.
I believe that the cadet forces of our three services have never been more vital than they are now, for a. number of reasons. Here I want to deal particularly with the Army Cadet Force and also with the Air Training Corps, leaving my noble friend Lord Mottistone to deal with the Sea Cadets. I want to emphasise right from the start that the ACF is not just a recruiting officer for the British Army. That is not even its first role although it may be a useful by-product. Nonetheless, it is a fact that young men joining the Army following ACF experience tend as a general rule to stay much longer. As the cost

1415
of training, particularly having regard to the high-tech nature of today's Army, is very high that has a demonstrable financial benefit. Indeed, so far as concerns the ATC, I remember being told that an RAF pilot entrant who has completed a course in gliding with the ATC is twice as likely to pass his fast jet training as one who has not. If I go on to tell your Lordships that the cost of training a fast jet pilot is close to £5 million, the demonstrable financial benefit that the ATC brings to its parent service is abundantly apparent.
My honourable friend Mr. Walker, the Member for Tayside in another place, initiated a debate in the other place recently about the Air Training Corps, in which he has played a distinguished part for a number of years, so I shall not delay your Lordships on that particular matter at this time.
The second benefit to which I would refer is the simple fact that as our three services shrink, they are visibly represented in fewer and fewer places, which in public relations terms is most undesirable. Thus, for example, the 1,620 ACF locations, many in inner cities, represent a very important Army presence which would not otherwise exist. I do not offer that as a key rationale; but it is a point to be kept in mind.
By far the most important aspect of ACF, ATC and Sea Cadet activity—and here I draw particularly on my own ACF experience—is their role in providing a strong and effective youth movement at a time when such things have never been more vital or valuable to the nation. There are some 90,000 youngsters in the cadets altogether, enjoying not only an exciting and challenging outlet for their energy but also a range of quality training leading to useful qualifications, most recognised by the appropriate non-military authorities. Recently in South London—as some of your Lordships may have heard—a young girl aged 17 who had been serving in the ACF was reported by the local social worker at the Lewisham social services to have played a quite exemplary part in the circumstances following a regrettable road accident. The young lady was highly commended for the action she took at the time of the accident and subsequently. She has since made it absolutely clear that all the skills and experience that she brought to bear on that occasion were drawn from her ACF experience.
The cadets, and the ACF in particular, represent an excellent example of a successful joint venture, with the Government on the one hand and the voluntary sector on the other. Over the years the Ministry of Defence has provided a whole range of accommodation and administrative and training support, always in a cost effective way and often through the economic use of existing facilities. In return, the Government have had the benefit of the services of some 7,000 voluntary leaders who give their time and experience to the movement in an extraordinarily generous way. The result is a stream of responsible and disciplined youngsters, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, emerging into the community as responsible adults.
It is a fact that Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, have on many occasions reaffirmed the importance they attach to these organisations and
1416
declared their continued support. For example, during the course of last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself wrote in a letter to ACF officials:
"I have nothing but praise for the work of the Army Cadet Force, not only here in Cambridgeshire",
where he was supporting a function,
"but throughout the country".
My right honourable friend went on to say:
"I want to pay tribute … to all those who work in support of the ACF. You cannot be in any doubt of the value of the work which you do".
Perhaps I may turn now to the words of my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is to answer the debate tonight. My noble friend visited an ACF unit in Cleveland about a year ago. He said—and I hope that I quote him correctly:
"The Army values the work of the ACF. From the Army's point of view, it is a good source of recruits, many of whom go on to make fine careers with us. The ACF also helps the Army maintain its roots among the population at a time when the proportion of British people with Service connections is falling."
That is the point that I made a moment ago.
Why then, my Lords, do I raise this matter tonight? It is because I fear greatly that in the latest round of defence expenditure reviews the future of the ACF and the other cadet forces is again being examined most critically, and rumour has it that draconian cuts are again being considered. It seems that the chopper is poised to fall first on the cadet training teams.
These are the regular officers and NCOs, generally operating in teams of five or six, who visit the various ACF and CCF detachments on a regular basis in support of training and other activities. The agreed number of personnel assigned to the teams has already been reduced recently by some 12 posts, and I gather that a further cut of 30 is now proposed. I am sure that my noble friend realises that to achieve those larger cuts it will be necessary to reduce the strength of the CTTs by 50 per cent. in Wales, 40 per cent. in the Highlands and by a third in both Northern Ireland and the North of England. I believe that it is proposed to cut the strength of the cadet training teams by a third in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may think that that is a preposterous proposal.
Does my noble friend really propose to endorse those devastating cuts in the light of his own words, which I have just quoted, and in the light of the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister? I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a plain and unvarnished assurance on this matter when he replies a little later.
There is a further disquieting rumour—namely, that my noble friend may be considering reducing the modest remuneration paid to the voluntary leaders by between 60 and 70 per cent. I refer, of course, to the reduction in paid training days, at present 28, but I hear to be reduced to around five.
This is not the first time that the affairs of cadets have been raised in any detail in your Lordships' House. However, the last time upon which they were raised in great detail was, I understand, on 1st April 1930. That was the time, as your Lordships will recall, when the first Labour Government had recently come into office and were for the first time proposing the sort of

1417
draconian cuts about which we hear tonight in the strength of support for the Army Cadet Force. The hapless Minister on that occasion, the then Under-Secretary of State at the War Office, was Earl De La Warr. I imagine that that would be the grandfather of the present noble Earl. Among those who spoke was the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Onslow, all different personages from those we know and love today but none the less particularly effective on this topic. It is perhaps salutary for me to remind my noble friend that the unfortunate and hapless Minister left his office shortly after replying to that debate in which, so far as I can read, he had not a single friend from the Floor of the House.
Perhaps I may summarise the questions that I should like to put to my noble friend. First, will he assure me that the cadet training teams will remain sufficiently numerous to do their job properly and will therefore not be reduced beyond the 12 posts presently agreed? Secondly, can he assure me that the present level of cadet funding, taken together at around £40 million will remain broadly intact for so far ahead as he can see, and in particular that the number of paid training days to which I have referred will not be reduced?
I am most grateful for your Lordships' attention on the matter. I look forward to the speeches of other noble Lords, and of course to the reply of my noble friend shortly.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for raising the matter tonight. As we know, he is an ex-Minister of Defence and also vice chairman of the Army Cadet Force Association. He therefore knows all the facts. I declare an interest as the Honorary Colonel of Northumbrian Army Cadet Force. It is a great pleasure, honour and interest, but it is a sobering fact that I find I am over 50 years older than any of my troops.
I accepted the post because I was so deeply impressed with the spirit of voluntary service which characterises all cadet movements—the ACF, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadets. After a good deal of experience, I believe that they are all as good as any of the youth movements in this country. I, and many others, are worried at the serious threats to their funding by the Ministry of Defence's proposed cuts.
We all of course realise the desperate need to cut public spending. What is less easy to agree to is the question of how the Ministry of Defence seems to be going about it. It seems to be doing so by taking a percentage off everything regardless of its value to the country or its total cost or importance. I believe that the approach is called the equality of misery theory. Absolutely nothing, however trivial, is apparently exempt. To put into perspective the costs of the forces, the ACF at present is thought to cost about £18 million; the Air Training Corps, £20 million; and the Sea Cadets, £6 million. The Sea Cadets cost less because the Admiralty has always been notably stingy about paying for them, but they are a registered charity. The numbers involved at present are about 18,000 adults in all three, with over 91,000 cadets.
1418
To put the matter into perspective, the costs of the Army Cadet Force, or the ATC, could be said to be almost exactly the same as the compensation which is likely to be payable to 100 dismissed pregnant WREN s, or the cost of one Chieftain tank.
From what I have learnt, the ATC is facing the worst cuts of all. While it is no doubt possible to say that a small percentage reduction can be made in almost anything once, I believe that a major cut would destroy the morale which is already dangerously low because of the rumours and threats. Before the Second World War, there were similar cuts to the funding of the cadet forces, as the noble Lord said. Many of the cuts were carried out on a voluntary basis, and although that may 'well have to occur now I do not believe that we should rely on that approach. The danger is that we lose those vital services to young people.
The beneficial effect that these young people receive in learning to be good citizens, and good soldiers, sailors or airman, is not in question, Nor is their contribution to the country, often in very depressing urban areas. The chief constable of my county, himself an ex-cadet, has told me that he is distressed at the prospect of major cuts to cadet funding. He believes that they play a significant role in keeping some young people from drifting into a life of crime. In particular, after the serious riots in the inaptly named Meadowell Estate in North Tyneside two years ago, the ACF made an important initiative in recruiting bored and disillusioned young people. Many more young criminals may cost us a great deal more than the cadet forces cost in the present climate of unemployment. If this is an argument that the Home Office should fund part of the costs of those forces, perhaps we may consider that, too. Indeed, privatisation of some or part of the cadet forces may well be considered a possible third alternative.
I could further quote the dismay of a number of senior prison officers, some of whom I spoke to last week, who have given a great deal of their time voluntarily to serve as adult instructors. They believe that the cadet forces play an important role in keeping young people away from prison or from young offenders' institutions. The fact that many of the adult instructors give so much of their time for free is a matter that we must all acknowledge with gratitude. I am told that many of them are paid for far less than a third of the days or weekends which they attend, and a great many of them, to my certain knowledge, have undertaken this task for over 30 years. It is a dedicated job to which they attach the greatest importance, and financial reward is by no means their priority.
However, if the cuts go deep, as we have heard, it is possible that the instructors would be paid for only five days per annum against the current 28 days. That would be shameful, and I very much hope that it does not occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has himself seen the activities of the ACF in Cleveland; and I know that he was much impressed. I believe that he has since encouraged the cadets to become involved in the

1419
Government's Action for Cities Initiative which they are happy to do. I am sure that that involvement will repay the efforts that they put in.
Further confirmation of the value of those youth movements can be found in the fact that so many of the cadets go on to join the Army, Navy or Air Force. Indeed, I am told that it is possible, although not easy to prove, that some 50 per cent. of the senior NCOs in the Army at this moment have at one time or another been in a cadet force. Many young men or women learn some flying in the ATC for the first time. Therefore when they join the forces they are to some extent partly trained, which must save a good deal of initial training costs as well as producing a steady supply of highly motivated and keen young people. I am delighted to inform your Lordships that all three cadet forces are very politically incorrect as both girls and boys are found together in all the movements.
It could of course be argued that it is an obsolete military philosophy that is being taught—and there is some truth in that. But whether or not we like it, many young people need a tough outlet for their activities which can only be provided by such a movement. I believe that they will soon become more interested in working for the Duke of Edinburgh Award. Many cadets have been outstandingly successful in that scheme over many years, and they contribute a great deal to it.
I hope I have said enough to indicate that I believe cadet forces are a valuable and important part of the civilisation of this country. They make a real contribution to the life of the nation. At this time, with unemployment very high, and boredom among our youth a major and growing problem, we should be actively seeking to expand our cadet forces. We should hear no more talk about contraction, cuts or reduction.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Ridley, (as I like still to call him), as we are Lords Lieutenant of our counties. I have similar experience of cadet forces. In our county we have one advantage over most of the others: the late Lord Mountbatten set up a pentathlon to take place once a year for the cadets of all three services in both the counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. I am happy to say that the Isle of Wight wins more often than Hampshire, which is remarkable, seeing as there are 10 of them to one of us. I boast of that just by the way. The fact is that it involves all the cadets together; the pentathlon is much admired by them as a great activity at which to aim. It is one of the best examples of how the cadet forces operate in their own way.
I have been invited to say more about the Sea Cadets, but before doing so I wish to comment on what my noble friends have said. There is little to add to what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had to say in his splendid introductory speech or to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned. The Air Training Corps and the Army Cadet Force are much bigger than the Sea Cadets and are a worthy part of the cadet forces as a whole in the community.
1420
I have noticed that there is a remarkable tendency for each of the cadet forces to recruit people in different ways. It is not that their parents were in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. The cadet forces are all important in their own way in providing a special activity for youth and making it available to the whole community. It is important that all three should thrive and continue.
I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the shrinking of the services, the reserves and possibly the cadet forces, although I hope not, will mean that the services have a much lower image throughout the country than they have had for many years. It is no good expecting first-class people to want to join the three services for the many roles which they will have to continue to carry out, whatever people may think about the future, if we do not have wide coverage throughout the country—not just around the bases of the regular forces, which are becoming fewer throughout the country.
In a wonderful way, the cadets are a good starting point for encouraging people to remember the armed forces of the Crown and the uniforms that they wear. Forgetting for the moment whether or not they are paid enough by the Treasury, I have an awful feeling that the regular services may say, "We have got to economise because we must have an extra tank, ship or whatever". It is they who are in danger. They forget that they may be all right now, that their reputation may be splendid and that there may have been a county regiment in the past, though they are also vanishing; but as time goes on, the need for young people is more important than it has ever been in our history. So let us have all three.
To take the Sea Cadets, naturally I think they are the best of the bunch, though one must not say that to the ACF and the ATC in the Isle of Wight. Being the best of the bunch, they have had the wisdom to organise their own Sea Cadet Association which, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, contributes much of the money towards their expenses. In fact, the association contributes more than a third of what it costs to run the Sea Cadets. That is not saying that the Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence is being mean; it is because the department has been able to get away with it for a long time.
However, it is important that the public money of the Sea Cadets is not diminished in any sense. It is only about £6 million or £7 million, which is chicken-feed when compared with other expenditure which people have to make. We must keep our cadets and, above all, we must keep their officers, the volunteer instructors who are the backbone in running the cadets. They are the people who will lose heart, much more than the young men. They devote their spare time to keeping the cadet forces going and they are the people whom we must thank most for providing the route for an interest in the services which begins in early life and, in some cases, keeps people away from bad habits in the community. They provide a youth organisation which is second to none in its ability to teach people how to be responsible for their own actions in a sensible way.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be able to set at rest the great anxieties which, among others, the

1421
Sea Cadet Association has about the possibility of reductions in cash on the lines which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne suggested. I look forward to hearing him say that, because if he says the wrong thing, we may be able to get back at him.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, unlike noble Lords who have already spoken, I am afraid that I can claim no connection with cadet forces other than having been a very bad cadet in the combined cadet force at school. However, I must say that that sowed the seed or set the spark which subsequently made me join the Army.
This is not the first time that the cadet forces of this country have been discussed in your Lordships' Chamber and probably it will not be the last. Back in 1930, under a Labour Government, my great uncle, the first Viscount, became the first president of the Cadet Association. The Earl of Onslow initiated a debate to call attention to the withdrawal of financial support for the cadets which, at that time, was four shillings for each qualified cadet and a grant of one shilling for each qualified cadet for administrative purposes. Today we face similar problems with the cadets. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for initiating the debate tonight.
In 1930, there were some 10,000 cadets. Today we have nearly 10 times that figure, not including the Combined Cadet Force of nearly 40,000 cadets in schools. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has omitted the Combined Cadet Force from his Question, I believe in order to limit the scope of the debate. However, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to say that the schools, including 48 grant-maintained schools, do a quite remarkable job in running the sea, air and army detachments, giving up a great deal of their spare time to run these individual detachments. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and ask the Minister not to allow the proposed cut in the number of paid training days for air detachments of the CCF from 28 to around five.
Apart from setting a dangerous precedent, I question whether it is right to deprive those volunteers of crucial support when they themselves make a staggering contribution to our young people and, through them, to our country. They open up their detachment huts often two nights a week, come rain or hail, after a full day's work. They organise and run a weekend's training every six weeks and take their cadets to camp for a fortnight each summer, often giving up their own holidays to do
So.
Noble Lords may not be surprised to hear that of a recent training course of 39 trainers, three-quarters had put in an average of 50 days apiece last year. That is leaving out the considerable amount of pastoral work they also find themselves doing on the side. Against that background, I find it immensely disturbing to hear the rumour that these splendid people may be deprived of the small and wholly inadequate remuneration they can receive for their work. If one service imposes such a cut, undoubtedly the other two services will do likewise. That would be intolerable, given the considerable
1422
responsibilities that they have on ranges, for flying instruction, rock climbing and the great many other activities the cadets undertake when they are bound by military discipline and hold the same commission as officers in the Territorial Army, alongside whom they work.
With the recent closure of Junior Soldiers and Junior Leaders battalions and regiments, a wide void has been created in the development of young people. The transition from youth to adulthood is as difficult today as it ever was. Today we see far too many young people on our streets with nothing to do. As we heard only yesterday, our goals are rapidly filling up with young offenders.
As the noble Lord indicated, the cadet organisation renders a wonderful service to this country. With over 1,600 detachments—some in very new buildings but some in World War I vintage huts—it provides an excellent service to the community with worthwhile challenges, including the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, British Orienteering Federation Salver Badge and Community Sports Leaders awards. More recently the National Vocational Qualification scheme—NVQ —became part of the Army Cadet Force. However, the NVQ is under threat because of the major reduction of the cadet training team, about which we have already heard, by 42 posts—some 30 more than that proposed by United Kingdom Land Forces. They will not be able to validate the NVQ scheme.
Cadet training schemes, which range from an officer or warrant officer and three to six men selected for their talents, are absolutely essential to the running of the cadet forces. Without those trainers the cadet organisations would wither and die. As the years roll by there are unfortunately fewer and fewer people who either want or are willing to help and train young people voluntarily.
I know that the Minister received a number of letters on the subject of the reductions of the cadet training teams. He has always indicated his willingness to help. Sadly those cuts in numbers are imminent and, yet again, are Treasury driven. However, the Government appear to be giving conflicting directions. On the one hand the cadets are receiving letters of encouragement from no less a person than the Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said; on the other hand, the cadets, leaders and their training teams are being called upon to do the same work with swingeing cuts hanging over them. Salami slicing has gone on for too long and is becoming a massacre. As we heard, cuts ranging from 50 per cent. in Wales to 30 per cent. elsewhere are forecast. Taking Scotland as an example, how can a team of five based on Inverness serve cadets in Orkney. Shetland, Stornaway, Wick, Thurso and the Grampian Region? The answer is that they cannot.
The cadet training teams are the trainers of the trainers. The Army's problem is that it must divest itself of 5,000 regular soldiers by 1995. Therefore the Ministry of Defence sought to impose arbitrary cuts. However that is not a practical solution in relation to cadets. There is a possible solution. Although recruiting is not part of the ACF charter and should not become so, the ACF provides a considerable proportion of regular

1423
recruits. In that I speak from personal experience, having been a recruiter myself. One was constantly being confronted with young men with cadet experience. Whenever they declared cadet experience, they had to produce a cadet report. An interesting incident occurred around three years ago when a young company sergeant major—the highest rank in a detachment—came before me asking to join the regular Army. Although he was a brilliant cadet, he could neither read nor write. He went away for a year and learnt to do both; he is now a sergeant serving in Bosnia. If that does not tell a story, I do not know what does.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, as many as 50 per cent. of recruits have some cadet experience and I believe it may be higher. At one time every RSM in the Highland Division had been a cadet. Undoubtedly the best recruiters are the NCOs in the cadet training teams. I believe that every serviceman with the right attitude and the right approach is a recruiter. I believe that the time is ripe for the recruiters and trainers to work together for the benefit of both. There are a number of Army youth teams around the country—some established but some held just on the strength of parent units. They are reducing but still exist. The Army needs to look at them most carefully and, rather than reduce CTTs, it needs to enhance them in order to cover the country properly, even if the director of Army recruiting staff has his numbers reduced—and he will not like me for saying that.
I should like to end where I started, by quoting from my great uncle's speech to your Lordships on 1st April 1930 (col. 1112 of Hansard), when he said,
"These cadets learn … the virtues of citizenship. They are disciplined, they are taught to work together, they are taught to think with each other, they are taught self-respect, self-control and self-reliance, and taught to be, I hope, men who will take their places in the world of men".
Those words were spoken 63 years ago but I submit that they are as true today as then. But sadly we find our cadet organisation threatened now, as then. I too sincerely hope that the noble Viscount can go some way to giving your Lordships an assurance that the additional 30 posts will not be taken away at the end of the day, and that the current remuneration of voluntary staff will not be reduced.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Some may wonder why I should; the reason is that I spent 12 to 13 years as a chaplain to C Company of the Wiltshire Army Cadet Force. From those 12 to 13 years I came to appreciate what they did and how the boys—and now girls—benefited from it.
Her Majesty's Government need to think carefully before they put into effect the proposed cuts. I say that for several reasons. During those 12 to 13 years I worked with the staff and the boys. I went out with them every day. Whenever they were camping, I went camping. As far as possible, during the year I went to the different units, to the different centres to see them.
What does the Army Cadet Force do for the boys, and now girls? One could see a wonderful, build-up in the
1424
character and personality of the young people. I would say that that is the great value of that force, of the Sea Cadets and of the Air Training Corps at the grant-maintained schools and even the combined cadet forces at public schools. In my section at school, I was not all that terrific. But I am speaking on behalf of the Army Cadet Force and relating what I saw as being of great value to the boys. One could see them mature and grow up from what they were when they came so young to when they finished. They were helped to learn about living not only with themselves but with others; to know themselves and to know others; how to live with others and relate to others—to use a modern phrase.
The following are some of the qualities of character that one saw growing in these young boys, which now one would see in the girls. They learnt confidence—yes, confidence—in themselves so that they could be of some use not only to themselves but to others; they learnt trust in one another, faith in one another, assurance in one another and reliance in one another; they learnt initiative and respect, not only for themselves but for one another. All those things were happening, too, between the boys and the staff. They learnt strength—not just physical strength but moral and physical strength.
Along with the other chaplains, who were able to help in a spiritual way, we saw that they were interested —although they may not have appeared to be so—to talk about the things of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, faith and the meaning and purpose of life. I can remember times when the boys and staff said, "We would like to have a talk with the chaplain". They asked for it and so one would go. They would ask the questions and we would start from there. It was not because I had said to the NCOs and officers, "Look, I want to have my boys at a certain place to talk to them"; it happened on the initiative of the boys and staff. It was wonderful to see how there was an interest which people might not have realised they had in trying to wish to know how to live. There was consideration and thought for others.
This type of organisation has far greater benefit and use than just any ordinary youth club. As a clergyman I have experience of youth clubs as well. When you are a curate, looking after the youth club is one of the things your vicar or rector asks you to do. When you are boss of your own place you still do it but you cannot spend the same amount of time on youth clubs so you try to find people to delegate to. But on the whole, unless you have really fine people morally and spiritually to run youth clubs, I do not believe they can give nearly as much help and value to the young boys and girls as organisations like the Army Cadet Force.
The boys, and now girls, are encouraged and are made to think and reason. It is not a question of their being told, "This is it. Do this, do that". They learn that they have to think and reason. They have to work out how to do a thing and why to do it. They have to learn reason and purpose, something which, on the whole, in many youth clubs does not happen. In fact, we often see boys and girls left to run riot. The activities of the cadets are far ranging. They are not confined to military stuff. There are many other activities such as the Duke of

1425
Edinburgh Award scheme and so on. It builds them up to become healthy, strong people in body, mind and soul.
Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Her Majesty's Government should think hard about this. They will have to give a very good reason as to why the cuts involving these services should be made. It will be a sorry day for youth, the young boys and girls, if that so happens. They grow up to be fine men and women, not just in persevering in their own careers but in being helpful, useful, positive and good citizens who will help in other spheres, so enabling there to be a harmonious community of people respecting and honouring one another and helping one another to lift themselves up; to respect one another for what they can give; to have respect for what someone else has which they may not have. All these things are able to be done in the Army Cadet Force, the Sea. Cadets and the Air Training Corps, things which do not always happen in youth clubs unless a youth club is lucky to have a fine couple or fine people as leaders. On the whole, things are suggested in youth clubs. Things are suggested in the Army Cadet Force but there is a difference.
Noble Lords have already heard praise of these organisations. Perhaps I may quote from the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette. An article under the heading "Worth a Medal" states:
"Hardwick community centre in Stockton was plagued with bored, abusive youth and vandalism. Now there is no trouble at all. What can the secret be?
The secret has apparently been the forming of a detachment of Para Cadets, and winning the young people over to a form of constructive and disciplined leisure activity".
There is also an instance of army cadets' quick thinking and actions which helped in saving a life. We are told in a press release:
"During the evening of Thursday 25 February 1993 an attempted murder took place in Banbury. The victim, a young man, was left lying in the roadway suffering from serious injuries, having been dragged by a motor vehicle for a distance of approximately half a mile. Some of the first people to arrive on the scene were two Army Cadets—Daniel Kent (14 years) and Andrew Fothergill (15 years). Despite the horrific nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the man, the two cadets gave immediate first aid and continued to do so until the arrival of the ambulance".
One could go on and on with such examples. There is a letter from Queen Elizabeth School in Northamptonshire which states how, through his time in the cadets, a boy was helped in his school work and with his relationships at school. There is praise of cadets from Derbyshire Constabulary. There is also praise of cadets with regard to an expedition to Nepal. Some cadets managed to get to the top of the peaks.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise what harm could be done if in any way the great work of these different youth organisations was impaired. As has already been said, it is not a question of the purpose of these organisations being first and foremost to grab people for the Army, Navy or Air Force. It is not. That is incidental, but naturally it is very nice if in the end many of them decide to join the forces. I ask the Government to be very careful in what they do.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I wish to speak for a very short time in support of what has already been said, in particular by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who, like myself, have had the honour of being honorary colonels of their cadets. I particularly wish to stress the point about the connection with the regular Army. There is no doubt at all that cadets who wear their badge proudly can go to their territorial regiment and then the regular army. That is a most valuable way of recruiting.
The dedication of leaders has been stressed and it is worth stressing again. Many of the leaders have enormous dedication and give an enormous amount of time. They give discipline to people who would never have it otherwise. I am sure that my county is not alone in helping other organisations. For example, a fortnight ago my cadet corps ran a cadet competition for all other organisations. Present were the Red Cross, the St. John's Ambulance and others. That meant that their organisational abilities were made available to the benefit of all the other youth organisations.
Many of the cadet huts are in very bad. areas. I want to finish with a story. One of the huts in my county is in a very bad area. The glass in it had to be resistant to the kind of damage which was likely to occur. A lady demanded damages because a brick which her child had thrown at the glass had bounced back and hurt her child!
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Viscount comes to wind up I hope that he will give the reasons which have led the Government to cut the training schemes and to threaten the cadet forces. In the light of the speeches which have been made in the debate, it is most extraordinary that the Government appear to be cracking down on the cadet forces. To argue that because the cold war is over the cadet forces can be smaller is ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has just explained to us that the cadet forces can be of considerable value to the Army, Navy and Air Force for various reasons of recruitment and so on. No one denies that.
However, I maintain strongly—and this has been the, spirit of the debate—that the principal value of the cadet forces today is their contribution to the well-being and self-discipline of our young people. I am sure that that is the big justification and nothing to do with the cold war. Today, when we look at our society and ask ourselves what the priorities are, it is these kinds of organisation which should have priority. If one is going back to basics, self-discipline and the well-being of our young people is the most basic thing that one can go for. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount can explain what the Government are up to. To link the number of cadets to the international situation and the threat to national security, is ridiculous. It is related to a cost-cutting exercise which the Secretary of State is about to embark on as regards the support services. Perhaps the noble Viscount can specifically deny that

1427
the reduction in the training groups has anything to do with the cost-cutting exercise for the support services. Such a reduction would be folly in the extreme.
I wish to ask the noble Viscount about the figure of 91,000 cadets. Is that a target for the Government? The Government have in mind a certain manpower figure for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Do they also have in mind a manpower figure for the cadets? The noble Viscount shakes his head. So why is the figure 91,000? I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who said that he is looking for more. There is the figure of £40 million pounds for 91,000 cadets. We should look at our society and ask: Why 91,000 cadets and why not twice or three times that number? We have heard about case after case and the effect on civilian values of the cadet forces. Why is the figure 91,000? I ask the Government to give an explanation of that figure, which is surprising to me.
I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, praising the schools' cadet forces. That reminded me that I was the senior cadet in the cadet force of the old school of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I was a pacifist at the time, but it kept me off the streets. However, I ask these questions very seriously of the noble Viscount. Why is the figure 91,000? What is the Government's target and why not a far higher number? Also why, at this time above all, when the priorities in our society should be so different, make this hostile move against the cadet forces?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for raising this Question. One of the benefits of winding up from the Opposition Front Bench is that most of what I wished to say has already been said. Therefore, I shall not weary your Lordships too long.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and indeed, others, were right to point to the objective and purpose of the cadet forces. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, summed it up very well by saying that there are really three objectives which one should bear in mind. First, the forces provide worthwhile activities for young people, particularly in deprived areas and those of high unemployment. Secondly, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, they give a sense of identity to young people who might otherwise stray. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, and I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, emphasised, they act as a form of recruiting sergeant for the armed forces. I believe that those three purposes are as valid today as they have ever been and indeed, if anything, in times of high unemployment, they are more valid.
I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, brought in the Combined Cadet Force. Can the noble Viscount let us know how far that force is represented in the state sector of education rather than in the independent sector? The noble Viscount did say that some grant-maintained schools had a force of this nature. I should be grateful if the Minister can enlarge on that when he comes to reply.
1428
As regards recruitment, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, quite rightly produced some information about how people stay longer in the regular forces if they have had cadet training. That is because they are more skilled initially. When the noble Viscount comes to reply can he tell us what proportion of those who have had cadet training go into the armed forces? I am not quite sure how he can put the figures. I should be interested in that information.
For cadet forces to operate effectively there seem to me to be three necessary conditions. If one of them is not met there is the risk of a vicious downward spiral. In other words, if one is not present there are fewer cadets and if there are fewer cadets then one does not have the second and so it goes on. The first concerns material resources. These must be made available, such as places for camps, training equipment, accommodation in centres of towns and such things. Are there going to be any cuts here that the noble Viscount can tell us about?
A second necessary condition is that we must have personnel. That is not just voluntary leaders who, as many noble Lords have pointed out, are becoming more and more rare at the moment. Above all, we must have teams from the regular forces as training teams for cadets. Perhaps I may put in a plea for Wales as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did mention Wales. I am told by the Army Cadet Force Association Wales that regular Army units do play a vital role in the training of cadets.
Over the years they have already endured cuts in their numbers. Further cuts would be unsustainable and would affect the level of training that is necessary to maintain the present high standards. In Wales it is proposed that we should lose a third of our cadet training team personnel, including one whole team. These reductions in manpower, together with the geography of the Principality, would create great difficulties. For that reason they have asked me to support the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his plea, which I willingly do.
The third necessary condition is the political will, the thought that these cadet forces serve a useful purpose. In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and indeed others, have said, I should like to refer to what the Prime Minister himself has said. This is one of the few occasions I can remember when in fact I agree with the Prime Minister. He says this:
"At a time when much of the news highlights the problems of modern youth and the lack of direction of many young people of today, I am considerably heartened when I hear of the work of the Army Cadet Force. I am aware of the success you have had in providing worthwhile activities for young people across the whole of the UK and in particular the deprived areas of some of our inner cities.
"What particularly encourages me is that as well as the activities you offer, the Army Cadet Forces provide teamwork and a development structure enabling the young people to assume responsibility and begin to put back into society what they have gained.
"None of this of course could be possible without the dedicated effort of those of you who give of your time to lead and instruct. I thank you for your devotion to the ACF. Your contribution is vital and very much appreciated."
That was signed by John Major and it is dated November 1993.

1429
I agree with the Prime Minister on that. I only hope the noble Viscount this evening can assure us that the Government will put the Prime Minister's words into practice.
6.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken in this short debate I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, with his unrivalled experience, combined with the cadet forces and the Ministry of Defence, for giving me the opportunity to do a number of things this evening. The first is to place on record once again Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the valuable work of the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force.
I wish to place on record that I personally agree with everything he and other noble Lords said about the functions the cadet forces perform in our national life and the value of those functions. Indeed, if it is not immodest of me to say so, I was at least in part instrumental in encouraging my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to give the message that he did in November 1993, so eloquently quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a moment ago.
On the question of numbers, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the four cadet forces have at the moment a combined strength of about 130,000 cadets. We welcome that figure and are happy that people want to join in such numbers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I interrupt to make one point? I was quoting cadets and not adults.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have a figure of a combined strength for the four cadet forces of 130,000 souls. I am extremely happy that your Lordships allowed the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, to widen the scope of the debate and to include the combined cadet force contingents. These, as your Lordships will know, are tri-service and are formed in schools in both the maintained and private sectors. What I am unable to supply to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, at the moment is the precise number of cadets in the combined cadet forces in maintained schools. I apologise to your Lordships. I should have anticipated that question. If your Lordships will allow me, I will endeavour to find out and write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps, as your Lordships have mentioned, are based in local communities in cities, towns and villages throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, they attract young people of both sexes from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds. A number of your Lordships have referred to the role that the cadet forces play in acting as a source of recruits to the regular forces and the Territorial Army. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, observed, it is surprisingly difficult to find out a precise answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As so often happens with Government spokesmen, the traditional phrase goes that the statistics are not compiled centrally or in the form requested. That
1430
is perhaps a rather convenient way for Ministers to cloak their answers. However, I have heard many estimates. The one I find most convincing—although I would hate noble Lords to hold me to it—is something in the order, in some cases, of 20 per cent. Certainly, I subscribe to the view that a very high proportion of recruits spend a much longer than average period in the services and therefore rise to the distinguished rank of warrant officer. As your Lordships will know, that rank is very much the backbone of the forces.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a history of the cadet forces because, with your combined experience, you will be at least as knowledgeable, if not more knowledgeable, than I. But it is worth drawing to your attention, as indeed has already been done, the fact that the system of support and management of the cadets varies quite significantly. For example, the Sea Cadet Corps—I believe my noble friend Lord Mottistone confirmed this—is a registered charity, managed by the Sea Cadet Council and is only partly funded by the Ministry of Defence, although the naval section of the combined cadet force is administered centrally. The Army Cadet Force receives greater support from its parent service and is administered by the Ministry of Defence and the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations, or TAVRAs, with ACF county commandants providing an administrative as well as a command function. The Army Cadet Force Association also plays an important supporting role.
The CCF (Army) is administered by the Ministry of Defence through the district and brigade chain of command. Both the Air Training Corps and the RAF section of the CCF are administered centrally by a single headquarters at RAF Newton. The Air Training Corps relies to a large degree on support from the RAF, with accommodation provided by the TAVRAs and with additional valuable support provided by local parents' committees. That, I believe, is an important point to note. The Ministry of Defence provides support in the form of service manpower, as many of your Lordships have observed, and by means of training facilities, equipment and help with accommodation for all four cadet forces.
Whatever their administrative and historical differences may be, I agree with your Lordships that the aims and charters of the four cadet forces reflect a common purpose. As my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Trefgarne, and also the noble Lord, Lord Williams, noted, that purpose is to seek to help young people, regardless of their background, to succeed in life by developing the qualities of good citizenship and engendering self-reliance, confidence, loyalty and initiative. Through the provision of challenging and exciting activities and useful training, the cadet forces seek to stimulate a practical interest in the Armed Forces and the ethos of service to the nation and community they represent. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, noted, that is often done in combination with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme. Cadets participate in community projects with the aim of encouraging a responsible attitude to society, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised. I saw an outstanding example of the success of such projects during my visit to three

1431
ACF detachments in Cleveland last year, where praise for the achievements of the ACF in terms of community relations was unanimous from community leaders of all kinds and, above all, from the parents of the cadets. Indeed, I am flattered that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne follows my travels so closely that he could refer to that experience.
The benefits to society of the participation by young people in such a worthwhile activity cannot be overestimated. The department—what ever your Lordships may think—is anxious to build upon the long-standing reputation of the cadet forces in the promotion of those qualities and to extend their influence particularly in those urban areas where facilities for the training of the young are most badly needed. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Viscounts, Lord Ridley and Lord Allenby, have noted, we are anxious to extend that influence where juvenile crime is increasing. Although it is difficult to find figures, it is clear from the Cleveland experience that the new detachments have performed a very important role in that regard, including on one of the estates that has been mentioned this evening.
Indeed, as President of a squadron of the Air Training Corps for over 20 years now, and as ex-officio President of the Air Cadet Council, I have a long-standing connection with the Air Training Corps. I try to take a keen interest also in the activities and well-being of all my local cadet forces. I am especially anxious to strengthen the links between the cadets and the community at large; for example, by promoting their participation in the Government's Inner City Challenge programme, which was an initiative that I took last year and which I hope will begin to bear fruit as our conversations with other government departments proceed.
Your Lordships have laid a great deal of emphasis on community service and personal development. Those aims are reflected in the aims of other national youth organisations. However, I agree with your Lordships that what makes the cadet forces so special is that they achieve those aims by working within an environment based on a military structure and Service concepts of discipline. As one of your Lordships observed earlier, perhaps that is not a politically correct thing to applaud but, nevertheless, I applaud it without any reservation. The high quality training provided by the adult leaders through the Service technique is unique and the underlying military themes provide a special attraction. I have seen, for example, how a detachment of the ACF affiliated to the Parachute Regiment in Middlesbrough was able to attract young people who were unmoved by the overtures of other youth organisations. The access that the cadets are given to military units—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, observed in the context of Wales —is essential to provide a variety of training experience and exposure to Service life.
I come to a point that I certainly do not apologise for emphasising at least as much as other noble Lords have emphasised it this evening. The proportion of British citizens with first-hand knowledge of the roles of the Services, or the way in which they train for and conduct
1432
their business, is, as we know, steadily declining as the Services reduce in size and National Service recedes further into history—and into our collective memories. Indeed, I have no memory of it at all. I agree with your Lordships that in some parts of the United Kingdom cadets are now, and increasingly, the only form of military representation in their communities. Their presence gives the Armed Forces a place in the community which, as the Armed Forces get smaller, would quite often not exist at all if there were no uniformed youth representation. I am delighted that my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Mottistone made that point so clearly. I would be inclined to place even greater emphasis on its importance than they did.
We should certainly not take it for granted that our nation will inevitably retain its traditional support for the Armed Forces. Those who wish to encourage that support, both within your Lordships' House and outside it, must recognise the valuable contribution that the cadet forces can and are making to plug that gap.
All that is common ground between us. I am sure that your Lordships, with your noted appreciation of the importance of government economy, will not differ from me on another point. The department which I represent in your Lordships' House has a duty to ensure that the cadet forces make effective use of the funds that are allocated for various activities. It may be useful if I tell your Lordships' House that for the financial year 1992–93 the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the three cadet forces was as follows: the Sea Cadets, £4.5 million; the Army Cadet Force, £16.8 million; and the Air Training Corps, £17.9 million. Whatever the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, may say, surely it is right that the cadet organisations should be no different from any other organisation in having to prove and improve their cost-effectiveness and efficiency. It is important that that is done without reducing their capability to achieve their aims. That is the question to which your Lordships addressed yourselves.
A great many noble Lords have taken the opportunity of this Unstarred Question to place their views on the record. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable and honourable friends and I take very close account of them.
The dedication and quality of the leadership provided by the adults who give their time to run cadet units is a key factor in the success of the cadet forces. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to that. They are entitled to a certain amount of pay, but I know that they give many more hours without remuneration. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, this is greatly appreciated and my department should not endeavour to take advantage of their good nature. It is absolutely vital not to inhibit the spirit in which the leaders volunteer and to ensure that our continued recognition of their magnificent contribution is plain.
Your Lordships are aware of the wide-ranging changes facing the Armed Services following the end of the cold war. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that that is not the reason that this proposal has been put forward. The noble Lord will be aware that any item of expenditure affecting the Ministry of Defence is part of

1433
the defence budget and therefore cannot escape some of the effects of the changes that are facing my department at the moment. It is important that each year we consider carefully the cadets' funding arrangements in competition with other demands on the defence budget. As I said a moment ago, it is equally important that we do not change the spirit or traditions of any of the cadet corps. Indeed, as I hope that I have made plain this evening, I would be extremely loath for that to happen.
Nevertheless, I have to confirm to your Lordships that a proposal has been made to reduce the number of cadet training teams along the lines that your Lordships —extremely well informed as always—have laid out. The only quibble I have is that the reduction is smaller in percentage terms than that of the Army as a whole. I believe that the rhetoric that a number of your Lordships very understandably have employed this evening has perhaps not made that clear.
I agree that your Lordships have made a strong and coherent case for rejecting the proposal. Much as I would like to, I fear that I cannot guarantee that my right honourable and honourable friends and I will be able to reject it as your Lordships wish us to. Such is the
1434
difficulty of our present condition. Although it is small comfort, I can say that the views of your Lordships will weigh very heavily with us. To that extent I believe that the debate has been particularly timely. Therefore, I am more than usually grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter this evening. I undertake to keep your Lordships informed of any substantial developments.
Finally, I should like to refer to my apprehension when my noble friend Lord Trefgarne reminded me of the fate of the grandfather of my noble friend Lord De La Warr as a result of his less-than-helpful intervention in 1930. I believe that any sensible junior Minister should feel that he has no right of occupation of any office in your Lordships' House or Her Majesty's Government and that he should anticipate ejection from the enjoyment of his job daily. I hasten to reassure your Lordships that that is very much the spirit in which I approach this task. I am all the more grateful for the gypsy warning of my noble friend. It will further encourage me to take seriously your Lordships' strictures on the cadet forces.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock.