Lords Sitting of 2 February 1998

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

Tax Havens
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to review the status of the several tax havens under British sovereignty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven. The Question refers to territories under British sovereignty. The Foreign Office is currently conducting a review of policy towards the UK's dependent territories. The questions under consideration include the state of financial regulation in the dependent territories and the constitutional relationship between the dependent territories and the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that the responses from the territories so far show little or no wish for change in their current constitutional status. Separately, the Home Secretary announced a review of financial regulations in the Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, on 21st January.
The UK has been active in supporting international agreements to tackle harmful tax competition. On 1st December 1997 the ECOFIN group of Finance Ministers agreed a package of measures to tackle harmful tax competition, including a code of conduct on business taxation which aims to eliminate special business tax regime loopholes. The UK has also made a central contribution to work in the OECD on harmful tax competition, on which it is expected to produce a report shortly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular his references to the erosion of the tax base as regards business taxation. Will he confirm that this is a live question within the European Union as far as concerns British Crown dependencies, including Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? I understand that that is an item on the European Union's agenda. Will he confirm that, by any definition of a tax haven, a number of our Caribbean dependent territories rank high as places for businesses to base their operations in order to avoid high taxation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's first question, I have already given an outline of the ECOFIN meeting on 1st December and of the results of that meeting. Those results do not, of course, relate specifically to UK dependent territories; they are about harmful tax competition wherever it may occur.
424
In answer to the noble Lord's second question, if there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven, I cannot say what countries would or would not fall within such a definition.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister give some indication as to whether, at the meeting of ECOFIN to which he referred, the Commission raised the question of the Duchy of Luxembourg, which might he held to be in competition with the Channel Islands, not to mention the Netherlands Antilles and the Cayman Islands?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of any part of the ECOFIN report which refers to any of those three territories.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why an international definition of a tax haven is thought to be desirable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. If there is indeed harmful tax competition between countries, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in his supplementary question, can be damaging to business, it is desirable that there should be a certain degree of common action to avoid that damage.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate the comprehensive replies that the Minister has given, hut, in the interests of greater transparency. would he care to set out clearly the objectives of our review? In other words, on the tax front, regardless of what happens in the European Union—which would upset my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—will it have as an objective the removal of the tax status altogether, which would damage the investment in those islands from non-UK taxpayers, or will it primarily be concerned with UK taxpayers and their relief from tax havens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I had given a fully comprehensive reply, I could, of course, have given more detail about both the Foreign Office review and the Home Office review. The Foreign Office review will be explained in more detail by the Foreign Secretary in a speech on Wednesday to the Dependent Territories Association. I ask my noble friend to be patient until he has heard that speech.
The Home Office review of Crown dependencies is specifically concerned with financial regulation and will be fairly wide-ranging in its coverage of different issues within financial regulation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that sort of capital tends to fly around from one tax haven to another. Can the Minister give an undertaking that, whatever measures are introduced, they will not have retrospective effect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot give that undertaking without advice. However, I should be surprised if it were possible to introduce new regulations with retrospective effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in retrospect, does the Minister regret that the Government did not consult with the Isle of Man and Channel Island authorities prior to making their Statement on 21st January, as reported in The Times? Is not that at variance with the comments of his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on 19th January in your Lordships' House when he indicated clearly that, with their independent jurisdictions, they should be properly consulted and every due regard given to their views? Does he further agree with his noble friend that that is one of their human rights?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they will be consulted and due regard will be had to their views.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a significant quantity of inward investment comes to this country specifically because the tax regime is found to be more attractive than elsewhere? Does he agree also that investors are frequently encouraged by Her Majesty's Government and the Bank of England to take advantage of those benefits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated that there is no internationally agreed definition of a tax haven. There is certainly no definition which includes the United Kingdom as a tax haven.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to expand a little further on the background to the Home Office inquiry? It was interesting that the timing of that inquiry coincided with significant publicity regarding the use of Guernsey in particular as a tax haven. Is the noble Lord prepared to indicate whether the Home Office inquiry is more concerned about the use of Guernsey and the Channel Islands as a tax haven or whether the interest is related particularly to the use of those islands as money laundering areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Home Office inquiry is in relation to financial regulation. I referred to it only for the sake of completeness in answering the Question about tax havens from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Lord Sandhurst: My Lords, I come from Jersey and we should be grateful if, in future, the constitutional conventions could be more closely observed. Will the Government note that only last year the ambassador from the United States came to Jersey and rewarded the island with a cheque for 1 million dollars in response to its successful efforts in the prevention of money laundering?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated that neither of the reviews to which I referred involve any challenge to the constitutional arrangements either of the dependent territories or of the Crown dependencies.

Road Maintenance: Spending
2.46 pm.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the current level of road maintenance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, no. Too little has been spent on maintenance in recent years and, as a result, the condition of our roads has deteriorated. That is why we recently announced a 50 per cent. increase in spending on trunk road capital maintenance next year. That should be sufficient to prevent further deterioration. Future levels of provision are under consideration in the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that our road network is properly maintained? According to the Transport Select Committee in its report early last year that work was not being done. Can the Minister indicate why it has been held up? Is it not a penny wise and pound foolish policy? The ultimate bills are often five to six times greater. For the future efficiency of British economy, will the Minister ensure that our roads are properly maintained?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept a great deal of what my noble friend says. Not spending money in a timely fashion on maintenance certainly causes future bills to be much higher. That is why we took the decisions we did in regard to reversing the downward trend of investment in maintenance. It is a question for the previous government as to why the work was held up in the past; they cut the road maintenance programme.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments in relation to trunk roads. However, does she accept that that is only part of the problem? Local roads in many parts of the country are just as bad, if not worse than trunk roads. What do the Government intend to do about them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept that cuts made by the previous government affected local as well as national roads. We have taken priority action on the national road network because damage to roads is done predominantly by heavy goods vehicles and although the network comprises less than 4 per cent. of all roads it carries more than 50 per cent. of such vehicles. We are examining the issues and many local authorities are looking at funding for maintenance in their own areas where the same considerations in regard to investment apply. We are considering these matters in the context of the current comprehensive spending review.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that poor road maintenance is not only a waste of a national asset: it is also a matter of

427
safety? Does she agree also that the categories of road user most affected are pedestrians and cyclists, who are the very categories we are now trying to encourage?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the effect on safety of bad and deteriorating road surfaces is sometimes underestimated. It does not just affect cars or lorries; it affects cyclists and pedestrians as well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are encouraged by the announcement of government spending on the trunk road network. However, can the Minister explain why the standard spending assessment for highway maintenance by local authorities is set to fall next year by 3.5 per cent? The vast majority of roads are under the control of local authorities. The National Road Maintenance Condition Survey says that approximately 5,7(K) kilometres of major roads need urgent structural repair: the County Surveyors Society says that that figure underestimates the extent of the problem. Are there any plans to review the workings of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the methodology of the survey to which the noble Lord refers was considered by the Transport Research Laboratory for the County Surveyors Society. Its conclusion was that it was sound, although it suggested some minor changes, particularly in the presentation of the data. We are certainly taking that on board.
As to the noble Lord's point on the condition of local roads, I said in my previous reply that we had to consider what the priority was. We decided that the priority was the national road network, particularly because of the increased damage to that network caused by the large amount of freight traffic on it. However, we are looking within the comprehensive spending review at what the standard spending assessment for road maintenance ought to be for local authorities for the future.

Age Discrimination
2.51 pm.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce legislation on age discrimination in employment, care and other services.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government deplore unjustified age discrimination and are committed to ensuring that all people are treated fairly, whatever their age. The Government are consulting widely about how best to tackle issues facing older workers, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State held a meeting with a range of key figures from business, the lobby and other interested parties on 27th October last year. He has also met a number of older workers and organisations. He plans to continue the consultation into the spring. The Government are also proposing to draw up a code of
428
practice in consultation with, for example, the CBI and the TUC. The code will aim to promote fair practices both for older people seeking work and those already in work. At this stage there are no plans to legislate against age discrimination.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that expected reply. Although this issue has been debated on a number of occasions in both Houses of Parliament, government replies have been more or less the same. They have been very consistent over about two decades. Age Concern is very worried about this matter, as are we all. There is still an arbitrary cut-off point in many government departments—the DSS. the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. Recent surveys show that 3.4 million people are discriminated against in healthcare. Forty per cent. of heart attack rehabilitation units operate an upper age limit; 7 million people have been discriminated against in insurance services; 3.5 million have been discriminated against in the benefits system; and 4 million people have been discriminated against in education and training. While we hear much, and rightly so, about the shortage of skilled labour—I welcome and applaud the actions being taken to train youngsters—we are at the same time discriminating on the basis of age against thousands of skilled men and women who have the skills we require as a nation.
Does my noble friend accept that while voluntary action and codes of practice are welcome they have been condemned by the DfEE's valuation, which recently said that they had had little or no impact? Will she now reconsider her reply and agree that legislation is urgently required if we are to reverse the situation whereby thousands of capable men and women are condemned to a life of vegetation, vegetation, vegetation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend has made a long speech. As the only granny in the Government, perhaps I may say that I agree with quite a number of the things he said about the importance of avoiding discrimination on grounds of age. The Government are very aware of the need to deal with some of the issues he raised. However, I disagree with what he said about a code of practice. The Government think it is right to develop a code of practice and to do so after consultation with all the parties concerned, including those involved in supporting older people in our community, and with the CBI and the TUC. In that way we shall develop a voluntary code which we have every intention of ensuring produces good results.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the downsizing in industry which took place under the previous government resulted in large numbers of people having to accept early retirement, which they did not want, at the age of 50-plus? What is being done to ensure that such people, who are still capable of making a contribution, are not excluded from the labour market?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend. Many people over the age of 50 have the skills, experience and wisdom to make a major contribution in a wide variety of areas. It is true that under the previous government large numbers of people in their fifties were displaced from the labour force. Some 30 per cent. of people now economically inactive are aged between 50 and 65. This Government, by a variety of measures, including through the proposals in the White Paper on lifelong learning to be issued in the near future, are determined to ensure that people's skills go on being developed right up to the age at which they retire.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1995 the number of people over 50 and under 65 who were excused from the actively seeking work rules because they had not worked for the previous 10 years was 2.594 million? Has that figure increased or diminished since then? If she does not have that figure to hand. I wonder whether she will write to me.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have a figure not quite as precise as the one the noble Earl has just given. It is that there are 2.5 million people who are economically inactive at present. Employment among those aged 50 to 64 has been growing at an above average rate over the past couple of years. That is a good sign. However, there is still a lot more we have to do and a long way to go in providing gainful employment for large numbers of people in this age group.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a good deal of age discrimination takes place in the public sector? Is she aware that public sector workers over the age of 50 are often singled out for early retirement? Can she say whether the Government themselves operate any age bar in ministerial appointments; and if so, what is that bar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think I would be occupying this position if there were an age bar against people over the age of 50; or indeed over 55. I may perhaps be allowed a little poetic licence. It is important that we do not discriminate on the ground of age. What matters is merit and whether people can do the job. I am not aware that the public sector has a worse record than the private sector in that respect. Both have records that could be improved. And that is something we have to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the subject of age discrimination, can the noble Baroness confirm that there will be no upper age limit for membership of a reformed House of Lords?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Central European Department: Staffing
2.59 pm.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the impending entry of eastern European nations, and especially Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, into western European institutions, whether they are satisfied with the level of manning of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Central European Department.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. We are satisfied that the current level of staffing—and I use the term "staffing"—is sufficient to meet the demands facing the Central European Department. There are no current plans to increase the size of the department, but procedures exist for reviewing staffing levels where necessary.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join with me in thanking the former director for Europe, Mr. Francis Richards, and the head of the Central European Department, Mr. Howard Pearce—and indeed all members of that overworked and understaffed department—for the work they have done over the past three years? Will he also give this assurance to the House? If there is to be any further salami slicing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, the important Central European Department—it has much work to do to catch up in our relations with the 10 nations in that department which were so rudely interrupted over the past half century—will be left untouched?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely happy to pass on the good wishes from the noble Earl. I am not sure that I can accept the reference to understaffing. As my Answer indicated, there is certainly a lot of work on the Central European desk in anticipation of accession. The staffing levels are under constant review, as are those of our embassies in the countries concerned.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to convey to Sir John Kerr. the new and excellent Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the best wishes of us all in his formidable task?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will he also give him the assurance that the Government recognise that many of our missions, whether in central Europe or elsewhere, are under great stress and strain? Further. through Sir John Kerr, will the Minister express to those diplomats in those missions the deep appreciation of those of us in both Houses of Parliament who have received such a welcome and such help when in their countries on public duties?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, and for the murmurs of approval around the House. I shall certainly pass to the Foreign Office the appreciation of this House for its work and for our diplomatic staff overseas. It will be much appreciated there.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, assuming that the satisfactory manning levels about which the Minister spoke are sustained, what new proposals are being developed to help the applicant countries in central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states, which are not in the first wave of accession negotiations, to prepare for eventual entry to the European Union so that a negative signal on their prospects for becoming future member countries of the EU is not sent to them by the present member countries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords. I was gently pointing out to the noble Earl, and I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we use the term "staffing" these days rather than "manning" in the Foreign Office. However, as regards the central European countries, it is absolutely clear that the position of Her Majesty's Government and of the European Union is that none of the applicant countries should regard itself as being excluded from the process, but will be involved in the inclusive process of moving towards full membership of the European Union. The first six countries will engage immediately in formal negotiations from the end of March. Those other countries will continue to be supported to be brought into full membership of the European Union. The United Kingdom and the European Union will be providing resources to ensure that they meet the requirements.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the eyes of the Treasury, the proposition that levels of staffing or of funding are sufficient is a tautology? But can he say anything to convince those of us who use less circular terminology that his first Answer to my noble friend was correct?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that all my answers to the noble Earl's noble friend are correct. Clearly, the Treasury has its job to do, as does the Foreign Office. It is the latter which assesses its priorities and we consider the staffing to be adequate, albeit well stretched.

Business
3.4 pm.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the latest developments relating to Iraq.

Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30th January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is aware, on this side of the House we accept the Prime Minister's judgment in setting up this tribunal and do not oppose this Motion. But the Lord Privy Seal said on Thursday, when he responded to questions following the Statement, that the setting up of a new tribunal was in no way a criticism of Lord Widgery. That seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to say. He seems to be one of the very few people who believe that. After all, if the newspapers are correct about the papers given to the Government by the Irish Government, which include the new evidence and which have led to the new inquiry, they are filled with criticisms of Lord Widgery's tribunal, including the evidence that he did not take and the conclusions he came to.
The Lord Privy Seal also said that this was a wholly separate matter from the peace process. But, as I understand it, the Government hope that going into these matters will have a beneficial impact on the peace process. Whether it does or not only time will tell. We hope that it will. Is it not already clear that Sinn FeinfIRA are going to milk this new tribunal for maximum propaganda throughout? The Government should be prepared to respond to that.
The Lord Privy Seal did not respond to the question on prosecutions which he was asked last Thursday. There is another opportunity for him to do so in support of this Motion. But perhaps he would prefer to do so in correspondence.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to respond. Such researches as we have been able to carry out lead us to believe that questioning of this sort on such Motions is virtually unprecedented in this House. Certainly on two occasions since 1994, when the previous administration set up tribunals of inquiry, the time for questioning was when the Statement was made and not when the Motion was presented. But there we are. If the noble Lord wishes to ask questions I suppose he is entitled to get answers.
I said that the tribunal was not a criticism of Lord Widgery, and I still say that. The great difference between now and then is that there is new evidence which he did not have. In those circumstances, to say to

433
a court of appeal that there is fresh evidence that the judge who presided over the trial would have considered if it had been available is no criticism of the first judge. It is merely saying that he did not have the evidence. That is what I said last week and that is what I am saying today.
The noble Lord asked that I expand on how this inquiry is separate from the peace process. It is self-evidently separate from the peace process. That process is a set of negotiations which are taking place. They are highly political and highly charged issues. This is an inquiry into events which took place 26 years ago. Of course the Government hope that it will have an effect in bringing the communities together. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing sinister in the Government expressing a hope that one of the results of setting up the inquiry, which is justified, is that the communities may come together rather than be driven further apart.
As to whether I have anything to add on immunity from prosecution, I say this. The establishment of a public inquiry does not preclude a criminal investigation or prosecution if in the light of all the evidence which may emerge either course seems justified. It will be open to the RUC to commence a criminal investigation at any stage where it is felt that the evidence so warranted it. Such investigation will receive full government co-operation. Any subsequent proceedings would be subject to any undertaking on immunity which had been given to those who provided evidence to the inquiry.
Perhaps I may say a word about immunity so that we can clear the matter up beyond peradventure. Because the inquiry is to be established under the 1921 Act, any person who can give material evidence will be under a legal obligation to do so, subject only to the right not to incriminate themselves. If the exercise of that right by any individual or group of individuals were to hamper the ability of the inquiry to obtain significant evidence. it could invite the Attorney-General to consider providing the witness with a suitable undertaking, or in an extreme case, immunity. Each case will be considered on its merits. I hope that that clears up the matter to the satisfaction of the noble Lord.
Lord Blease: My Lords, within the provisions of the 1921 Act, does the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal consider that it might be helpful to the scope and purpose of the proposed tribunal to seek to include a suitably qualified citizen of South Africa or of another country outside the European Community?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government announced on Thursday that the tribunal would have three members. The name of one of the members has been announced; the other two are to be announced. We have said that they will come from Commonwealth countries with knowledge and experience of similar legal systems to our own.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.10 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn):MyLords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Crime and Disorder Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Clauses 18 to 21,

Clauses 5 to 7,

Clause 16,

Clauses 8 to 15,

Clause 17,

Clauses 22 to 25,

Clause 68,

Clause 26,

Clause 79,

Clauses 27 to 32,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 33 to 43,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 44 to 47,

Clauses 70 and 71,

Clauses 48 to 51.

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 77,

Schedule 5,

Clause 78,

Clauses 52 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 to 65.

Clause 91.

Clauses 66 and 67,

Clause 69,

Clauses 80 to 87,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 88 to 90,

Clauses 92 to 94,

Schedule 7,

Clause 95.

Schedules 8 and 9,

Clause 96.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, although this is the Crime and Disorder Bill, I have never seen the order in which we are to consider a Bill put forward in such a disorderly way. We occasionally take a clause or schedule out of order, but, within my recollection, such a chaotic plan has never been put before us.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on the detail, but the proposed order of consideration means that Schedule 4 is being taken after Schedule 5—for no apparent reason, so far as I can see. If we now look at Clauses 27 to 32 and later at Clauses 33 to 44, we find that Clause 33 is grouped in the list with Clauses 27 to 32, and not with Clauses 33 to 44. Strangely, Clause 68 and Clauses 70 and 71 have been promoted while Clauses 52 to 55, Clauses 56 to 65, Clauses 66 and 67, and Clause 69 have been demoted.

435
It is strange that Clauses 72 to 77 come within a group dealing with Scottish law. Scottish law and practice differ from those in England and Wales in various ways and should surely be considered separately instead of being grouped together with similar clauses relating to England and Wales. We do not normally proceed in that way.
I have always admired the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, presents matters to the House. He normally does us a great service. I cannot believe that he was the inventor of this chaos.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not do it all on my own, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is about to leap to his feet to confirm. It was done through the usual channels with the absolute support and affirmation of the Opposition Front Bench. What we have tried to do is helpfully—I stress the adverb—group related clauses.
On the Scottish question, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, approached me to see how the Scottish matters might be dealt with. We thought carefully and concluded that the appropriate Scottish clauses should be grouped together to follow their English brethren. I am sure that that is a convenient way of proceeding. As I said, it was all done by agreement with the usual channels and in the usual way. Your Lordships will agree that it must therefore be 100 per cent. right in every respect.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, having been dragged to my feet by those words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I voice my support for what my noble friend Lord Renton said. Although it is true that the usual channels agreed to this Motion, it was not without some discussion as to its merits because, as my noble friend pointed out, it is extremely unusual. However, the Government are the Government and if they have decided in their wisdom that this is the best and most appropriate way to proceed, who are we to disagree? It was not until heard my noble friend that I realised the seriousness of the flaws in the Government's argument. I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on what my noble friend said, but we shall not oppose the Motion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say a few more words. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his attempt to answer the case that I put forward. I thank also my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for destroying that attempt.
I should have thought that between now and tomorrow the Government should be given the opportunity to think again, certainly about some of the earlier clauses. This would be a bad precedent to set. If we have a Bill with a carefully considered order of presentation—this Bill undoubtedly has, because the order of the clauses as set out in the Bill is readily understandable—it seems unacceptable that we should then have to consider the clauses in a different order.
436
Therefore, although time is short, I suggest that the Government should be asked to think again about the earlier clauses. However, I shall not oppose the Motion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House and the Opposition Chief Whip that the order was largely suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and that we agreed with him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.16 pm.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I recognise that data protection does not sound like a subject to attract obsessive interest; witness the general exodus from your Lordships' House as I start to introduce this Second Reading. Data protection is redolent in many ways of computers and electronic processing: necessary but essentially technical providers of services. In fact it affects our well-being in a much more general way. It shares common ground to that extent with the Human Rights Bill. That Bill will improve the position of citizens of this country by enabling them to rely on the wide range of civil and political rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights include the right to respect for private and family life. The Data Protection Bill also concerns privacy, albeit a specific form of privacy: personal information privacy. The subject matter of the Bill is, therefore, inherently important to our general social welfare.
The scope of the Bill is also a measure of its importance. We inhabit the information age. Information can be gathered, manipulated and disseminated more quickly now than ever in our history. Much of that information is information about individuals. I doubt whether there is a single individual in our country about whom some organisation or another does not have some personal details on record. This Bill is about those individuals and their secrets. It is also about those organisations. It affects virtually every organisation which holds personal information—organisations providing public services, meeting the needs of business customers, and carrying out charitable and other voluntary activities. The Bill seeks to regulate appropriately the way in which organisations collect and use information about individual people who in the jargon of our day are called "data subjects".
We have had data protection law in this country since 1984. The 1984 Act was based on the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection. The 1984 Act enabled us to ratify that convention, which we did in 1987. The purpose of the convention was twofold: to protect individuals' privacy in relation to the processing of their data; and, in doing so, to allow personal data to flow freely among the ratifying states in the interests of trade promotion.
The promotion of trade with our European colleagues is, of course, an objective of the single market within the European Union. By 1990, some, but not all, of our

437
EU partners had introduced data protection laws. With the impending introduction of the single market the European Commission decided that a Union-wide approach was essential and introduced a draft data protection directive. Its purpose was to establish common standards of data protection, first, to enhance individuals' personal information privacy and, secondly, to provide a sound basis to permit the free flow of personal data within the single market.
The directive was adopted on 24th October 1995. Member states were given three years from that date to bring it into national law. The pressing purpose of this Bill is to fulfil our obligations by October of this year.
Some organisations using personal data have expressed concerns about the consequences of the directive. They believe that there will be increased costs and therefore adverse effects on viability. Equally, those organisations which cherish and represent individuals' interests welcome the directive since its aim is to establish appropriate levels of protection for individuals' information. In drawing up the Bill we have to give effect and balanced consideration to those two aspects. We want to give proper effect to the directive while recognising the necessity for organisations to hold information about individuals and, equally, individuals' entitlement to have information about them—their information—handled properly. The Bill therefore includes additional protection for individuals. But we wish to ensure as far as humanly possible that the methods of regulation are truly proportionate to the appropriate circumstances and attend to real protection rather than procedure for its own sake.
It is probably asking too much to expect a Bill of this size to be wholly uncontroversial. To a large extent this is a technical measure, but that is our work. The subject matter is particularly intricate. We may not always have got things absolutely right. Within the constraints imposed by the directive and the general approach that we suggest, we wish to be as open-minded as we can to any suggestions to improve the Bill. The brief discussions that I have had with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicate that he also intends to follow that course. There are difficult technical intricacies and a co-operative effort is likely to produce a better-finished Bill in your Lordships' House.
Like the Data Protection Act 1984, the principles of data protection comprise a central element of the regime that we suggest. They provide a kind of statutory code of practice relating to good data protection handling with which all personal information users—known in the Bill as data controllers—will have to comply. They are to be found in Schedule 1. The Bill contains eight principles relating to matters such as the need to process personal data fairly and lawfully; for data to be processed for specified purposes; for them to be accurate; and for there to be proper security arrangements. All of the 1984 Act principles are broadly reproduced, although not in precisely the same phraseology, and we have added a further one to deal with the transfer of data to third countries.
438
There are two other key concepts. The Bill is built around the concept of processing personal data. Essentially, "personal data" means information from which a living person can be identified and "processing" means doing anything at all with such data, from collecting them, right through to destroying them. including merely the holding of the data whether or not anything active is done with them. I single out these expressions from the list of definitions in Clause 1 because they are fundamental to the working of the Bill. One further relevant definition is "relevant filing system". Unlike the 1984 Act, the directive requires the application of data protection law to certain categories of manual record, not simply computer, and this is the definition of the records covered.
This is a difficult area. Some take the strong view. which I recognise and respect, that the Bill should spell out clearly which categories of record are caught. We are presently unable to find a satisfactory way of doing that. It would have been possible had we been able to limit it to manual records in highly structured systems such as card indexes, but that would not have properly met the requirements of the directive. At the other end of the scale, we could have extended the scope to cover all paper records. I do not believe that that would have been generally welcomed or that it would necessarily have achieved a proper balance between the protection of the individual and the imposition of burdens on information users. In the event, we have followed the approach adopted by the directive. The criteria are: that the records must be in a structured set; that the structure must be by reference to individuals; and that particular data relating to particular individuals must be easy of access. We believe that this brings in highly structured sets such as card index systems and excludes collections of papers which only incidentally contain information about individuals. Whether or not other collections are caught will depend upon whether they meet the criteria, and in the first instance it will be for data controllers themselves to decide.
I have seen the Data Protection Registrar's briefing note on manual records. As I understand it, she believes that the Bill catches a very wide range of manual records. This is not the place to enter into a detailed debate about the construction of words in the Bill, but it is not our intention that the Bill should have the wide effect that she suggests. We do not intend that it should catch files about named individuals where a variety of different kinds of documents is stored by date order. We want to focus on much more highly structured files.
I welcome the registrar's note however. The Government are not wedded to the approach that I have outlined. We are perfectly open to all reasonable proposals to improve the Bill. If the view of the House is that the Bill does not go far enough that is a matter that the Government will consider. But such an extension of the coverage of the Bill would not be without cost and that cost could be quite considerable.
Clause 2 defines "sensitive personal data". These relate to such matters as race, ethnic origin, political or religious views, health and so forth. Schedule 3 contains restrictions on the circumstances in which such data may be processed. I mention this because special restrictions

439
on such data are new to our law. Clause 3 defines "special purposes," which are journalistic, artistic and literary purposes. The Bill provides a special regime for those purposes because they are special activities, to which I shall return in a moment when I deal with Clause 31.
Clause 4 introduces the data protection principles in Schedule 1 and the associated provisions in Schedules 2 and 3. It places on data controllers the duty to comply with them. The purpose of the directive is to provide a common level of data protection within the Union and other member states of the European Economic Area which will also be bound by it. The directive contains rules which determine which members state's law applies to particular processing. The purpose of Clause 5 is to do precisely that. Its principal effect is that United Kingdom law applies to any processing done in the context of the establishment of an organisation in the United Kingdom. That applies whether or not the processing is actually done in the United Kingdom. another EU member state or elsewhere. Other member states' laws should be making similar provision.
Finally in Part I. Clause 6 introduces two data protection institutions: the data protection commissioner, which is the new name for the Data Protection Registrar, and the Data Protection Tribunal, which is also preserved from the 1984 Act. I should like to pay tribute to the previous Data Protection Registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, the present registrar, Mrs. Elizabeth France, and her staff, and the chairman and members of the Data Protection Tribunal for the invaluable public work that they have done under the 1984 Act.
I have spent a moment or two longer than I would have wished on the early stages of the Bill because they are critical to its structure. I shall try to traverse the remaining ground a little more quickly. Part II deals with individuals' rights, which are strengthened by the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 replicate with some amendments the existing right of subject access. They deal with our obligation following the judgment of the ECHR in Gaskin to provide an independent review mechanism for refusal of subject access in certain cases. There is nothing in the Bill yet to meet our undertaking to outlaw the practice of enforced subject access, but we certainly intend to deal with it in the context of the Bill.
Clause 9 provides a new right for individuals to prevent processing which is likely to cause them substantial damage or substantial distress.
Clause 10 provides an express new power for individuals to object to their personal data being used for direct marketing. That is something which will find general approval not just in your Lordships' House but with an increasingly irritated section of the general public. The expression of the right in the body of the statute is new and broadly similar to that already achieved by the application of the data protection principles.
Clause 11 broadens the existing right for individuals to seek compensation. Under the 1984 Act, the right is available only where individuals have suffered damage because of the inaccuracy, loss or unauthorised
440
disclosure of their data. The Bill allows them to seek compensation for damage caused by contravention of any of the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 12 replicates a broadly familiar right for individuals to seek the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of inaccurate data.
Clause 13 is new. It relates to decision-making which is carried out solely by automatic means, as, for example, the practice of credit-scoring. Where such decision-taking significantly affects an individual, if the decision goes against the individual, the clause requires there to be safeguards for his or her interests. This might be provision for review of the decision by an individual person. That is again something that causes great public concern to individuals who feel that their cases in respect of credit provision have been inappropriately or thoughtlessly considered. Clause 14 is a procedural provision relating to courts' jurisdiction.
Part III of the Bill deals with the requirement for data controllers to notify the commissioner of the processing which they do. Registration is linked closely to the enforcement of the data protection principles. Notification under the Bill has been wholly decoupled from enforcement. It is solely about transparency and 1 believe that it represents a significant step forward.
Under the 1984 Act, the obligation to comply with the data protection principles applies only when a data user has registered. Those who do not register may only be prosecuted for non-registration; the registrar has no power to compel compliance with the principles. Under the Bill compliance with the principles will be an obligation on all data controllers, whether or not they have complied with the notification requirements.
Subject to some exemptions, we provide for all data controllers to notify the commissioner before processing personal data. An exemption on the face of the Bill is for manual records. Others can be provided by notification regulations. Such regulations may also make other provision relating to notification, including the form in which notifications must be made. Having consulted considerably with the Data Protection Registrar we hope to make the notification arrangements as simple and little burdensome as possible.
A novelty in the Bill is Clause 21 which provides that processing prescribed by order shall be checked by the commissioner before it shall begin. The normal rule is that processing may begin as soon as it is notified. But certain particularly sensitive processing must be checked in advance. The Government believe that the amount of processing needing "prior checking" is likely to be very small. I should also make clear that this is not a requirement for each individual processing operation to be checked on a case-by-case basis. The prior check is carried out at the time of notification and applies to all processing covered by the notification.
Another new provision is the power in Clause 22 for the Secretary of State to set arrangements for organisations to appoint their own data protection supervisors, following the German model. Such appointees monitor the controller's compliance with the law, thereby removing some of the burden from the supervisory authority. Setting up arrangements under

441
this provision will not be a priority since the Government's immediate priority must be to ensure that the core regime is properly in place and working well.
Finally in this part, Clause 23 provides a requirement on data controllers who do not notify to provide, to anybody who requests it, information about the processing which they do.
Part IV and Schedule 7 deal with exemptions. Many of these are familiar from the 1984 Act, but there are some changes. Clause 27 provides an exemption from, in effect, the whole of the Bill where the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. This is broadly familiar from the 1984 provision, but it contains two important changes. First, it allows a certificate confirming the need for the exemption to be expressed in general terms and to be prospective; and, secondly, it allows a limited right of appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal for individuals who are directly affected by such a certificate.
Clause 28(4) has been the subject of some media speculation and critical comment. It allows the making of orders exempting from the subject access and non-disclosure provisions in the Bill information which would assist in the fight against crime and the prevention of tax evasion and fraud. On tax, there are serious Inland Revenue concerns to be addressed: first, protecting the disclosure to the Inland Revenue of bulk, potentially tax relevant, information provided by third parties, which may be used to help identify people cheating on their taxes, and therefore robbing the general body of citizens whose taxes go to pay for essential services; and, secondly, maintaining the confidentiality of systems designed to identify incorrect tax declarations. I know that the Data Protection Registrar has concerns about this clause. I have discussed this with her. We have made no firm decisions about its use. But I believe that there will be general public support for the principle that we need to safeguard existing initiatives to act against the small minority who, alas, cause significant loss to the public purse through tax evasion and tax fraud. We are interested to see what your Lordships may have to say about the principle and detail as the Bill travels through this House.
I pause on one exemption which is of great importance. It is to be found in Clause 31, to which I promised to return. It relates to processing for the special purposes; namely, journalistic, literary and artistic purposes. The media have been concerned about the implications for their work of the EC Data Protection Directive. I am happy to repeat again publicly that the Government recognise the central importance of the work of a free press in a free society. With its broad definition of "processing", not to mention the inclusion of manual records and the range of rights for individuals, the directive, and therefore the Bill, goes considerably further in protecting individuals' personal information than does the present Act of 1984. It therefore inevitably has greater potential to put at risk the media's legitimate use of such personal information.
442
I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his place. He and I and others from the BBC. Channel 4 and the independent television companies, as well as newspapers and newspaper lawyers generally, had discussions throughout the summer and autumn of last year. We have provided for exemptions for the media. We have done that as deliberate policy, not by way of Christmas accident, where they are necessary to reconcile privacy with freedom of expression.
Following the meetings to which I referred, we have included in the Bill an exemption which I believe meets the legitimate expectations and requirements of those engaged in journalism, artistic and literary activity. The key provision is Clause 31. This ensures that provided that certain criteria are met, before publication—I stress "before"—there can be no challenge on data protection grounds to the processing of personal data for the special purposes. The criteria are broadly that the processing is done solely for the special purposes; and that it is done with a view to the publication of unpublished material. Thereafter, there is provision for exemption from the key provisions where the media can show that publication was intended; and that they reasonably believe both that publication would be in the public interest and that compliance with the Bill would have been incompatible with the special purposes.
We have specifically written into the Bill reference to compliance with a code of conduct which is capable of being approved by the Secretary of State. We have deliberately placed upon the face of the Bill. I believe for the first time in an Act of Parliament in this country, that the public interest is not the narrow question of whether this is a public interest story in itself but that it relates to the wider public interest, which is an infinitely subtle and more complicated concept. That is expressed elegantly in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the transmission of views and opinions by the press and the necessary co-related right on behalf of the public to receive those expressions of views and opinions.
As a safeguard for individuals, the commission has a special power in Clause 42 to seek information from the data controller, pre-publication, to check whether the key criteria are satisfied. There is provision in Clause 43 for her to make a determination where she believes they are not; and Clause 44 provides a limited power for her to take enforcement action against the media where she has made a determination—before or after publication.
The Bill puts the onus for taking enforcement action on the individuals concerned rather than the commissioner; but in Clause 50, it gives the commissioner a power to assist individuals in going to court, but only in cases involving matters of substantial public importance. I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have achieved the right balance in that regard.
We do not wish, and would not want, to inhibit the freedom of expression which is a fundamental and continuing part of the British way of life and which British broadcasters have enjoyed up to now in making programmes in a generally responsible way. It is clearly part of that tradition of information, the dissemination

443
of views and discussion of ideas; for example, historical programmes dealing with analysis of the past. It is not the intention of the Government in implementing the directive that the making of these programmes should be inhibited or prevented by individuals attempting to use its provisions to re-write history or prevent the responsible discussion of historical subjects and documentaries which are an important part of the media's role in informing, educating and stimulating public discussion.
Equally, it is part of the British tradition of freedom of expression that entertainment programmes, such as arts programmes, comedy, satire or dramas, can refer to real events and people. It is not the intention of the Government for the directive to be used to inhibit programme-makers from making programmes as they have up to now. The Government believe that both privacy and freedom of expression are important rights and that the directive is not intended to alter the balance, which is a fine one and always should be, that currently exists between these rights and responsibilities. I believe that the Bill does strike the right note in that respect. It was not until after a good deal of consultation and discussion, and perhaps cross-fertilisation of ideas, that we came to our conclusion. However, I repeat that if there is reasonable room for improvement, our minds are not closed.
Part V of the Bill deals with enforcement. First, the Bill creates a twin-track approach for individuals seeking a remedy for alleged breaches of the law. In the same way as they may now go to the registrar, under Clause 40 they will be able to seek the help of the commissioner. They will also be able to go direct to court where they believe that any of their rights under the Bill have been contravened. This is an important strengthening of individuals' rights. The 1984 Act provides only a very limited right to go direct to court: where subject access has been refused or to seek the correction of inaccurate data.
The enforcement notice, which is the main instrument for enforcing the data protection principles under the 1984 Act, is retained in Clause 38. But because of the restructuring of the data protection principles, it has wider scope under this Bill.
Clause 41 entitles the commissioner to issue information notices seeking the information she may need to carry out her functions. The commissioner takes the view that, in its present draft form, the power is not as useful as it might be. I have discussed it with her, and I will consider whether there is any way in which it could be improved fairly to meet her concerns.
Part VI deals with miscellaneous matters. Clause 49 gives the commissioner a broader duty than now to promote good practice. It includes a strengthened role in relation to the issuing and consideration of codes of practice; and a new power to make assessments of individual data controllers' personal data handling practices, with their consent.
In the context of Clause 49 I might also explain briefly the arrangements for dealing with transfers of data to third countries. The eighth data protection principle in the schedule prohibits the transfer of
444
personal data to countries outside the EEA which do not have an adequate level of data protection. Schedule 4 provides some exemptions. Data controllers will make the initial decisions about adequacy. The commissioner will be able to issue an enforcement notice where she disagrees. Decisions about inadequacy have to be shared with the European Commission and other member states; and there is a mechanism for reaching a common view.
There is concern on the part of some of the EU's major trading partners, particularly the USA, about the implications for trade of these arrangements. I believe that the arrangements made in the Bill provide the maximum flexibility for data controllers, consistent with ensuring proper data protection and meeting the requirements of the directive. I know that this is a matter which is being treated very seriously by colleagues in Brussels and I am confident that a satisfactory way forward can be found.
Clause 51 establishes certain further functions for the commissioner in relation to overseas transfers and other international matters.
Clause 52 creates an offence of unlawful obtaining, disclosure and subsequent sale of personal data without the consent of the data controller. The intention is to re-create and replicate the similar offence in the 1984 Act.
Clause 54 puts a duty of confidentiality, subject to a criminal sanction, on the data protection commissioner and her staff. I know that the registrar is uneasy about attaching a criminal sanction to the duty of confidentiality. Again, this is a matter which I have discussed with her and I have told her that it is a matter on which I am prepared to consider suggestions for alternative approaches.
Finally, I must mention one omission from the Bill. The Bill does not yet make any provision for the transition from the existing data protection regime under the 1984 Act to the new one under the Bill. I recognise, and I am happy to say it now, that those affected by the Bill will need to know as soon as possible what are the Government's intentions. We shall certainly bring forward necessary amendments as soon as we can.
This has been a rather brief overview of what is a long and complex piece of legislation. I have deliberately omitted what I might have covered. I know that noble Lords have particular interests in some of the areas which I have omitted. My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General will deal with the points which noble Lords raise in the debate.
I am pleased that we have agreement through the usual channels for the Bill to be considered by a Grand Committee in the Moses Room. This seems to be, almost quintessentially, the sort of legislation which needs that calm, informed scrutiny. I repeat that we want the best possible assistance by way of scrutiny by your Lordships who are informed about those matters. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Williams of Mostvn.)
3.49 pm.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I am afraid that at this stage we can only give it a rather guarded welcome. The main reason for that is because we are concerned about the effects of the Bill; that it might become too great a burden for some of those who may be affected—businesses, data providers, parts of the media and perhaps journalists. It may be more of a burden than is necessary to implement the EU directive designed to protect the rights of individuals. We shall concentrate on that during the Bill's passage through this House.
I realise that the Minister does not speak for other European governments. However, the Bill which implements the directive is designed to improve the free movement of personal data throughout the Community. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that work has started in other EU countries. It would be disappointing if we, like good Europeans, implemented the directive only to find ourselves one of the few to do so. That has happened in the past.
We are anxious about the costs of the Bill. The Government admit that the start-up costs for industry will he £836 million, with annual costs of £630 million. The start-up costs for the voluntary sector is £120 million, with annual costs of £37 million. That will be a great burden, particularly on the voluntary sector.
We support the necessary protection for the rights of the individual. After all, it was the Conservative government which introduced the Data Protection Act 1984. That Act gave individuals rights to access data stored about them; to demand disclosure of that data; and in some circumstances, to demand cessation, rectification and compensation. Therefore, the rights in the Bill are not new, but they have been strengthened. One must ask whether there is any evidence that the current Act is not working. Which parts of the current Act do not comply with the directive? How much further have the Government gone? Have they gone further than necessary to comply with the directive? It is a question of balance and we shall be examining that to see whether the Government have it right.
We need to protect the rights of individuals to privacy, but we do not want a back door privacy law. We are also concerned with the practical needs of business to process information in a cost effective manner for the benefit of consumers. There are two areas in which important changes appear to have been made. Manual records are now included by Clause 1 if those records at some time in the future might be transferred to a processing system. When the Data Protection Registrar examined that issue, she stated:
"These include whether it is possible to provide a clearer definition of those manual records that will be covered by the new Act".
That is a valid point and I hope that we shall re-examine it during our debates on the Bill.
The Data Protection Registrar was also concerned about Clause 28(4), providing an order-making power which allows the Secretary of State to exempt personal data of a specified description not only from subject access but also from the requirement to process personal
446
data fairly and lawfully. The registrar stated that she saw no justification for making that blanket exception. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment further on that subject.
Another important change is the switch from registration to notification. I acknowledge that there is a gap in the system. At present, someone who is not registered can be prosecuted only for non-registration, but the principles of registration cannot be enforced. Under the Bill, the new system of notification will allow data protection rules to be enforced even if the subject is not registered. That must be an improvement.
The Bill defines the principal terms used in relation to processing information. It is a concern of the CBI that the definition of "processing" will catch any automated processing of personal data even if it is not directly concerned with an individual. An example may be an order or an invoice between two companies which may have a contact name and may be included as part of personal data. We wish to know why the phrase used in the 1984 Act—that is, "by reference to the data subject"—is not used in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 7 is widely drawn. In its attempt to give the right of access to personal data, it allows access to intellectual property rights and confidential business records which may not relate directly to the individual. There is a danger that such rights of access could be abused by the unscrupulous and perhaps for fraudulent purposes. We do not want to give criminals the right to collect information which they can then use to commit further crimes. I am sure that the Minister has considered that and perhaps he will comment further.
I welcome the introduction of the rights of the individual in Clause 10 with regard to direct marketing and I concur with what the Minister said. How much that will stem the flow of useless junk mail which pours through our letterboxes is not clear, but at least it is a valid attempt to try.
Schedule 3 sets out conditions for the processing of sensitive data. Employers are worried that the Bill does not make adequate provision for them to keep certain employment records which is required of them by certain codes of practice. In our view, and in the view of the CBI, the circumstances in which criminal records can be held are not sufficiently extensive. Businesses which have a duty to protect the public and property, or to protect the public from fraud or theft, should be allowed to hold the data that is necessary for that protection.
The role of the data protection commissioner and his or her powers are crucial for the proposed system to work. We will examine those powers closely, including the right to appeal and the right to issue information notices. I note that under the 1984 Act we have a data protection registrar. Now that the Government have gone "Euro", we are to have a commissioner.
The storage and use of data is a technology which is constantly changing. Those who provide on-line services will be affected by the Bill. I believe that there is a problem for them. How can they control what their users do with the data, or what data their users transmit when it is contained within their service? Fundamentally, we are

447
talking about how to control the Internet. Is it possible? It is difficult to see whether the provisions apply to the Internet and to on-line service providers. Will an on-line service provider be responsible, for example, if he offers simple services such as magazine archives which may contain personal data? There is a danger in saying where the line will be drawn. I hope that there will be flexibility within the system so that the new data protection commissioner will be allowed to make sensible judgments.
I note, too, that there is a provision for the data protection commissioner to grant a special form of legal aid to those seeking compensation from the media. How will that be funded? Will there be any cap on the costs? It is a new phenomenon; it was not covered in the 1984 Act. I also understand that every freelance journalist might have to register with the data protection commissioner and that it will be an offence not to do so. At first glance, the consequence of a government body holding a list of all freelance journalists in this country is somewhat Orwellian. Is my interpretation correct? If so—and many journalists have said that they believe they will have to register—how are we to define a journalist? Will one become a journalist if one writes a book review for a magazine? If one of your Lordships writes for the House Magazine will registration be required'? Will he have to register what is in his personal computer, even if it does not contain information about the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or any of the other Ministers on the Front Bench?
Clause 31 is crucial as regards the press. I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will speak today. The whole House will he interested in his views, particularly in his role with the Press Complaints Commission. Although Clause 31(3) refers to "any code of practice". I believe it to refer to that of the commission. Will the Government confirm that? Paragraph (b) of Clause 31(3) also refers to,
"[anything]… designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this subsection",
which I believe must mean that perhaps other codes could be used. If he is not able to do so today, perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to that point by correspondence.
As the Minister said, the Bill also provides new rules for the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU. I am concerned to know how British companies, which currently send raw data to be processed in other countries, will be affected. Will that process be illegal if it contains personal data?
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there is a large and growing worldwide business where data is often processed in third world countries. India, for example, has software skills that are cheaper, and sometimes better, than our own. Will that trade cease? If a bank or insurance company sends its files to be processed in some way to a third world country so that they can then be returned and put, in a different way, on to a system using the latest software, how will that situation be covered? It would be a great pity if that trade were to cease as it provides business for those countries and, indeed, is very cost-effective for the companies which use it.
448
I wonder whether the Government have studied data protection laws in other countries? For example, America is, I suppose, the country whose technology in this respect has led the world. Do the Government have any plans to introduce similar rights and protections? Will the EU be in step or out of step with the rest of the world?
We have before us a complex Bill. It is a simple subject, but a complex one because the devil is in the detail. We will all have to brace ourselves as we attempt to get to grips with technology, and learn how the rights of the individual can be protected in a reasonable way at a reasonable cost. I worry that the Bill is perhaps more prescriptive than it has to be. In some ways, I should like a shorter Bill which is strong on principle but one which allowed flexibility so as to enable the new commissioner to act in a way that is sensible for both individuals and business.
Of course, I recognise that governments like to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and, therefore, that makes Bills much longer than we would all wish. However, because it is such a long and detailed Bill, I fear that, despite careful scrutiny, we may miss something in it which will manifest itself to the detriment of those affected by the Bill.
As the Minister reminded us, the Government announced that they will include measures relating to the "transitional arrangements" in the Bill by way of amendment as the Bill passes through Parliament. The noble Lord kindly informed the House that those amendments will be offered, "as soon as we can". Perhaps the noble Lord could be a little more specific in that respect. Does that mean during the Committee or Report stages or. indeed, while the Bill is actually passing through this House? That is of particular importance because, in a statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December, I noted that the Government announced that they would introduce a freedom of information and data protection Bill and that both would be processed hand in hand. Perhaps I may quote the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said:
"Any freedom of information Act must provide adequate protection for an individual from any unwarranted invasion of personal privacy caused by an application from a third party. In practice, for the Freedom of Information Act in the United Kingdom, the new Data Protection Act will provide the basis for this protection".
Therefore, transitional arrangements will be most important. I have one question upon which I should really like to hear the Minister's view. Can we actually have a data protection Act in place without a freedom of information Act? In other words, do they go hand in hand? For example, will the transitional arrangements not allow it to come into force until the Government have come forward with a freedom of information Act? Perhaps the Minister could address that point in his response.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will be open-minded about the Bill. Indeed, we shall be critical where necessary but I hope that we shall also be constructive. I am delighted to know that the Minister will listen carefully. I trust that he will be prepared to accept amendments which will improve the Bill.
4.5 pm.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to be speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats who welcome the Bill. We thank the Minister for his overview and for telling us a little about the genesis of the directive, because it is within the context of the manifesto statement to "bring rights home". There are two other parts of this tripartite mission—the Human Rights Bill and the proposed freedom of information legislation. It is rather nice to think that we will be discussing the detail of the Bill in the Moses Room, as we are not talking about matters on tablets of stone.
There is much work ahead of us. As the Minister said, there are general themes which arise from the directive which are reflected in the Bill. They are social, practical themes such as privacy and personal information; the impact on society of this novel legislation; the legislative changes that will flow; and the detailed points of overlap and possible conflict and possible inexactitudes with the other two parts of this tripartite effort.
There are some people who should be thanked in the context of the Bill. I refer first to Geoffrey Hoon, the Minister, who was rapporteur in Brussels in the European Parliament. When the government here were hostile—indeed, fully and totally hostile—to this legislation, we had a British voice who spoke up most clearly and who was also the rapporteur. Secondly, I refer to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill with his human rights legislation and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
There were also people who blocked the Bill, both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, on the government side. That was perhaps partly due to ignorance of the development of information technology, partly due to an inborn desire in terms of historical British governmental attitudes to control information on British citizens and partly due to a desire not to share that knowledge for mistaken reasons of freedom of trading. I should also mention the very early support for this frame of thinking by Lord Kilmuir, who, in the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, took a "one nation" view; in other words, a respect for each other's views, which inevitably leads to respect for personal privacy data.
The kernel of the legislation—that is, the meat of the Bill—seems to me a fresh attempt to create an oasis of individual privacy for each European Union citizen or resident in face of the octopus of largely electronic knowledge which so many others from so many walks of life now have on each and every one of us, while not lessening the flow of knowledge, one of our essential European Union freedoms.
The Minister mentioned the fact that many people have knowledge about us; indeed, all of us are on at least 137 different computer systems. There is also the difficulty and expense of accessing that information. But the knowledge that someone has such information about you is possibly the most difficult thing to accept. So this is an important piece of legislation.
450
On the down side, there is our obligation as a European Union member state within the Treaty of Rome and the single market Act not to inhibit the free flow of knowledge. That is just as important—or is it?—as privacy of the individual. I shall return to the fact that it is a difficult balance to strike, but perhaps I may just congratulate the Government on their efforts as regards human rights, freedom of information and data protection.
The latter is, of course, an inherited piece of legislation. It emerged in October 1990 when it was clearly stated why it was being created. The European Parliament was consulted by the Council on whether or not there should be a directive on the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data. The mission statement was endorsed by the European Parliament in 1992 when it said that it would adopt a directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data. How does the much modified directive look today, eight years on from 1990? That is not eight years old in computer terms but octogenarian because the free flow of information technology has outstripped all of the initial proposals.
Indeed the 1984 convention, stemming as it rightly did from the Council of Europe convention of 1981, has stood the test of time remarkably well. However, we look at it differently now in the light of the Government's new efforts to take Europe seriously and to bring rights home. I suggest that privacy is a novelty for United Kingdom citizens. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech on Bringing Rights Home stated:
"The Government is not introducing a privacy statute".
He went on to say, with regard to the media, that,
"strong and effective self-regulation is the best way forward in the interests of the press and the public. Lord Wakeham has begun the task of strengthening self-regulation".
On the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill on 3rd November the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, commented that that Bill,
"nevertheless introduces into English law for the first time a right to privacy-.—[Official Report, 3/I 1/97: col. 1259.]
With his great knowledge the noble and learned Lord added—I do not suppose that he could resist it—that in 1351 it was an offence to eavesdrop and that,
"listening under the eaves of your neighbour's house was considered an infringement of his privacy".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, perhaps summed up the matter when he commented in the same Second Reading debate on the Human Rights Bill, in the context of privacy versus public interest, that,
"the right to free speech, like the right to respect for one's private life, is not absolute".
He went on to say that the,
"European Court has also emphasised the importance of ensuring respect for the personal privacy of oneself and one's home".—[Official Report, 3/11/97: col. 1241.]
As a result of incorporation, the noble Lord said, the UK has a positive obligation under the convention to secure the right to privacy in domestic law. Our courts are likely to create it if we do not in Parliament. In other

451
words, a common law of privacy will be developed if we do not do so in Parliament ourselves. I wish to set a marker here that we must consider which concept we put first in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, under our European Union obligation we must put personal privacy first. That point was clearly stated in one of the debates in the European Parliament which I can quote if necessary.
Be that as it may, the Data Protection Registrar sees the Bill as a partial privacy law. I suggest that as such it is a new initiative. I repeat that it was strongly opposed and with great hostility by the previous government. Why is a partial privacy law, or something stronger, needed? I refer again to the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who stated that he thought that as a free born citizen, if his home were invaded by a public authority without just cause, he had a remedy but that his rights would be weakened under the new convention where he might be told it was allowed to happen for the economic well-being of the country or for the protection of his own or someone else's health. However, it is curious to note that those considerations already apply and have nothing to do with a new European convention.
In a few moments I shall mention health records. This country, with its National Health Service, has a unique stance on health. In my view it is all too unique in the sense that the Secretary of State for Health owns the health records of all those who use the National Health Service, presumably 99 per cent. of the whole population. That is a distinctive position indeed in the context of European Union citizenry legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in talking about the balance of the right to privacy versus freedom of expression, asked, at col. 1247, why,
"this country—alone among European nations—should fail to reconcile these competing principles in an acceptable manner?".
I suggest that it is because our situation in law is historically different. We have no written constitution and our citizens have not had the right to privacy that perhaps they assumed they had. Common law gave no right to protect one's reputation. Even the Swiss constitution of the 1720s gave the citizen a right to protect his or her reputation. Virtually all the developed economies including the US—I emphasise that to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—have a right to privacy. The United Kingdom has stood alone in that we have not developed that right to privacy, possibly because of the lack of a written constitution.
I seek to prove my point further. Let us consider what happened during the early days of the directive. It was considered by Standing Committee B in the House of Commons. I was a Member at the time and I believe that the government were either ignorant or misleading on the material they put before the committee. The directive was considered again by Standing Committee B in the House of Commons in 1994 when again the government deliberately misled the committee, or had a lack of understanding of what the directive sought to achieve. As I understand the position, the Minister at that time talked about the free movement of all data. We are discussing only the free movement of personal data
452
in this case. It is not a matter of hampering the free market by preventing the movement of all data; this is purely a question of the privacy of individuals and their personal data. The directive was considered twice in the European Parliament in 1992 and 1995. 1 am sorry to say that the United Kingdom abstained in 1995. The Times said that we opposed the directive. That was not the case; we abstained. I refer to related legislation, the Human Rights Bill and the Data Protection Act 1984.
During that period, some of us in the United Kingdom worked to construct a mosaic of personal privacy legislation without the relevant legislative underpinning. A little of that was included in the copyright Act. I created the computer hacking legislation and co-sponsored the access to medical records Bill. I submitted an access to employee records Bill. Others submitted similar material in both Houses of Parliament. However, those attempts were not successful because there was no underpinning of a right to privacy on the part of the British Parliament. Why is privacy now needed? I shall take a moment to consider that. If we have left it aside since 1351. why do we need to return to it in 1998? We are now all members of the global village. As I see it, homo habilis turned rapidly into homo mobilis. With the development of speech it is tempting to suggest that he turned into "homo chatterbox" and even "homo eavesdropper" and "homo gossiper". It is almost as if the need to know about each other's lives and actions in the finest detail forms an essential part of human understanding. Perhaps it reinforces our identities. Or, in the pre-paper, pre-radio and pre-electronics era, perhaps it was virtually the only realistic way of gathering immediate topical knowledge rapidly.
For whatever reason, today the global village mimics the pre-industrial era way of life so closely that we now know all, or nearly all, there is to know about each other. Remorseless electronic scrutiny by government, the media, security, or insecurity, forces, expose our every facet of behaviour. The difference lies not in what is known about us but by whom. Today it is not the neighbours, the schoolmistress, the doctor, the vicar, the postman, the milklady or the village shopkeeper who collect and store knowledge on us and share it with others. It is strangers, even potential enemies such as blackmailers, thieves, murderers, paedophiles or rapists. Potential threats also come from government and government servants.
I return to health and social services records. The data collection in which government and government agents now indulge is dramatic and far-reaching, and is unknown to most citizens. A free society owes its citizens a duty to try to stem that invasion of the privacy that we in the United Kingdom have effectively never had.
When one talks about data collection, one is immediately challenged that one is trying to protect politicians. I am not interested in privacy for public figures. My interest lies in privacy for ordinary citizens. A public figure is not a private person. One sacrifices privacy for a cause when one chooses to take up the banner of politics, religion, and so on. Questions may still arise regarding the treatment of public figures; however, I suggest that they do not relate to the public

453
figures themselves. I ask whether or not a person's family should not be sacrosanct, particularly the children.
What about accuracy? All those of us who have been used to media coverage, in this Chamber and elsewhere, know full well how many times we get close to a story and find out how inaccurate it is. I speak particularly of the print media, not of radio and television. Radio and television came later into our world and have light legislative straitjackets. They have a duty of accuracy inbuilt. The print media do not—I wish that they did.
And what about the right to reply? It is supposed to be there. It is mostly not exercised. The privacy of private citizens concerns me deeply. Their privacy can be destroyed regularly. and is, by the intervention of the media or from outside sources, even from government.
How has the European Union protected its citizens? There, again, lies a point of difficulty between ourselves and other European Union states. There are extreme variations between the national laws of member states on data protection. Greece is still shaking from the aftermath of the use of military files on its citizens. It has no legislation at all. Denmark has a fully thought-through system and has had a register for a long time. Germany has a federal spread of difference. Indeed, I believe that the current directive stems from Stuttgart—and Stuttgart is a city whose citizens really like to be private. Perhaps too much flexibility, rather than too little, has been put in place to allow the directive to function. However, European Union fundamental principles are at stake.
Then, of course, there is the great spread of knowledge. To take the example of surveillance, of those who can watch us, there are advertisements for equipment that is freely available. It can be purchased with no legal hampering at all. It calls itself "equipment to end uncertainty". It may end the uncertainty of the person who listens; it creates multiple uncertainty for those who are listened to. There are room and telephone transmitters; body wires; wire taps; radio and computer controlled systems; specialist receivers and recorders; recording and transmitting equipment; and counter-surveillance equipment. Those examples represent a very small fraction of the material that is on offer. Is there a means to protect yourself if your opponent is extremely complex and sophisticated? What about encryption? The US is indeed a superpower in that field with its investment in global permanent listening and recording sweeps of telephone calls, faxes and E-mails permanently and internationally. Is privacy possible at all today?
Realistically, the answer is no—not with the big brotherhood of global satellites in operation. But practically, on the ground and in most circumstances, the answer is yes—if we can work at it, as a determined element of a nation's culture. We cannot look to the IT industry, for example, to protect us. Staff loyalty is not there. In the computer field there is negligible loyalty to the employer; and negligible loyalty, therefore, to employer records, because 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of employees in the computer industry move every year. There are 50,000 vacancies which are very highly priced. The rapidly growing demand in quickly outdated skills means that computer people are
454
highly skilled, always restless, always looking for something new, some way in which to exercise their skills more efficiently, and therefore they do better to move on. There is no practical reason for them not to do so. Let us think of that for a moment in terms of government, particularly in relation to health and social security records. UK citizens have enjoyed no similar privacy rights to those of other citizens. That is the novelty of this legislation.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to public access to personal files. Access has been offered to us as a palliative instead of privacy. It is not a nirvana; it is a second best. If we look at access to personal files in Russia and East Germany, we look at people going to see their KGB and Stasi-held files. There is a Pandora's Box of suspicion.
However, I do not believe that such horror stories strengthen the case for government secrecy. They demolish it. Trust is the basis of civil and family life, as are openness and transparency. The informer society destroys the bond on which society is built.
So there are some areas of conflict in this piece of legislation. I turn to data-matching. We may feel that our records are safe within individual public service sector departments. We are wrong on two counts. First, matching takes place interdepartmentally; and secondly. there is inadequacy of control against invaders from outside. All are against incompetencies within the system, where the duty of accuracy may not be understood and there are insufficient funds in government to put the matter right.
In relation to data-matching, we should possibly talk about database linkage. We held a statutory instrument debate on that subject on 18th December. There may be a need for government departments to put together a working group. An example is DTI work on British standards. The Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and other departments all have IT work flowing through which will be impacted by current legislation.
The best defender of the individual's interest is the individual. The problem is that, against government, the individual has no weapons at all. Ownership should be the key. Perhaps Britain could take a leadership role and explore the possibility of European Union citizens having ownership of records that government hold on them—except, of course, in cases of security, such as the United Kingdom police computer, and, in cases of tax-gathering; namely, the Inland Revenue. In that way we could give back to the citizen that which the Government have on him or her. That would fit very well indeed in terms of health records with the smart-card genesis.
I suggest that we examine ownership of records. that we explore with the media codes of conduct—which are no substitute for legislation. If media intrusion on the lives of private citizens is to be allowed by means of an exemption from the Government, I suggest that we put those codes of conduct before this House in order to examine them. I suggest also that exemptions in secondary legislation should be examined closely, since semi-governmental bodies are also affected.

455
The Government have talked about bringing rights home. But they have not yet answered the question, "To whom?". I suggest that within this Bill we can explore the possibility of those rights coming home to the individual citizen.

Iraq
4.28 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Private Notice Question asked in another place on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"On Saturday, I held a two-hour meeting with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss how best to deal with Iraq's continuing refusal to grant full and unrestricted access to UNSCOM teams. This meeting formed part of our intensive efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. I am also in regular contact with P5 colleagues. I met Russian Foreign Minister Primakov on 26th January and spoke to French Minister Vedrine on 29th January. Our P5 partners are also active: President Chirac has sent an envoy to Iraq and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Posavalyuk is returning there after his talks with Tariq Aziz ended inconclusively last week. We support these latest efforts to try to end the deadlock.
"The UK is now taking the lead in the Security Council. We have prepared a draft Security Council resolution which we will be discussing with our Security Council partners. The SCR makes clear once more that Saddam Hussein must obey the will of the international community. He must allow full and unrestricted access to all UNSCOM teams and reveal all details of his past WMD programmes.
"Saddam Hussein is persisting with his attempts to thwart UNSCOM's vital task of destroying and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM cannot carry out its duties properly while Saddam continues to deny access to presidential sites. Nor can there be any deadlines for UNSCOM to complete its work. The Security Council must be assured that all of Iraq's WMD and related facilities have been destroyed. Even then UNSCOM will have to go on working perhaps for many years to ensure that they are not rebuilt.
"Saddam must be left in no doubt of our determination to secure his compliance with Security Council resolutions. Although we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, we have not, nor will we, rule out the use of force. The best way for us to achieve a diplomatic solution is to prove to Saddam that we are prepared to use all means necessary to ensure that he complies.
456
"As a precautionary measure, HMS 'Invincible' has been deployed to the Gulf and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces in the northern Gulf waters. It will be replaced by HMS 'Illustrious' in due course.
"The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the sufferings of the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. The difficulties and the hardships that they face result from Saddam's failure to meet his international obligations. Even when offered a chance to provide for his people through oil-for-food arrangements, he repeatedly refused to avail himself of the opportunity. Since the scheme's introduction. he has cynically obstructed its implementation on several occasions.
"The United Kingdom has repeatedly taken the lead in proposing and steering through the Council resolutions on oil-for-food. We are especially pleased that the Secretary-General will be reporting to the Security Council later today with recommendations to improve and enhance the programme. For the sake of the Iraqi people, we shall give his proposals our strong support.
"Iraq's WMD capability remains a serious threat. Iraq has developed the knowledge, the know-how and the equipment to produce biological and chemical weapons on a horrifying scale. Despite all that UNSCOM has achieved, we cannot he certain that important parts of that capability are not being retained. Without fully effective UNSCOM monitoring Iraq could produce enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads and could within weeks be producing a range of other deadly chemical and biological weapons. It is vital for regional and international peace and security that Saddam Hussein is stopped."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.33 pm.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Statement. The Opposition remain resolutely supportive of the Government's objective to explore every possible diplomatic initiative available to resolve the current crisis. We continue to deplore Saddam Hussein's open flouting of the will of the international community through his now protracted refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions. One can only be suspicious that his prevarication masks his determination to move his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to new sites, linked directly to impede the monitoring progress.
Our position remains as set out in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion. If Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted, the key to achieving this lies in his own hands: full compliance with Security Council resolutions, including as a first step unrestricted and unconditional access for UNSCOM inspectors and an acceptance that it is for the chairman of UNSCOM to determine the composition of inspection teams, and not Saddam Hussein.
Equally, we on these Benches remain supportive of the Government's decision to keep open the military option should all these diplomatic efforts fail. We fully

457
endorse the Government's decision not to speculate at this time of painstaking negotiation on the manifold military options available. If, however, force proves necessary, can the Minister give an assurance that clear objectives will be set and announced to the House at the appropriate time so that the many questions put to the Minister from noble Lords on all sides of this House are answered in full?
Can the Minister also inform the House about Britain's decision to draw up a new Security Council resolution to canvass support for the course of action being pursued by the United States and Britain? I was sorry to learn that this most important initiative was first announced to The Times and not to Parliament but, be that as it may, what are the objectives of this resolution? Will it focus exclusively on unrestricted access or will it be drafted wider to cover Saddam Hussein's breach of his international obligations?
Finally, given the terrible suffering imposed on the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, we welcome the proposal to improve and enhance the oil-for-food programme, because this can directly benefit the people and not the Government of Iraq. Can the Minister kindly enlarge on the details of these proposals, especially since the Government have announced today their support for them in this House? I reiterate our support for the Government in standing firm against the forces of tyranny and aggression. On behalf of the Opposition, I assure the Government of our continuing support for the actions they are taking to ensure that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations.
4.37 pm.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is the second Statement on Iraq within the past few days and I suspect it will not be the last. We welcome the Government's willingness to keep both Houses informed of progress and to insist that diplomatic objectives and resources must be explored fully first but that force cannot be entirely ruled out and that all necessary measures have therefore to be pursued. We all accept that the problem of dealing with the Government of Iraq and the personality of Saddam Hussein, dominating as it is, is a very serious one.
We also accept that what is now taking place with the UNSCOM teams provides a precedent for what undoubtedly will be other inspections for biological and chemical weapons with particularly appalling international regimes. May I ask the Government to clarify a little more what the objectives of any limited use of force would be? I was rather concerned to see the American Secretary for Defence, Mr. Cohen, quoted in this morning's newspaper as saying that military action can provide no adequate substitute for having UN inspections scrutinising sites on the ground. The question of what the purposes of limited military force in Iraq might therefore be, how far that takes us and what potential escalation might be involved does therefore seem to be a very serious one.
Secondly, stressing that we are acting on behalf of the international community, may we be assured by the Government that our allies in the United Nations and
458
particularly our allies in the European Union are being actively consulted as this progress goes on? Can the Minister also assure us that the UNSCOM teams which, as the Government have informed the House, have been rather overstaffed with British and American participants, will be clearly representative of that full international community?
Lastly, as Mrs. Albright herself recognised this weekend that actions by the United Nations towards Iraq and actions towards Israel are closely linked, and that indeed the threat which Iraq provides is also a threat to Israel, can we be assured that the British Government in these consultations are concerned to make sure that UN policy towards the Arab/Israeli dispute also leads to acceptance of UN resolutions as well as in the case of Iraq? Opinion in the Arab world is being exploited by Saddam Hussein. The perception within the Arab world that the Israeli Government are able to get away with not accepting UN resolutions whereas the Iraqi Government are expected to accept them all in full is one of the problems with which we have to deal. Diplomacy has to be concerned with restoring peace to the whole of the Middle East as well as to Iraq.
4.40 pm.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their resolute support at this time. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for assurances that there are clear objectives and that these will be set and announced in due course. The clear objective is the implementation of the Security Council resolutions and in that respect untrammelled access of UNSCOM teams to sites in Iraq whenever and wherever they judge these to be right and not at the direction of Saddam Hussein.
The noble Lord raised the question of a Statement to the House in due course about military objectives. I am happy to assure the House that I shall make a Statement when I am able to do so, provided it is consistent with ensuring the security of British forces in the area, something that I am sure the House would wish me to stress.
The noble Lord also asked about the statement to be made by the Secretary-General expanding the oil-for-food provisions. At the moment those provisions extend to 2 billion dollars a year. As I understand it, the Secretary-General will suggest that they be expanded to 5.2 billion dollars. That will be a very considerable expansion, which will enjoy the support of the United Kingdom Government. We wait to see how other colleagues in the Security Council react. I believe that that illustrates very clearly the point I made: our quarrel is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq. Our commitment to humanitarian aid for the people of Iraq is, I hope, amply demonstrated by the fact that we shall support the Secretary-General in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked very reasonable questions about the military forces in the area and the military objectives. However, I believe the House will agree with me that it would not be

459
reasonable for me to answer those questions at the moment. They are being addressed and are under constant review.
The noble Lord also asked about the involvement of the European Union. It is always important to ensure that one's allies are moving in the same direction, but I remind the noble Lord that this is essentially a question for the United Nations. It is the breaking of United Nations resolutions with which we quarrel and it is through the United Nations that we shall seek to ensure that we reach a united decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what the resolution was likely to contain. It is at the moment still under discussion. I hope that we shall be able to reveal whatever comes out of the negotiations with our allies, but at the moment the contents are a matter for discussion and negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about the composition of the inspection teams. The UNSCOM teams undertaking the latest rounds of inspections comprise 44 personnel drawn from 17 different nationalities. I hope the House will agree with me that that represents not a complete domination of the teams by any single national group but the will of the United Nations as a whole.
4.44 pm.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we have not yet exhausted all diplomatic means of persuading Saddam to comply with the Security Council resolutions, which is, as she said, the fundamental objective at which we are all aiming? While Mr. Primakov and M. Vedrine are still engaged in their shuttle diplomacy, we must allow them every opportunity to persuade Saddam to draw back from the brink.
Does the Minister also agree that Resolution 687 providing for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction does not itself authorise military action against Saddam in the event of his failure to comply and that it is therefore obvious that the new Security Council resolution about which she spoke will have to contain the authorisation for military action and will therefore have to have the support of France and Russia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that every effort must be made to pursue the diplomatic channels. We wish every good fortune to Mr. Primakov and M. Vedrine in their efforts to secure that.
The noble Lord also asked about Resolution 687. I believe that that resolution and its successor resolutions give plenty of authority to the UN to move forward on this issue. It is because we recognise the importance of pursuing every diplomatic channel that the United Kingdom Government are seeking a further resolution, not only to give further opportunity for Saddam to think again—we are attempting to give him every opportunity so to do—but also to demonstrate that this is not a question just for the United States, nor a question just for the United States and the United
460
Kingdom nor indeed for the P5 countries but an opportunity for the whole of the Security Council to demonstrate a unity of purpose. We shall be looking for that unity of purpose to come from the whole of the Security Council.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that for the first time since this whole fiasco started in 1991 I am today encouraged by the heavy emphasis which is being placed on diplomatic efforts to solve this problem? Will my noble friend also accept that I am even more encouraged by the very substantial proposed increase in the oil-for-food provisions to be put to the Security Council today? Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to bear in mind in relation to her comment that our quarrel is with Saddam and not with the people of Iraq—something which I have always accepted—that when governments wage war it is the people who die.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his welcome to the Statement and the emphasis which it places upon the importance of diplomacy and humanitarian aid to Iraq. The suffering of people when military action becomes necessary is well understood, but I hope that your Lordships' House will not be in two minds over this issue. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that. if military action becomes necessary, the cause of that military action will be the intransigence of Saddam Hussein and his failure to comply with Security Council resolutions and the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War as part of the price for ending that war. He has chosen to break those agreements. I am afraid that, if he continues in his intransigence, the difficulties that will flow from that can be laid only at his door.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the drainage of the marshlands of southern Iraq has given Saddam unparalleled access to two of his close neighbours with tanks and ground-to-ground missiles, which, despite being classified as conventional weapons, can traverse an area the size of Wales? With that in mind, will she suggest to her colleagues that, if there is to be bombing of Iraq—and we hope that there will not be—bombing of the dams in the marshlands of Iraq would restrain Saddam's military output and also restore the marshlands for the marsh people of Iraq, who badly need them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is aware of the dreadful suffering inflicted by Saddam upon the marshland Arabs. The noble Baroness makes suggestions about the way in which any form of military engagement might be taken forward. I thank her for her thoughts on the subject, but I am sure that she would not expect me to respond in detail to the suggestion she puts forward. An important point is involved here. The fact is that during its period of inspection UNSCOM inspectors unearthed enormous quantities of weaponry in Iraq, many more weapons than were used during the course of the Gulf War. They found 48 Scud missiles together with a large quantity of missile components; 38,000 tonnes of chemical weapons

461
munitions; 38 chemical missile warheads; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents and 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapon precursors. In addition, they found a large biological weapons manufacturing plant dedicated to the production of anthrax and botulinum toxin. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that they have not yet found all the weapons. Knowing of that belief and of what has already been discovered, I hope the House is not in any doubt about the importance of UNSCOM continuing its vital work in Iraq.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we all share the horror at what UNSCOM discovered and the way Saddam Hussein is prepared to continue with the development of such terrible weapons? Nevertheless, many of us feel a real anxiety about his willingness also to use his own people as human shields in any military conflict. We feel that there may be a dreadful slaughter of ordinary, innocent people in Iraq with whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have no quarrel. In the long term that can only do immense damage both to this country and to the United States in our relationships with the whole Arab world.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. Indeed, I do not know a single individual to whom I have spoken about the serious position evolving in Iraq at the moment who has not voiced exactly the fears put so eloquently by the noble Baroness. As a result of that, any action must be placed under constant review. I can assure the House that the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness will be taken fully into account.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, bearing in mind the possibility that military action may be used, can the Minister say whether she envisages such action being intended to destroy the weapons to which we take exception or whether the aim will be to force or persuade the Government of Iraq to take that action themselves?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any military action will be taken in the light of circumstances and developments at the time. It would be injudicious and wrong for me to go any further in making statements about military objectives when the United Kingdom has servicemen in the area. I hope noble Lords will bear with me in the assurance I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that, as and when I am able to make statements to the House about military objectives, always ensuring that such statements in no way jeopardise the security of British servicemen, I shall make such statements and render myself accountable to the House.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the chemical weapons found by inspectors have been destroyed? It was part of the deal that not only should United Nations inspectors be allowed to inspect, but that, having been found, Saddam was under an obligation to destroy. How many weapons in fact have been destroyed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the UN inspectors uncovered and eliminated the full list of weapons I gave to your Lordships' House a short time ago.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I rise as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission and it is right therefore that I declare an interest. I wish to speak to this Bill as it affects the privacy of individuals and the freedom of the press.
At the heart of the directive which this Bill implements is the protection of an individual's right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data. The challenge for the Government has been to construct a Bill which produces safeguards for ordinary citizens, but does so with appropriate exemptions for journalism that will ensure that the right of those same ordinary citizens to know what is going on in the world is not undermined. In other words, they want to achieve that difficult balancing act of safeguarding both personal privacy and freedom of expression.
In doing that the Government have had to face up to two difficulties. The first is that the directive's definition of "personal data" is extremely wide, covering virtually any information relating to an individual, including details of political opinion, trade union membership, racial or ethnic origin and philosophical beliefs. The second is that the definition of processing specifically includes, for the first time, the use of material for journalistic purposes; and in turn journalism, of course, relies on the use of all the information covered by the directive.
The very real danger in the combination of those two points is that the directive could be used to introduce a regime that would gravely damage the freedom of the press, undermine investigative journalism and wound the system of effective self-regulation that we have built up—and that is the point with which I am principally concerned.
The directive recognises that such problems might occur, and allows for member states to grant exemptions from its terms for journalistic purposes or for the purpose of artistic or literary expression. There are some minor points of detail in the Bill which perhaps need ironing out. That said, I have to say that in my view the Bill steers a sensible path which avoids the perils of a privacy law and achieves the crucial balancing act—of privacy and freedom of expression—in a clever and constructive way. There are two points I would commend in particular.
First, in relation to the question of pre-publication injunctions, there was always a danger that the Bill might produce new powers for the rich and the corrupt to take out gagging orders against newspapers preventing publication of material which is true but uncomfortable. That would have been deeply damaging

463
to investigative journalism. The Government dealt with that in an astute way. Clause 31 of the Bill ensures that the powers available in the legislation only bite after the publication of a story, not before. The Government therefore looked at the possibility that the Bill might be used to introduce injunctive powers relating to privacy and rejected the idea.
Secondly, I commend the way in which the Bill deals with the public interest defence, and in particular the way in which it enshrines the pre-eminence of freedom of expression. The exemption in Clause 31(1) specifically points to the special importance of freedom of expression. Again, the Government clearly looked at the dangers inherent in a Bill which might introduce a back-door privacy regime and rejected the idea because of the dangers posed by such a regime to freedom of expression.
If I may, I should like to make one point specifically relating to the Press Complaints Commission. There was always a danger that the implementation of the directive without suitable exemptions would undermine self-regulation, because privacy laws, whether grown here or in Brussels, do not mix with self-regulation. But that has not happened. The Bill itself strengthens individuals' rights. but it does so in a way which complements rather than undermines the dispute resolution service offered to ordinary people by the Press Complaints Commission.
The Bill is therefore a sound one—thanks in no small part to the constructive and thorough consultation process undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in advance. It protects the privacy of individuals—which we all believe is vitally important and is indeed an important part of the commission's work—but does so in a way which does not diminish the freedom of the press to report and investigate in the public interest. And it strengthens the rights of ordinary people, but does so in a way which does not undermine press self-regulation. For those reasons alone, it will have my support.
However. I have to say to your Lordships that one thing greatly puzzles me and it should give us all cause for concern. The thing that puzzles me is that the Data Protection Bill and the Human Rights Bill, which this House has been considering, seem to exist almost in different worlds, for the truth is that they present two entirely contradictory sets of policies. The Data Protection Bill does not introduce new powers for the rich and the crooked to gag the press. The Human Rights Bill does the opposite. The Data Protection Bill does not introduce a back-door privacy regime. The Human Rights Bill does. The Data Protection Bill safeguards the position of effective self-regulation. The Human Rights Bill may end up undermining it.
The Government consulted on the Data Protection Bill, listened to the potential problems, analysed them and then produced an excellent piece of legislation which avoids all the perils of a privacy law. It is entirely in line with the Government's stated commitment to self-regulation and their opposition to a privacy law.
The contrast with the Human Rights Bill is dramatic. There was no true consultation or dialogue before the Bill was published, or even since then, while the Bill, at
464
every turn, seems to present new and ever more serious problems, not just for the press but for many other organisations which are involved in some form or other with self regulation.
I think that this piece of legislation is right and the Human Rights Bill is wrong in its consequences. It is my hope that the Government will now reflect on the lessons learnt during the consultation on the data protection directive.
5.1 pm.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I play a small part in the world of insurance and loss adjusting. I have received a brief from the ABI and heard representations from the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, although most of what I have to say comes from my own observations.
I welcome this Bill in today's massive data processing world. A Bill that strengthens the rights of individuals against such power is to be welcomed. It incorporates Article 1 of the European directive, which states:
"Protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their rights to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data".
As the Data Protection Registrar states, the new law,
"is a partial privacy law".
It seems to me that one of the main methods of ensuring such freedoms is to give the subject greater access to the information; and this the current Bill certainly does. But there is another side to data protection, and that is to protect companies and businesses from false information that individuals can present which then results in a fraud.
Current fraud in this country is estimated to be running at £16 billion a year. A timely headline in today's Independent states:
"Nigerian Crime Wave Sweeps through Britain".
The article goes on to state that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are involved, but so are banks, building societies and insurance companies; in fact, the whole of the financial sector. Commerce does not have such powerful resources and so has to co-operate to fight such activity, for it is a fact that the serious fraudster in one sector is frequently involved in many other sectors—be it university applications for grants by fictitious identities or local authority, bank or insurance fraud. In the detection of fraud co-operation between parties is essential and has huge data protection ramifications. In such situations the companies are at the frontiers of the individual's privacy.
Unfortunately, the fighting of fraud cannot be left to the police. They do not have the resources and see such activity as being in the realms of the commercial world to sort out. When the assistance of the police is required there is a current ACPO policy to the effect that insurance companies should receive information only in appropriate cases. The definition of what constitutes an appropriate case is far from clear and frequently results in no co-operation. I have witnessed a case in which the only piece of information required to satisfy the insurance company was the verification of the date that an individual reported a theft of a £5,000 motorcycle; data

465
that was not covered by the Data Protection Act. Nonetheless, the reason for non-disclosure was quoted as being the Data Protection Act. Such lack of co-operation is surprising, given the role that insurance companies play in educating the public on such issues as neighbourhood watch, domestic security and a host of other crime prevention activities. It is my understanding that the police, in the form of the ACPO crime committee, will be reviewing this policy in March.
The Data Protection Act is frequently misunderstood and misquoted by the police. It is therefore important that everyone, including the police, fully understands the provisions of this Bill. For as late as last September the deputy data protection officer from the data protection office of a prominent provincial police force wrote, and I quote:
"Simply put, the Section"—
he was referring to Section 28 of the 1984 Act—
"permits prosecuting authorities to obtain data from users for the prevention and detection of crime and not for organisations to require the police to disclose".
The officer was quite wrong. It is an enabling provision which allows the exchange of information in defined circumstances to anyone, including the police. The same issue is dealt with in Clause 28 of the Bill. I should like to return to that part of the Bill in a moment.
The first point I should like to make about the Bill is that, because it incorporates the European directive, it has found itself written in legalese. This is a Bill that is concerned with individual rights and freedoms and as such it should be capable, as far as possible, of being read by such people. By contrast the 1984 Act was brilliant for its simple and concise English.
In Schedule 1, principle 1—the paragraph dealing with the fair and lawful processing of information—makes for difficult reading when compared with the 1984 Act. In order to process data two new conditions have to be met—the legitimacy tests in Schedule 2 and the sensitive data test in Schedule 3. The judgment can be a complex matter. What is meant, for instance, by the "vital interests" of the data subject mentioned in Schedule 2? It could be that the whole processing process depended on such interpretation. Many people would say that getting their insurance claim paid in full or their loan agreement granted was a vital matter, but I doubt whether that is the correct interpretation. The interpretation of the first principle, dealing with the fair processing of data, in the 1984 Act took up 15 lines of legislation; in the Bill there are 60. The insurance industry has a concept of fair processing, as understood by the 1984 Act. This concept has not caused the industry problems on claims' handling. Does the Bill alter this concept of fairness?
Under Clause 7 the data user has, for a prescribed fee, the chance to access personal data on a register. At present the fee charged, usually £10, is on the basis of each entry for which the data is used for a different purpose. Thus, if an individual wishes to find out all the information that police files hold on him, it is likely to cost in the region of £220. I am glad to see, reading this Bill, that this will no longer be the case.
466
Under the same section the subject has access to the logic involved in automated decision-making. I can see this causing difficulties. For instance, does it include weighting or scoring factors? What is meant by the logic involved?
I now return to Clause 28, which is the clause which possibly holds the greatest threat to the individual's privacy and yet it provides the essential mechanism that allows commerce to fight crime—for, in the case where data are being processed for the prevention and detection of crime, it allows the collection of data to be exempt from the first principle and to be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions. But the first principle now includes the lawful processing of information. Does the clause, as drafted, now allow the unlawful processing of information? That cannot be right.
Finally, I would like to mention enforced subject access. That is something that the Data Protection Registrar wishes to outlaw and it is not mentioned in the Bill. The only comment that I would make is that at present it is the only available method of obtaining certain personal data legally, although it is fair to say that it is onerous on the individual. I am glad that the Minister is going to include this in the Bill so that each party is aware of its rights.
5.11 pm.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, we should not be under any illusions as to the need for data protection legislation. As Simon Davies, director of the Washington-based watchdog group, Privacy International, has observed,
"Surveillance technology has become more powerful and wider ranging than ever. Personal information has come increasingly to cross national boundaries, sidestepping national privacy laws. And the emergence of the Internet has brought with it a whole new dimension for potential intrusion into privacy. Meanwhile, the rules that protect us all from snooping by state and private interests become more meaningless by the day".
At the outset, like my noble friend Lord Wakeham. I should put on record that the Minister deserves much credit. His introduction revealed a most generous approach to the technical aspects of the Bill, which will be enormously beneficial. And, as a recent The Times leader commented, he
"has shown political courage in framing a broad exemption for journalism, research and literary material, without which this legislation could have introduced a privacy law by a side entrance. At worst, it could have imposed a blanket law of press censorship".
That the Government, in the form of the noble Lord, has sought to reconcile the competing interests of the right of free expression and the freedom of the press, as against an individual's right to privacy, is to be applauded. My noble friend Lord Wakeham has already covered the greater part of this ground much more authoritatively than I can and so I do not wish to dwell on it. Suffice to say that my own impression is that the balance has been struck about right.

467
Lest the Minister feels that I am being unduly deferential, I am bound to say that, in other respects, I have serious reservations about the Bill. Speaking in December 1994 the then commissioner responsible for the single market, Mr. Raniero Vanni D'Archirafi, stated that efforts to create an information society in Europe,
"will be in jeopardy if there is no co-ordination of rules for the exchange of data".
This concept is enshrined in the directive itself. While acceding to the different approaches that member states may have towards the right of privacy and data processing, it states that these may,
"constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of a number of economic activities at Community level, distort competition and impede authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities under Community law".
Clearly, an underlying purpose of the directive is to facilitate data transfer within the European Community to the benefit of commercial, governmental and other interests. It is ironic, therefore, that the Bill carries with it a heavy burden in terms of the costs of compliance. As Ruth Lea of the IoD has stated,
"However laudable the aims of the legislation, extra costs will be piled on firms".
And from the Local Government Management Board:
"While we support the aims of this Bill, finding the money to implement it will be yet another burden on authorities whose backs arc already up against the budgetary wall".
I acknowledge that these costs are, in the words of the Minister, "guesstimates", but, especially in the light of current misgivings about the likely financial impact of resolving the millennium bug, my suspicion is that they could well be an under-estimate.
Financial considerations aside, the Bill's apparent lack of acknowledgement of technological advances is disturbing. Simon Davies has commented that:
"The current British law was already a decade out of date when it was enacted in 1984".
I share that view. The Bill before us today is essentially little more than a re-casting of that legislation with the additional, and more rigorous, requirements of the EU directive thrown in for good measure. In effect, it is almost a quarter of a century past its sell-by date. For example, it makes no attempt to regulate either data-matching or the use of data from public or private CCTV systems. As the Home Office itself has admitted, "The Directive"—and thereby the Bill—
"does not specifically address new technology. It sets a general framework which will apply irrespective of the technology used".
With this in mind, and at what may be a slightly facetious level, I presume that Rory Bremner's "virtual" Minister without Portfolio is an instance where Clause 31 would apply. There is a serious point here. In so far as it may have administrative or commercial applications, the Bill is singularly lacking in any definition of how the technologies of "morphing" and/or "virtuality" are to be treated.
At a more pressing level, your Lordships will be aware that last year's Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act sanctioned data-matching between
468
government departments for the first time. I note that, during Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, stated that,
"We shall want assurance that the Bill provides adequate safeguards for data protection. We believe that that may be best achieved, as the data protection registrar says, through a statutory code of practice".—[O1ficialReport. 17/2/97; col. 465.]
The Bill is an opportunity to enact such a code, but it is curiously silent on the matter.
Of course, the underlying purpose of the measure was the rooting out of fraud. I also acknowledge that, as a generality, data-matching can be interpreted as being at variance with a number of the data principles. It could therefore be argued that the Bill does provide the means to control its use and application, particularly in the light of the prior-checking provisions in Clause 21. But this represents a far from adequate safeguard against such a powerful and potentially misleading analytical tool. This is especially so because,
"A disturbing aspect of the Bill as a whole is that in no less than seven instances the Secretary of State will be able to introduce additional exemptions from the Act by statutory instrument".
Justice, in my view, quite rightly, has described it as "unprecedentedly wide".
More than this, a conspicuous feature of the Bill is the extent to which processes within central government are in any event exempted from its provisions. Little wonder that the cost of compliance for Government is comparatively small. On the surface there may be little cause for complaint for the reasons for the exemptions "safeguarding national security", and so on. But as the Data Protection Registrar has commented there is,
"no justification for making provision for the blanket exemption for certain types of data for law enforcement and tax raising purposes".
While accepting that it is a difficult balance to strike, people nonetheless fear the innate capacity of the state to overreach itself in data terms; a capacity which is perhaps best encapsulated in Clause 28(4). By way of example, the DfEE's recent proposals for a national computer record of every pupil's social, economic and ethnic background, as well as academic results and special educational needs, was quite rightly criticised by the Data Protection Registrar.
Like my noble friend Lord Astor, I am also concerned about how the Bill will interact with the Internet. While it could be argued that the composition of their content is a word-processing function, e-mail programs automatically generate a series of personalised database fields in their headers. By any measure these accord with all three definitions of "data" and with that of "processing" in Clause 1. Accordingly, except in so far as they may be subject to the various exemptions in Part IV, all e-mails could be interpreted as being subject to Clause 16. In effect, individuals—perhaps those of your Lordships who use the Internet services of the PDVN-could be required to notify their data processing activities. This is of a piece with the concern expressed by the CBI, as my noble friend Lord Astor explained. I wonder how proportionate the apparent inclusion of those classes of processing is.
In this context, it is worth considering the provisions relating to the eighth data principle in Schedule 1. To all intents and purposes, the Bill is structured so as to

469
prevent data transfer to third-party countries where the level of data protection is deemed to be inadequate. Quite apart from the difficulties that this creates with respect to transfer by means of home pages on the world wide web, this has very serious implications with respect to e-mail. Notwithstanding Schedule 4, it is entirely possible that the Bill, as drafted, could have the inadvertent effect of blocking the access of UK citizens and businesses to entirely legitimate e-mail communication to certain areas of the world.
Of course, notwithstanding their "public" nature, the same elements of processing apply to Usenet and the world wide web. Specifically, the composition of home pages and newsgroup postings, particularly those that contain statistical information or references to individuals other than the compiler, are almost certain to fall within the remit of the Bill. In this context, it is worth noting that the recent difficulties of the President of the United States owe much to the way in which the Internet currently operates. It was an Internet scandal sheet, the Drudge Report, which broke the story. The content of these web sites—they are frequently referred to as "junk media"—represents neither journalism nor artistic expression in the accepted sense and thereby would lie outside the scope of Clause 31.
Equally, it is "personal data" which are being processed in ways that are inconsistent with the data protection principles. Is it intended that such sites, if they originate within the UK and have UK-based content, should be subject to the Bill? Would they be classified as "in the public interest"? At a more general level, how will the concept of "publication" be interpreted in relation to postings to the Internet? To what extent will Clause 52 be applicable to individuals who innocently download postings on the "net" to their own computers? How is it intended that the Bill will treat closed and/or secure systems, for example, credit card facilities on the net or even the PDVN?
In conclusion, I do not dispute the Data Protection Registrar's description of the Bill as being both "timely" and an "excellent framework", but it is not without its faults. The BMA's eloquent description of previous data protection law as being
"a load of holes joined together"
comes to mind. Such leaky sieves assist no one. As the Bill continues its passage we shall need to guard against perpetuating that sort of regime. The generous approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will make our task very much easier.
5.24 pm.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to it. There are, however, one or two points that I should like to raise and I should be grateful for the Government's response.
I recently introduced a debate in this House about abuses by the press. I said at that time that I was in favour of an independent ombudsman since I objected to journalism which was invasive of personal privacy, and that although I did not advocate a privacy law, as
470
some have done, I thought that there should be some form of redress for injured citizens. Replying to that d0ebate, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. appeared to indicate that this Bill would give the opportunity for further debate on those issues—and so it does.
It is widely recognised that there is a need to reconcile two apparently conflicting rights: the right to personal privacy and the right to freedom of expression. A number of noble Lords have referred to that this afternoon. Broadly speaking, journalists tend to give greater emphasis to the latter freedom whereas those who have been damaged tend to stress the former, the right to privacy. The point that I should like to raise is whether the Bill gives greater weight to the freedom of information and expression to the disadvantage of the right to personal privacy.
Clause 2 sets out what are regarded as sensitive personal data—and I think that most people would agree with them. They include data about racial or ethnic origin; political opinions; religious or other beliefs; trade union membership; physical health and, importantly, sexual life, as well as commission or alleged commission of offences. On the other hand, as we have heard, Clause 31 appears to provide for some exemption for journalists and literature and art where so-called "public interest" is involved. But what constitutes "public interest"? It surely should not be interpreted as public curiosity.
Article 17 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1996, requires that,
"No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. family, home and correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation".
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while upholding the right to freedom of expression, states that that freedom may be subject to other conditions and restrictions relating particularly to the interest of national security, the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.
Article 9 of the directive, on which I think that the Bill is based, says that derogations and exemptions cannot be granted to journalists as such but only to anybody processing data for journalistic purposes. That is what I thought that most journalists did anyway. There would appear to be a let-out under Clause 31 in the event of public interest, but individuals are, so it is said, entitled to adequate forms of redress in the case of violation of their rights.
It seems to me that the key question of "public interest" is now widely interpreted by the media as giving them the right to say what they like and to invade the privacy of anyone who is even slightly "in the public eye". Most people have never heard of some of the Back-Bench parliamentarians about whom stories have been written, but presumably a "public interest" defence would be mounted by the press if taken to task, even if there had been breaches of the press code.

471
It is sometimes suggested that a distinction might be made between ordinary individuals and those who have placed themselves in the public domain, such as politicians. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, made a similar point earlier. I do not see it in that way. I do not believe that people sacrifice their human rights simply because they have opted to play some role, at whatever level, in public life. As I said in the debate that I introduced on 14th January, libel action is only a possibility for the very wealthy. The forms of redress open to others are not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, completely adequate. They do not include compensation. Does the Bill as drafted raise the possibility that compensation will be available? If so, I would be grateful to hear about it.
The intense competitiveness of the media industry and the growth of the use of the Internet (where anything can be made available immediately) mean that the kind of media frenzy that we have seen in the past week or so in the USA is equally possible here. The safeguards against it are not adequate, and although I do not want to see interference with the right to freedom of expression or with genuine investigative journalism, I believe that individuals could still be left dangerously exposed to malice and hurt. I noticed with interest that the highly respected organisation, Justice, makes a similar point in its briefing, which I received today.
My second point may at first glance seem to run counter to what I have just said—and yet it does not. I make a sharp distinction between what most people would regard as genuinely personal, family and sexual matters, and possible fraud or crime.
Your Lordships may be aware that for a long time I have maintained an interest in the financial services industry. I was once employed in insurance, and the union of which I was a senior official has many members employed in the financial services industries. I should like to follow up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in that connection. One of the major problems in the industry is insurance fraud. It is amazing what some people will do to claim on the insurance. According to an article in Post Magazine this week, motor insurance fraud alone accounts for everyone having to pay an additional 3.9 per cent. on premia to cover the cost. Arson cases have more than doubled in the past 10 years. There are now over 80,0(X) cases resulting in £500 million of insurance claims. All of us have to pay for it. It is as anti-social in its way as social security fraud, about which the Government are quite rightly concerned.
Much of the investigation into possible insurance fraud is conducted by people known as loss adjusters. They have their own institute, with whose representatives I recently had discussions. They are concerned about certain clauses of the Bill because they believe that they will make their jobs much more difficult, possibly resulting in even greater losses for which policyholders will ultimately find themselves picking up the tab in increased premia. For example, they say:
"The Bill states that the data subject … must have freely given agreement to the investigation of himself/herself'.
472
They believe that this could result in a suspect fraudster preventing an investigation which would validate the fraud. They go on to make the cogent point:
"Unless the initial contract of insurance is accepted as permission by the policyholder to any subsequent investigation, in the event of a claim, the process of fraudulent claims investigation will be thwarted".
The Bill also requires information to he held no longer than is necessary for the purpose for which it is collected. Accordingly, tiles on fraudulent claims, once concluded, must be destroyed. This does not assist the industry in protecting against future fraudulent claims by the same individuals. Apparently some people have a habit of making dubious insurance claims. They go on to say:
"The data subject will be entitled to request details gathered upon him/her. This must he complied with within 40 days. This will not assist the investigation of fraudulent claims … Personal information/data obtained, for instance, in the investigation of a fraudulent claim, cannot, under the Bill, be sent from any European member state to a country that does not have a Data Protection Act or something similar. In the current world of global insurance and hence fraud, reports cannot therefore be sent to insurance clients in numerous countries, including the USA. Many US insurers operate within the UK with reports on major claims above a certain reserve having to revert hack to the US for instruction. This will be prevented by the Bill".
They also question whether investigators of insurance claims will in future need some form of licence to operate.
I believe that those are legitimate concerns to raise, and I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would respond to them.
5.33 pm.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am director of the parliamentary group EURIM, which has been closely involved in data protection for some time. EURIM exists to put corporate and not for profit associations together with MPs and MEPs to debate policy issues arising out of information and communication technology and to lobby Brussels and, if necessary, Whitehall. The very first project in which EURIM was involved in 1994 concerned the second draft of the European Data Protection Directive. We recognised then that the simplicity of the 1981 Council of Europe Convention had been lost in the directive. I believe that others have made that point. We were concerned about bureaucratic rigidity and automated decision-making. We recognised that the second draft allowed cash dispensers to be used satisfactorily but we still had a query about automatic profiling for marketing.
At that time the British Bankers Association was concerned about trans-border data flow. It felt that if that were restricted it would restrict the association in preventing or limiting fraud. We had a query about the interpretation of manual data and worries about the term "consent", express or implied. A year later the Council of Ministers made significant changes to the directive. We looked at it again. It was then that we made our first call for UK primary legislation to implement the directive. We also recommended that the UK made maximum use of the new and significant EU derogations to minimise the adverse effects on us in the UK relative to our 1984 Act.

473
We recognised that "express consent" had been altered: it was now called "explicit consent", but our doubt about the scope or meaning of the word remained. We also looked, as indeed is the Minister today, for a balance between the reasonable needs of corporates for marketing opportunities and the reasonable needs of individuals to avoid unwanted mail. We still asked what was "manual data". We suggested that structured files only should represent the manual data brought into the Act, and only such structured files as were set up after the implementation of the directive by the Act.
A year later, in July 1986, we, like many others, responded to the Home Office consultation. We were still concerned about bureaucratic rigidity. We then called for the function of the registrar to be more like that of a parliamentary commissioner and, perhaps because of the knowledge of my fellow director MPs, we recognised that anyway the registrar reported to Parliament, not the Home Office. We were perhaps the first to make that call which the directive will now establish.
We called for the registrar's advisory role to be enhanced and for fees to be delinked from registration and to be variable and work-related—all things that are beginning to happen under the new Bill. We still believed that primary legislation was highly desirable and that attempts to simplify the directive must continue. Our concern about cross-border exchange of data had changed to a concern that the protection arrangements for certain countries would be deemed inadequate.
I believe that the Bill offers four out of the seven changes that we put to the Home Office in July 1996. The areas that still remain open on EURIM's agenda are: bureaucratic rigidity, the fact that the Bill adds complexity rather than simplification, the problem of cross-border data exchange and, from the early EURIM briefings, the question of what is manual data and what is consent.
Before I deal with the detail, I was the third member of the team involved in the briefing by loss adjusters, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have already mentioned. I should like to deal with these matters from a slightly different angle from previous speakers. I begin with personal data which is defined as data whether it is gathered with or without the consent of the data subject. Clearly, investigators will be gathering data without such consent. Can they comply with Schedule 2? Is investigation a legitimate interest of a data controller?
Let us take two examples, the first of which is insurance claims. We have already heard about a proposal form with a box that may be inserted. One may have to put an "X" in the box if one is not prepared to have the insurer investigate the claim. If one puts an "X" in the box perhaps one does not get insurance. Is this a legitimate form of consent under the Bill?
Let us take the divorce courts. Instead of corporates doing the investigation, now it is very likely that individuals will make checks on potentially errant spouses. Are they legal? Clause 28(1) exempts the
474
prevention of the detection of crime, but what happens if there is not a crime in the first place? It is a civil action. What is the position of the police if they investigate a possible crime and find that there is not one? Have they then collected data illegally? If investigators fail under Schedule 2—exemption six—is all investigation short of a crime now illegal? Even if exemption applies and an investigation is lawful, is it ever fair?
How does one define "fair"? Under the 1984 Act which referred to data, manual data or data where equipment is operating automatically, investigators stayed as manual as possible and thought that they had avoided the problem. I support the registrar's determination to have a clearer definition of the manual records covered by the Act. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is open to suggestions. I hope that the insurance and investigative industries will return to us with some thoughts on that. We need the long transition period that has been talked about.
I turn to consent: explicit or implicit? Schedules 2 and 4 require the data subject's consent, but Schedule 3 requires explicit consent. That implies a lower level of consent needed for Schedules 2 and 4. Is the box on the proposal form a consent to investigate claims? Is that a fair consent? Is that consent acceptable?
Let me turn to another example. One of EURIM's members is busy trying to put an electronic directory around the globe. There is concern as to whether it has the right to put up the personal data represented by employees: names, jobs, telephone numbers, fax numbers and E-mail numbers. If that becomes part of the standard employment contract will that be an acceptable form of consent under the Bill? If it were limited, for example, to the fact that anyone becoming an employee agreed that they should put their business details out to countries which otherwise would be excluded by the eighth protection principle, would that be acceptable? Will implied consent in a standard employment contract satisfy the consent required in Schedule 4?
I turn now to data principle five. If UK law requires that insurance liability files are held for 10 years for court purposes, presumably that is a period which is necessary under the terms of the Data Protection Act. Let us go further and look at advice coming out of the USA in respect of US court judgments on liability claims where files are held by UK insurance brokers, which may possibly include personal data about people in the UK. They need not necessarily be UK people but people within the UK. Is that acceptable in terms of the period for which files may legitimately be held? One can be even more extreme and talk about a EU regulator—perhaps a French regulator—requiring files to be held in case they have to return to a French court. What is accepted with regard to explicit or implicit consent? Will the commissioner have the power to decide, in a pragmatic and practical way, when files are no longer needed for the purposes for which data are gathered?
I shall deal finally with complexity and bureaucratic rigidity. The Bill is made complex by its many objectives. Bureaucratic? I have been impressed by the

475
registrar's efforts to implement the 1984 Act through common sense. Agreement to her few remaining points may help to reduce the bureaucracy further and add to the practical simplicity of the Bill.
The Bill is of course just one of three legs, as we have already heard: freedom of information, human rights and data protection. The balance, as the Government have said, is complex. The good news is that it outlaws major injustice; equally, the bad news is that most of us have never been involved in major injustice, and we are all constrained. Costs have been added all around, as other noble Lords have said. I have a Library document which suggests that set-up costs for compliance alone will total £279 million. "Set-up" worries me because it suggests that computers may need altering. EURIM, under a different set of briefs, has been busy advising Ministers to he careful about new legislation which requires computer change. There are insufficient computer skills to handle the year 2000 and changes to EMU at this time, let alone to handle further major legislative changes which require massive computer change.
I have a long-held theory—I do not necessarily expect others to agree with it—that the collapse of civilisation will not occur because of the nuclear bomb, nerve gas or a meteorite striking from space. It is much more likely to occur because of the ever-increasing costs of trying to obtain fairness. Where is the 80/20 rule today? Where is it in our legislation? The theory behind the three Bills is great, but we survived without them. Can we afford their cost? I hope that the Minister will he able to answer some of the points that I have made.
5.45 pm.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, this has been an interesting and exceptionally well-informed debate, given the complex nature of the subject that we have been debating. I pay a special tribute to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, which showed her long experience of the matter in issue. The Government genuinely welcome all the contributions that have been made, and the spirit in which they have been made.
As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in his introductory remarks, the Government are open to suggestions for improving the Bill. We shall look carefully at the suggestions that have been made today to see whether any amendments need to be made to deal with the concerns that have been expressed. Any amendments must, of course, be consistent with the directive's requirements and reflect the Government's general approach to proportionate regulation.
In his introductory remarks my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn referred to the Human Rights Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, also referred to it. My noble friend saw this measure as a sister measure to the Bill. Another related measure, as has been pointed out, which the Government intend to bring forward before too long will be the legislation on freedom of information.
Data protection and freedom of information may not be sisters, but they are at least kissing cousins. In providing for access to government information, we
476
must be careful to ensure that proper regard is paid to the need to protect individuals' personal data. That will be an important consideration as we develop our proposals on freedom of information.
The Bill has received a broad welcome, in principle, from your Lordships. No one has questioned the principle behind the Bill. That principle, which underlay the Data Protection Act 1984, is that proper rules should he laid down for the processing of personal data, and that people should generally know what information is being processed.
When processing information, data processors should be obliged to comply with the data processing principles set out in the Bill. Those principles include processing personal data fairly and lawfully. Those are worthwhile aims to which everyone would subscribe. The difficulties involved in a measure such as this, which have in effect been identified by everyone, relate to trying to find a balance between, for example, what burden should be placed on corporate, charitable and government compliance; a balance as to what exemptions to provide from the scheme; and a balance on how to preserve the freedom of the press. The fulcrum of the debate has revolved around those three matters today.
I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised. I shall not go in detail through all the points that have been mentioned. That is a pleasure in store for us when we reach the Moses Room, I hope. I shall deal with the important principles that have been raised. The first relates to cost. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that one of the themes that he would be pursuing throughout the debate on this matter on behalf of his party would be the burden to be placed upon industry in complying with the Bill. We have seen the estimated costs for start up and compliance with the Bill's provisions. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said, they are no more than guesstimates.
A balance must be struck between the size of the burden that is put on industry and the right of people to know what is happening in relation to the processing of personal data. Where the balance is struck depends largely on the extent to which one imposes burdens in respect of personal manual files. Reference was made to the fact that the Data Protection Registrar wonders about the extent to which unstructured files will be exempt from the Act. We must debate that issue further at a later stage. However, the less structured the files which are covered by the provisions of the Bill the greater the cost to industry to comply. That balance must be struck and the Government will listen with interest to all comments made during the debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, went on to ask why the definition of data processing is so wide. He asked why it is not defined by reference to the data subject, as in the 1984 Act. The answer is that according to the directive to which we are giving effect it cannot be so limited. The noble Viscount raised concerns about insufficient protection for intellectual property. He will see that under Clause 8(5) trade secrets are a reason for refusing to give the information to which he referred.

477
The noble Viscount was also anxious about whether the provision could be used as a base to obtain information which would enable the commission of crime such as fraud. Clause 28(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to grant exemptions in order to avoid the commission of crime and to assist in its detection. That provision could be used if such a problem arose.
The noble Viscount described the Bill as being too prescriptive. In order to avoid a proper debate, he sensibly gave no examples. Unlike the Human Rights Bill, the Data Protection Bill tries to lay down a detailed code. It must do so under the terms of the directive. That is an appropriate and sensible way of dealing with the Bill without saying that it cannot be improved without sensible amendments. On the other hand, the Human Rights Bill intends to lay down general principles. It is more sensible that that aim is achieved in a shorter, less detailed Bill. It attempts to inform the whole of our law with a series of principles rather than seeking to lay down a code which particular individuals can use in order to protect themselves in relation to personal data and its use.
Perhaps I may move from the, "it's too heavy" line, used by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to the, "there are too many exemptions" line, adopted by a number of other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, eloquently expressed the "sensibleness" of press exemption. No one could have expressed the arguments in favour more eloquently. The only criticism that has been made during the debate came from my noble friend Lady Turner who expressed concern about the public interest exemption. Without wearying your Lordships with reference to detail, perhaps I may indicate the requirements of the clause before the exemption applies. Three rules must be complied with. First, the processing must be undertaken for journalistic, literary or artistic material. Secondly, the person undertaking the processing must reasonably believe, having regard in particular to the special importance of freedom of expression. that publication would be in the public interest. Thirdly. he must reasonably believe that in all the circumstances compliance with the provision in question is incompatible with journalism. I draw attention to the phrase "reasonably believe, having regard to the special importance of freedom of expression". In my view, in such circumstances "public interest" does not mean that the public are interested. It means something wider than that; namely, that there is a public interest having regard to the special importance of freedom of expression, but in relation to a particular story the press should be free to express it. I hope that that explanation goes some way to allay my noble friend's fears.
Three other issues were referred to. First, enforced subject access means someone compelling someone else to use his rights in order to obtain information pursuant to his rights under the data protection provisions. The Data Protection Registrar has indicated that she believes such an activity to be extremely bad. The Government, in their White Paper, stated that they would do something about that because they, too, believed it to be
478
bad. Provision is not yet in the Bill, but we have indicated that we will bring forward amendments to do so.
Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with data matching. I emphasise that the first data protection principle provided in the Bill is that data should be used fairly and lawfully. We believe that that will deal with data matching to a large extent. Moreover, whenever data matching has been permitted it has been explicitly by statute. Although we shall give anxious consideration as to whether anything else needs to be done in relation to data matching, we believe that to a large extent the matter is dealt with under the existing Act.
Finally, it was said that close circuit TV was not dealt with in the Bill. We do not believe that it is necessary to do so. It is a form of data processing which in certain circumstances will contain personal data on individuals. In those circumstances, it is covered by the Bill.
Important points that we must consider were made about the insurance industry and the extent to which the Bill could be used to deal with or perpetuate insurance fraud. It is difficult to believe that anyone would regard it as possible or sensible to enter into an insurance policy as the insured, but at the same time refuse consent in any meaningful way to the investigation of an insurance claim. I believe that everyone will agree that if a claim is made under a policy the insurer is entitled to investigate it. Moreover, such a requirement is on the face of most insurance policies. No sensible person would regard that as an unfair or unreasonable consent to give. However, the appropriate course to take in relation to those questions about insurance is that we shall consider them and write to noble Lords.
There is a difference in relation to employees who give consent to their details being given to countries which do not have the same data protection rules as we do. That will require further consideration, but one can see that in those circumstances one would more readily give an unreal consent than one would in relation to an insurance policy. However, perhaps I may make arrangements for a letter to be written to deal with that point.
I hope that I have dealt with the main and important points in relation to the Bill. The introduction to Parliament of the Data Protection Bill can be regarded as the beginning of the end of a very long process. That process started as long ago as 1990 when the Data Protection Directive was first brought forward by the European Commission. There followed a long period of negotiations leading to the adoption of the directive by the member states of the European Parliament on 24th October 1995. The subsequent period has been taken up by consultation about the implementation of the directive within the United Kingdom and preparation, in the light of responses to that consultation, of the Bill which your Lordships have before you.
Although this whole process may be drawing to an end, we have a long way to go yet. In some senses, getting the Bill through Parliament is only the first stage. Even when the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, much will remain to be done. It has been pointed out that the Bill provides a large number of powers to be made in

479
subordinate legislation. Much of that will need to be in place before we have a new coherent data protection regime.
We also need to ensure that all those affected by the Bill understand its effects for them. Data subjects will need to know what are their new rights and data controllers will need to know what are their new responsibilities. That suggests the need for guidance of some kind.
Each year in her annual report the Data Protection Registrar includes some information about awareness of the Data Protection Act 1984 by data users and subjects. Her most recent report for 1997 stated, if I have read it properly, that awareness of the legislation increased to its highest level in the period covered by the report. That is a very welcome finding. We must ensure that when the Bill becomes law, we build on the already high awareness of the 1984 Act and make sure that all those affected become aware of their new responsibilities and rights under the Bill. In that way, we shall have taken an important step towards ensuring that as we venture further into the information age, we do so within an effective legislative framework for the protection of information about you and me and all our citizens which will last well into the 21st century.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gulf War: Illnesses
6.5 pm.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve provision for ex-service men and women with Gulf War illnesses.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As anxiety grows hourly about the prospect of a second conflict in the Gulf, this debate is about the men and women who sacrificed their health in the service of this country in the first. Their claim to the attention of your Lordships' House is one of compelling priority. Having been fit and well when, in Kipling's words, the band began to play, many are now very seriously ill. Others have already gone to their graves with a deep sense of injustice, leaving behind aggrieved dependants, some of them wives who were widowed when young and fear poverty when they are old.
The Gulf War ended almost seven years ago and the debate provides an opportunity for Whitehall and Westminster to address with a new sense of urgency the problems and needs of those afflicted and bereaved. I am in no doubt that is how my noble friend the Minister will see this debate. Nor can anyone doubt the depth of commitment my honourable friend, Dr. John Reid, the Armed Forces Minister, brings to his responsibilities for
480
those with Gulf War illnesses and their dependants. As I said publicly on 17th January, when a number of veterans returned their campaign medals to the Ministry of Defence, 1 am sure John Reid will come to be acknowledged as the best friend they ever had in Whitehall. No one knows better than my honourable friend that, fully to understand the sense of anguish and at times anger felt by veterans with unexplained and undiagnosed illnesses, you have to be one of them. But he is demonstrably on their side.
I have an interest to declare in the debate, but not a financial one, as The Royal British Legion's honorary parliamentary adviser for many years and a founder member of its Gulf War Group. The group was set up in 1993 to press for urgency in providing medical help and in dealing with war pensions and other forms of compensation. Since then its range of activity has grown to include every issue of interest and concern to the afflicted and bereaved.
Selected group members visited the United States to compare provision for veterans with Gulf War illnesses there and in the UK. They then wrote papers for the Commons Defence Committee that were included in its report to government. Other members were appointed to all of the epidemiological study teams investigating veterans' illnesses and are making a major contribution to the progress of research into their causes. Again, partly due to the Gulf War Group's pressure, the MoD's Medical Assessment Team was strengthened and work on encouraging veterans to come forward for medical assessment was given a higher profile.
Ably chaired by Colonel Terry English of the Legion, the group includes parliamentarians from both Houses of Parliament; representatives of the ex-service charities; Major Ian Hill and Flight Lieutenant John Nichol from the veterans' associations; and both senior doctors and members of the legal profession. Among the group's parliamentarians, no one has contributed more to its work than the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Edwina Currie has also given long and distinguished service, while the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has made a strong and valued contribution on the use of organophosphates. Paul Tyler MP, a newer member, adds to the impact of an initiative that accords with the highest traditions of the RBL.
Yet while the group's work has been reassuring and of much practical help to veterans, many strongly insist that more urgency is needed to save lives. They are deeply concerned by Group Captain Coker's departure from the Medical Assessment Programme (MAP); and some complain not only about discontinuity in senior staffing but also of a lack of sympathy with their condition. It will thus be helpful to know what further action is being taken to restore the veterans' confidence in MAP.
There is concern also about serious delays in processing war pensions and preventable hardship among veterans in urgent need. One example is the case of Gunner Tom Ford, late of the 2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery. He first applied for a war pension in 1996 but his case has yet to be fully addressed. Having fought Saddam Hussein and then struggled to cope with

481
his Gulf War illness, Tom Ford now has to fight for his pension too. And, of course, even if and when he succeeds it will be no passport to la deice vita. Far from it: indeed to have to live on a war pension alone is to recall a moving further passage from Kipling:
"Think what 'e's been,
Think what 'e's seen,
Think of his pension an.—
GAWD SAVE THE QUEEN".
But week by week, month by month, year by year, Gunner Ford has to wait and wait and wait again even for his war pension.
I know my noble friend will want to have the processing of war pensions and war widows' pensions for Gulf War veterans and their widows urgently reviewed in the light of this disturbing case.
Meanwhile I shall be grateful for any information he has on when Group Captain Coker's long-awaited report on the findings of his initial review of the patients he has assessed will be published. Veterans hold Group Captain Coker in very high regard. They will be glad if he can be reinstated as Controller of MAP, and perhaps my noble friend could let us know if and when this might be possible when he replies to the debate.
Anything he can say about new initiatives to deal with shortcomings in the medical administrative system, of which many Gulf War veterans complain, will also be helpful. What is being done to ensure, for example, better maintenance of medical records for serving personnel and an efficient transition from medical services in the Armed Forces to the NHS when their engagements end? Again, can my noble friend say whether there is any likelihood in the near future of a veterans' register being established for men and women leaving the services?
My noble friend is aware that I first raised in 1996 in another place, with the then Armed Forces Minister, a possible link between the undiagnosed illnesses of some Gulf War veterans and the destruction by US troops in March 1991 of ammunition bunkers at Khamisiyah in Southern Iraq. UNSCOM inspectors later identified the site as an Iraqi chemical weapon storage plant and found there munitions containing chemical agent, a sombre reminder today of the awesome threat to human life of the sort of weaponry available to Saddam Hussein as he demonstrates yet again his absolute contempt for UN Security Council Resolution 687.
The Minister's reply to my question was that only one British serviceman was deployed in the area of the fall-out plume when the bunkers at Khamisiyah were destroyed. I understand that this must now be drastically revised upwards and I shall be grateful for any more precise details my noble friend has of the numbers of British service personnel who could have been contaminated by fall-out at Khamisiyah.
There's a further issue that threatens to become of increasing concern and is worthy of mention in this debate. I refer to the report of increasing birth abnormalities identified in Kuwaiti children. Not unnaturally, that is very disturbing to veterans of the Gulf War who want to see all available information on
482
the nature and scale of what has been happening in Kuwait. After a recent visit there, when I talked at length with Ministers, including the Minister of Health—a doctor—I was convinced that much might be gained from increasing our knowledge of the very serious effects of the Gulf War on the health of the civilian population of Kuwait. That also is something on which my noble friend may wish to comment.
I come now to my concluding point. Governments are fond of saying—I speak as a former Minister—that with individual rights go responsibilities. That must ever be so and it is clearly true also that power, not least that of governments, carries with it heavy responsibilities. After all, what governments do conveys a more eloquent and enduring message than what they say. The relevance of all this is that the MoD is the biggest employer in western Europe: and thus how those who serve it and their dependants feel about its employment policies is highly important to the moral authority of government as a whole. As I said at the outset, I am totally sure that Ministers are deeply aware of this and I know that my noble friend, my parliamentary colleague for more than three decades, will respond to the debate both positively and with his customary humanity.
The vast majority of the British people want the most generous possible treatment for those afflicted and bereaved in their service. Our debt to them cannot be measured in money terms: but lack of money inflicts hurtful indignities. Let us, therefore, resolve today that the best way of demonstrating our regard and admiration for those who served us with such distinction and gallantry in the Gulf is to meet in full what I am sure your Lordships' House sees as an undoubted debt of honour.
6.14 pm.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for initiating this important debate. As the Minister will know, I tabled a Written Question to his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in July of last year asking whether the findings of Group Captain Coker, submitted to the Gulf War inquiry when he was posted to the US in 1996, had been or were to be published. In reply, I was told that the first draft of a paper concerning the results for some 500 patients under the medical assessment programme had never been completed but that a total of 1,435 patients had now been seen by MAP and the consolidated results would be published later in the year.
I was also pleased to learn that Group Captain Coker would be closely concerned with the work, which would supersede his original draft. Indeed, I was favourably impressed by the energy and the resources put into addressing the question of Gulf War illness and the Gulf War veterans by Ministers. I read the paper,Gulf Veterans Illnesses, a new beginning, published by the MoD as evidence of the new approach on 14th July 1997. I wonder whether any of this would have happened without the long struggle conducted by my noble friend Lady Mar in this House and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others, in the other place.

483
The MoD paper refers to the reports of dead animals, to scout tents and to the concerns expressed by the Department of Health in late 1990 about pertussis vaccine. It is no thanks to the MoD, I fear, that any of those issues have been identified and acted upon. On the contrary, questions on the first two were regularly rebutted, as were the concerns about the use of organophosphates by our own people. It is one of the saddest ironies that we are dealing with friendly, not enemy, action and its consequences and with a culture within the ministry which was, rightly I fear, characterised by the Defence Committee as, "instinctive defensiveness and insularity", and insensitivity of a high order. It is deeply unfortunate that most of the new research programmes set in train by Ministers will not be reporting until 1999 and 2000 respectively. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on for the veterans. Where is the review that was promised for the end of 1997, and is Group Captain Coker, who I understand is no longer working with the group, in agreement with the findings?
The MoD paper that I mentioned referred to the treatment of veterans still serving and said that they will be treated by the Defence Medical Services. If that refers to treatment in this country, I should be very interested to know how many are receiving such treatment and where. In December of last year it was still the case that virtually all the beds in at least one of the MDHUs were occupied by non-service geriatrics. When Group Captain Coker did his initial work, I believe that he was grossly overworked because, clearly, the Defence Medical Services had been cut to the bone under Front Line First, that splendid Treasury exercise in short-term economy and long-term disaster.
Were money and lack of staff the reasons why, although the Defence Committee recommended a full-scale epidemiological study as long ago as 1995, no real effort was made until July 1997? Equally, one of the constant themes of the veterans—and the issue is often raised in this House—has been the difficulty of access to medical records and, indeed, the loss or destruction of relevant medical events. The Defence Committee was told that 15,000 such events had been lost. Both my noble friend Lady Mar and I had quoted a figure of 10,000 (not all related, of course, to the Gulf War).
In the MoD paper we are told that,
"what can be found will be made public in due course",
and that the Government intend,
"that veterans should have access to whatever information the MoD possesses which might he relevant to their illnesses and is determined that what can be found will be made public".
All that is very reassuring. I recognise that Ministers meant what they said and that both money and effort are being put into changing things for the better. But there is a very great burden of distrust which must be shifted. No amount of research, to be available two-and-a-half years hence, will help veterans who have been kept waiting for six years, who are ill and who may well wonder what their claims will be worth when the seven years, when the presumption for each claim is in the claimant's favour, run out.
484
The immediate question is: why is Group Captain Coker, the man who originally recognised that there was a case to answer but whose report was not published and the man who Ministers brought back and in doing so reassured many, no longer apparently involved? Why is there such a disastrous lack of continuity in the staff of MAP? Where are the detailed results that were to have been published at the end of 1997, once the new database had been created?
The Government must not lose the momentum of the actions that they have taken since July of last year. It is essential to establish a veterans' register, to reinstate Group Captain Coker and to ensure that the Defence Medical Services and MAP in particular have the staff to deal promptly and sensitively with the urgent needs of veterans who have had too little attention and have been up against a faceless bureaucracy when they needed prompt answers.
In another debate on organophosphates in June of last year, I urged that the research that was being funded jointly by the MoD, MAFF and the Health and Safety Agency should have an independent co-ordinator, with no ministry connections, free to take evidence under privilege, and someone who could not be required to delay or even suppress evidence on the grounds of some greater good. We, and the veterans above all, need to know that there are no more time bombs of undisclosed knowledge ticking away. In the context of the Statement we heard earlier today it is perhaps even more important than before for servicemen to be given cause to trust the Government and to feel that the services look after their interests. I know that the Minister has given proofs, as have his colleagues, of real concern, but this is a crisis of confidence. The veterans have rights and those rights have been ignored.
This is a moment when we must not wait for reviews and research groups and above all we must not allow the Treasury termites to eat away the serviceman's trust in his service. There can be nothing more important than that.
6.20 pm.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing this important subject in your Lordships' Chamber.
I must declare an interest. I work for The Royal British Legion, the country's leading ex-service charity, which receives no financial help from the Government and can only provide benevolent assistance and advice through donations to the Poppy Appeal. It is significant that the Legion's pensions department now handles over 90 per cent. of all claims going to appeals tribunals, of which there are some 10,000 annually.
The early announcement by the Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid, of, Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning, the commissioning of new research and the more open approach to the disclosure of information have all been widely welcomed by veterans and the Legion alike. Nevertheless progress is inevitably slow and there is no immediate relief. The Legion continues to monitor the situation on behalf of the inter-parliamentary group and the veterans and to

485
advise those who are suffering from possible Gulf-related conditions to ensure that they receive treatment and, where appropriate, apply for a war pension and/or compensation.
Since returning from the Gulf War in 1991, some British veterans have become ill. Many believe that this ill-health is unusual and directly related to their participation in Operation Granby. Ministers have stated that a fresh start has been made in dealing with this difficult and complex subject and have adopted three guiding principles: that all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice; that appropriate research will be carried out into veterans' illnesses and the associated factors: and that the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses.
A wide variety of explanations have been suggested for the illnesses reported by Gulf veterans. These include physical factors related to service in the Gulf, such as the effects of multiple vaccinations, taking NAPS tablets or exposure to pesticides; stress related and other psychological factors; as well as the possibility that there is no unusual pattern. What is not in dispute, however, is that many Gulf veterans are unwell and are concerned that their health may have suffered.
I would now like to address three special cases: first—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already mentioned him—Tom Ford of the 2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery. His claim for a war pension was made in July 1996 and the conditions for which he claimed were post traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue and chronic arthritis. He still has not heard whether he will receive a pension. As a result he is unable to meet financial demands regarding his house, and the housing association, which now owns it, has rented it back to him. He is a disillusioned man and believes he has been let down by the system. It is 18 months since his application was made and in the meantime the Legion has provided support to get him through the uncertain period. Can the Minister assure the House that the award of an interim payment will be considered, prior to a final decision by the War Pension Agency?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that a statement he is reported to have made to Gulf War veterans last July to the effect that the seven-year rule for claiming war disablement pensions would not apply in their cases is causing confusion and is in need of clarification? The veterans claim that they were told that the rule requiring the War Pensions Agency to disprove all claims by ex-service people within the first seven years of leaving the forces would be waived. Will the Minister also confirm that the period for claims against the Ministry of Defence for compensation has been extended from three to six years?
Thirdly, many reservists and Territorial Army personnel—over 600 people in all—deployed to Operation Granby in 1991-92 are being denied access to the attributable benefits for reservists scheme, or ABRS, on the basis that they were not medically discharged from Gulf War service. However, although
486
approximately 420 of these people are in receipt of a war disability pension as a direct result of their Gulf War service, these same service men and women were not informed that they could have asked for a medical discharge. These veterans feel that they are being treated differently to regular soldiers and thereby discriminated against. This would appear to be a breach of the outline Ministry of Defence instructions, detailing allocation of volunteers, that they would not suffer financially as a result of the deployment but would be treated exactly the same as regular soldiers similarly deployed in terms of pension entitlements.
Now that the ABRS is fully effective, as from September 1996, what steps have the Government taken to correct the technical deficiency in the regulations to ensure retrospectively that those reservists in receipt of a war disability pension, as a direct result of their Gulf War service, receive their full pension entitlement?
A Ministry of Defence letter was sent to Mr. G. A. Parker, in April 1997 regarding his claim for a pension under the ABRS. It stated that in order to qualify for a pension he would have had to have been discharged from the Territorial Army as unfit for further military service. However, his record of service showed that he was discharged at his own request. On this basis therefore he did not qualify for a pension under the scheme. He was nonetheless advised to resign from the Territorial Army and not to apply for a medical discharge, although ill health was adversely affecting his ability to meet the required standards.
Finally, Territorial Army and regular reserve personnel who volunteered for Gulf War service were told by the Ministry of Defence that in the event that they should become a casualty they or their spouse would receive the same benefits as a member of the regular forces under the provisions of the ABRS. This advice was factually incorrect, I believe, and due to an anomaly in the regulations those who became ill and injured on embodied service would not qualify. Two Territorial Army soldiers, Messrs. Bristow and Rusling, brought this to the attention of the Ministry of Defence as early as 1991-92. To date only three reviews and subsequent awards of a pension under the ABRS have been made.
These veterans have been waiting for years to have their cases reviewed. Her Majesty's Government claim we owe them a debt. Has this debt been paid?
6.29 pm.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I also am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for his Question about provision for Gulf War illnesses. I have, as your Lordships will know well, an interest to declare as president of the War Widows Association. I reiterate the question we raised with the Minister, Mr. John Spellar, when we met him last June. It is that whatever decisions are made about a change of medical opinion on Gulf War illnesses, if anyone has since died as a result of these illnesses, his widow should be treated as a war widow and consequently receive a war widow's pension.

487
According to the figures issued by the Ministry of Defence to the Gulf Veterans Association last July—the last figures it received—since the Gulf War seven naval personnel, 65 from the Army, 56 from the RAF and four civilians have died. Causes of death have been stated as suicide, cancer, heart disease, or resulting from road accidents. The last may sound accidental, but such accidents could have been caused by nerve failure. As a result, several people who served in the Gulf now do not drive cars.
To my knowledge there are six widows who could be in a position to claim a war widow's pension. One, who lives at Portsmouth, is the widow of a petty officer who was responsible for opening up the air vents on his ship after a chemical attack. Another, whose husband died of bronchial carcinoma, is only 25 and has two young children. Her husband was a bandsman in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, playing several brass instruments; so he must have had good lungs. As a bandsman he would have played outside in the Gulf area. Another is the widow of a lieutenant-colonel who served in tented accommodation in Blackadder Camp in the Gulf and who died of ischaemic heart disease, the surgeons at the autopsy saying that his heart was in much worse shape than that of a centenarian who had died just before. Another, whose husband died just before Christmas of brain tumours, has two young children, both with an identical rare heart disease. We would like to welcome those ladies into our association as war widows and give them what love and comfort we can. I urge the Minister to persuade the Government to show the same compassion for them.
6.31 pm.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for asking this Question and I echo his sentiments. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, also made some very telling comments. I was extremely moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
I wish to declare an interest. I am patron of the Gulf Veterans Association. I have a great deal of personal contact with members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served in Operation Granby and now find themselves unexpectedly suffering from a wide range of illnesses which they attribute to their service.
I am deeply impressed by the integrity of those men and women, many of them from the Territorial Army and reserve forces. They were called up for service and went to the Gulf in the knowledge that they might be exposed to any of the chemical or biological weapons that were known to be in the Iraqi arsenal. They understood that the British Government would take measures to protect them from death or illness resulting from enemy action. What they did not expect was that they would die or become ill from the effects of what might be best described as an "own goal".
It is significant that this Question should be asked just a few days before the expiry of the seven-year period
488
under Article 4 of the Service Pensions Order, and perhaps fortuitous that this morning I received a copy of the update to the Government's report, Gulf Veterans Illness: a New Beginning. It may be helpful to the Minister if I go through this in sequential order.
The Government state that the new targets for handling patients at the medical assessment programme (MAP) are now being met. If the number of adverse comments I have received about the way in which Gulf veterans are treated by the MAP doctors are any indication, I am not surprised that they are able to reach their targets, for their examinations are often cursory. Many of the Gulf veterans say that they will never attend the MAP again. I have never heard any criticism of the time when the programme was run by Group Captain Coker and Colonel Melia, despite the fact that they were working under the appalling conditions described by the reports of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. Since the departure of those two doctors, it would appear that the MAP has developed an agenda which does not include medical diagnosis and treatment for the illnesses from which the veterans are suffering.
It may help if I give two examples from letters I have received from veterans. One attended the MAP on 8th November 1997 and was seen by Dr. Hall. The veteran had left his home in Scotland at 5.30 a.m. on the day of his appointment to be at St Thomas's Hospital on time. The doctor asked his name. When he replied, Dr. Hall told him there was nothing wrong with his memory in a tone which the veteran described as "sarcastic". The doctor then told the patient that he must stop smoking and drinking 18 pints of beer at the weekends. He simply would not listen when told that the veteran did not drink at all as he had only half a kidney—he merely repeated his statement over and over again.
The veteran also had a problem with his knee and, while under general anaesthetic, had experienced muscle twitching which his orthopaedic surgeon thought should be further investigated. Dr. Hall's response was to look into the man's eyes and tell him that he had no nervous damage whatever. Asked how he sustained the knee injury, the veteran explained that he had been filling the central heating boiler with coal for his parents. Dr. Hall's response was to ask why his parents had not filled their own boiler. The veteran goes on to say in his letter:
"At this time I was feeling very confused and becoming more and more distressed and was quite literally in tears. I could not understand his logic. He totally ignored my distressed condition and then asked me why I was there and what I wanted. I explained that I wanted treatment for my symptoms, to which he replied, there is no treatment. He then went on to tell me that he had been in the Vietnam War and proceeded to point out his medals which were hanging on the wall. He said he had come back from Vietnam with no problems whatsoever … Dr. Hall then went on to say that there was nothing wrong with me and that I should learn how to get on with people better and get on with my life".
He later says:
"I left there in a state of confusion and distress and felt absolutely suicidal".

489
In a covering letter he says:
"My main concern now is that anyone else who has to attend this programme should not only be prepared but that they should not go alone".
and, as a demonstration of British troops' universal stoicism,
"My immediate reaction to all this is to throw the towel in, which is of course exactly what the MoD would wish and is perhaps their intention. I am gradually getting over it and no doubt will be able to laugh about it later".
Another veteran was seen by Dr. Spicer on 22nd December 1997. He has well documented exposure to organophosphate insecticides, initially diagnosed by Group Captain Coker. He had been told that he should ask for a follow-up appointment as his condition had deteriorated. This man has been diagnosed as suffering asthma and rhinitis, chronic fatigue and food intolerances as a result of his exposure to OPs. He had also suffered autonomic and peripheral nerve damage. He was told by Dr. Spicer that asthma was a common ailment; that chronic fatigue was a psychological problem in the heads of many Gulf veterans and was not due to Gulf service; that his deficiency in essential vitamins and minerals, a result of the food intolerances, could be cured if he purchased a box of multivitamins from a chemist; and that he did not believe the neurologist's findings of nerve damage as farmers had been using OP insecticides for years without ill effect and he had been using such insecticides in his garden without ill effect. The veteran's illness was not due to Gulf War service. My Lords, where has this man been?
In view of the veteran's deteriorating condition, Dr. Spicer was asked to read his Fmed 4, his medical records. He was also asked whether he would conduct a medical examination. He indicated that he was not interested in the veteran's case notes and that no medical examination would be undertaken. The notes were returned unopened. While he was in front of the doctor this veteran noticed a letter from D Med Health to the effect that no treatment should be offered as it would set a precedent for other Gulf veterans. When he asked to see his notes, permission was refused.
These are only two examples of the way in which attenders of the MAP are handled. I have reports of veterans' doctors being told there is nothing wrong with their patients when they have cancer or serious heart conditions, and I know that a number of these complaints have been sent to the Minister's honourable friend, the Minister for the Armed Forces. May I ask the Minister whether he believes that this treatment is in accordance with the objectives of the Government's papers on this subject? Will he also ask his honourable friend to instigate a full audit of the MAP, not some time this year, but as a matter of urgency? Does he accept that, even if these cases are a few out of many and others are treated properly, this is no way for doctors to treat patients; and what does he propose to do to rectify the situation immediately?
I look forward to the results of the research programmes, although it is a pity that they have taken nearly seven years to be arranged—not the fault of this Government, I hasten to add. May I ask the noble Lord
490
why so many British troops were inoculated against smallpox when this disease was eradicated in 1980 and only the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and China are permitted to hold small quantities of the virus for experimental purposes? The World Health Organisation specifically advises against vaccination except for workers in experimental laboratories. So what were the risks that were considered to be a danger to our troops? May I also ask the noble Lord what research has been carried out into the actual vaccine which was used? There have been a number of reports from American Gulf veterans of the adjuvant squalene and of a specific mycoplasma being detected in their blood. May I ask whether these will be looked for in British veterans?
Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in the health effects of exposure to organophosphates. The similarity of symptoms between farmers occupationally exposed to OPs and the Gulf veterans exposed to insecticides during their service in the Gulf was what drew my attention at the time of the first reports of unusual illness among the veterans. The OP investigation team appear to have made a thorough assessment of the use of insecticides during Operation Granby, but there are some very noticeable omissions which I intend to take up with the Armed Forces Minister at a later date. However, there are numerous reports from the veterans of spraying activities by people other than members of the environmental health units deployed in the Gulf. No mention is made in the OPITT reports of spraying by local Saudi labour or of evening spraying from a propeller-type aeroplane. May I ask the noble Lord why these reports have not been followed up to ascertain the pesticides used and the degree to which British troops were exposed? The reports are many and consistent, and relate particularly to Black Adder Camp.
As to the tents, I still find it difficult to accept that the tent in which a small quantity of the OP fenitrothion was detected in 1997, after it had been exposed to the elements, would not have had enough of the pesticide in its fabric to have affected the scoutmaster who purchased it in 1993, but that is a matter for debate. I also look forward to seeing the reports into CBW incidents, the anti-BW vaccination programme and the reports of dead animals.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, both spoke at length about pensions and compensation. In the general context of financial provision, may I tell the noble Lord the Minister that I have been told repeatedly by Gulf veterans that the last thing they want is litigation. They simply want an acknowledgment that they are ill; they want treatment for their illnesses—though many recognise that their quality of life and level of fitness will never be what it was before they went to the Gulf—and they want pensions for which they do not have to fight every inch of the way. Many have only turned to the law because they are angry and frustrated. To a lay person like myself, it seems madness that veterans who have had conditions diagnosed by medical consultants in NHS hospitals should have to submit to further medical examinations by, as the Department of Social Security admits, generalists with no specific training in the

491
illnesses reported by the veterans. There is no consultant on the Benefits Agency medical service lists. Do war pension agencies not trust the NHS?
I see that I have come to the end of my time. There is more that I should like to have said but I will now sit down.
6.45 pm.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have heard a number of very powerful speeches and, being less of an expert, it is not my intention to detain the House for long. I should like to touch on just two points, leaving aside the question of pensions, which was raised among others by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. The first point I wish to raise is the question of openness and transparency; and the other is the lessons we have learnt for future conflicts from this experience.
We discussed earlier today a Statement on Iraq, which raised the question of chemical and biological weapons. It is clear that this conflict is unlikely to be the last in which British troops are engaged in which these risks will be suffered. Clearly, therefore, we must consider what we have learnt and what procedures are now in place. We must consider the international co-operation in which we are now engaged with our NATO allies, and perhaps others, to investigate the diseases and problems that have been encountered and the precautions that one should take against chemical and biological warfare. Those are questions which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to answer.
I return to the question of openness and transparency. The comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, expressed exactly my own feelings as regards the need to be reassured that there are no more time bombs of undiscovered knowledge to come. The slow trickle of information from research publications within the United Kingdom and the United States worries those who have been through this experience. I refer to the incomplete information, incomplete records, and stories not yet fully confirmed, as to whether chemical weapons were released, and, if so, in what areas, and exactly which pesticides were used when.
I have consulted some of my colleagues on this subject. My noble friend Lord Falkland told me that his son served in the Gulf as an officer; and that the cocktail of chemicals which were given to him rapidly as he went out there caused him considerable problems in terms of lowering his level of immunity. It was not until he had left the Army and was in the United States that he realised that he was suffering from some long-term debilitation. He then went through a series of tests. The first assumption was that he suffered from the same Gulf War syndrome as did the Americans. It was not until some time had passed that the idea that British troops and American troops often had different experiences and had taken a different cocktail was understood. My noble friend Lord Winchilsea tells me that during his visit to Iraq in 1996 he was shown round a children's hospital in Baghdad which had a number of wards each containing 20 children from southern Iraq. They were all suffering from leukaemias and cancers. The doctors there were convinced that they had been exposed to chemical weapon fallout.
492
One learns a lot from these and other examples. Some of the reports have come from the "learned" press—from the Economist and others. They state that there has been a range of experiences not fully explained and not put together. I should like to hear from the noble Lord how far the United Kingdom and the United States are now working together to make sure that all information is collated and can be made available to those who have suffered.
6.47 pm.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords, I must express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for putting down this Question. The noble Lord has been kind enough to refer to me. He told me earlier that he would do so and I remonstrated with him then because I have in fact done very little, and I am not being modest about that. He himself has been one of the stars of The Royal British Legion Committee under the chairmanship of the Director of Welfare, Colonel Terry English, to whom I and several other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate are much indebted for his help.
I believe it to be unfair to say that the services or the Ministry of Defence have ever ignored the problems which have arisen as a result of Gulf service. This has been a very, very complicated issue, and a developing one, getting steadily worse over the years. Much of the misconception surrounding it has been caused by the use of the word "syndrome". The noble Lord. Lord Morris, has been careful to avoid this, and talks instead of "illnesses"—a word which does not imply that there is any one single reason for what has happened. We must stop looking for a "syndrome".
An enormous amount of work has been done both in this country and in the United States, but there are still very few who understand the problem, and the MAPS programme does not really seem to be working. Almost every one of your Lordships who has spoken has referred to Group Captain Coker and I must add myself to this number. It is most important that the ministry should get him back into full harness. He is, as I understand it, at present on secondment in the United States, although he does spend some time here. It cannot be a very pleasant assignment for him to have, but he is without doubt the one man the sufferers trust and whom they feel understands their problems. If and when he does come back he must be given fair and unlimited access to allow him to investigate, without any comeback on him or his career if he does find anything.
One of the main difficulties is that we do not know the size of the problem. Having seen a report in a newspaper that 6,000 people were suffering from Gulf illness in this country, I recently asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to find out how many there were. In a complete and helpful reply I was told that 219 pensions had been granted out of 425 claims and that only a very small number had been turned down. Incidentally, I understand that that figure is almost exactly the same as the figure given in reply to a Question to the Minister in the previous government. However, a solicitor who specialises in these claims tells me that no cases have been settled. Perhaps the Minister

493
can give us some clarification on this point. I am told that 1,000 have applied for war pensions and 2,000 for compensation. Noble Lords will see that there is an enormous variation in the figures: from 6,000 to 425 to 219.
We need a veterans' register. The total numbers were being recorded by the solicitor to whom I referred. However, many sufferers were encouraged to register directly with the Ministry of Defence and the solicitor has therefore lost count of the numbers. Establishing the numbers is vital, although I admit that it is difficult because of the different criteria used. In addition, in many cases it is by no means certain whether the illness derives from Gulf service. The Americans are trying to establish the degree of Gulf illness by comparing peer groups of servicemen who did not serve there and those who did to find out how their states of health compare. I understand that as yet there is no result which has any statistical validity.
I was rather alarmed by the reference by my noble friend Lady Strange to a petty officer who is suffering as a result of a chemical attack on the frigate on which he was serving. I am not aware that any chemical attacks took place during the Gulf conflict. My noble friend also mentioned a number of other alarming cases. They may or may not be the result of Gulf service, and that is one of the things that we have to establish.
There are so many oddities involved in this problem. It seems that no Frenchmen are suffering: could it be that French troops who served in the Gulf all came from the Foreign Legion and were used to serving in those areas? The same might apply to Iraqis and others working and living permanently on the ground. Most of the Americans who are suffering seem to come from their reserve forces and not from the regular army, so training may be of some account. Very little of the trouble is found among those who served in the front lines. Why did the Czechs find evidence of chemical weapons when no one else did? And so on. There is an endless number of variations.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has evidence, as she told the House recently, of malformed children whose illnesses seem to be derived from depleted uranium. I recently asked the Minister a Question regarding the toxicity of depleted uranium. I am grateful to him for his letter of explanation; all I can say with reference to that letter is that it serves me right for asking the Question. From a report which he enclosed with that letter, it seems that depleted uranium is unlikely to have any effect on servicemen. I note the noble Countess's reference to malformed children. It may be that depleted uranium is not a factor in Gulf illness among former servicemen, but we do not know.
Perhaps the Minister can help with the numbers. At the same time I must remind him, with the very greatest respect, that he is replying for the Government and not for his department. So much of this is a matter for the Ministry of Health and not for the Ministry of Defence. I hope that he will nevertheless be able to help us. I let him get away with it with reference to Northern Ireland and the case of the two imprisoned guardsmen, but I think that in this case he can probably give us what we
494
want. The answers seem to lie squarely between the two departments. I suggest, with respect, that that provides further evidence of the need for a sub-Department of State to deal with service and post-service affairs.
This aspect of the problem arises again with the question of after-service care. I should not like to comment on the sad cases quoted by the noble Countess, but when a man suspects that he is suffering from a disease as a result of his Gulf service, has been seen by the appropriate authority and discharged into the hands of his GP, the GP is given his records. But have GPs any idea what to look for or how to treat that patient? I hope that GPs are now alerted to the existence of something that they may not know how to handle. With the disappearance of almost all service hospitals, GPs are the only immediate source of help and they will have to be trained. Very few will see a case of suspected Gulf illness, but it is vital that, if they do, they should know what steps to take.
As we speak, the problem is becoming increasingly important—not for the current sufferers, though their problems are great, but for those who may become sufferers in the future. Even more than with the current cases, the United States is concerned for its troops in the future if the Gulf crisis deepens and men are sent into Iraq on the ground. What are they likely to suffer from next time? What cocktail of injections have they been given?
Do those for whom it went wrong in 1990 and 1991 suffer from chemicals spread by the enemy or from what they were given to prevent them from so suffering? Undoubtedly there was a justified fear that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to employ chemical weapons and might use them. It would have been criminal to let the allied forces go into Iraq without protection. Exactly the same applies today. Let us pray that, if the worst happens and ground combat ensues, enough is known to get it right this time. Undoubtedly something—we do not know what—went wrong in 1991. Let us hope that it will not happen again and that the work that the Government are doing will be enough both to cure those who are ill now and to prevent others from becoming ill in the future.
6.58 pm.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, it is a melancholy duty to have to reply to a debate of this nature. As so often, I am forced to stand here agreeing with many of the questions raised but helpless to give answers to them, as I would normally have hoped to be able to do.
I echo the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Morris on raising this important subject. As I am sure he and other noble Lords agree, it is impossible not to understand the sadness, the anger and the sense of injustice on the part of many Gulf veterans at the way they believe they have been treated by successive governments. As your Lordships will know, a few short weeks ago I had the sad duty of having to receive back the medals from a dozen or so Gulf veterans who felt that returning them was the only way in which they could make their protest about what they saw as the

495
unsatisfactory way in which they had been treated. I do not conceal from myself that the fact that only a dozen or so handed back their medals does not mean that there were not many more who felt just as strongly as did those who were present on that sad Saturday.
Before I address many of the remarks made in the debate, I should like to thank those noble Lords who paid tribute to the diligence of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who brought a new urgency to the matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, we must not lose the momentum of the steps taken last year, that momentum being due almost entirely to my honourable friend.
It may be helpful to the House for me to deal with the various points raised, though not necessarily in the sequence of the speeches. One of the first points on which I should like to touch is the position of Dr. Coker. As has rightly been said, it is a matter of considerable concern to many veterans. He is the one man in whom they had confidence. Anxiety was expressed today that he has been shunted off to Washington and is out of the mainstream of MoD activity with respect to Gulf War illness.
Dr. Coker is closely involved in preparing a detailed report on the first 1,000 patients, to which reference was made this evening by many noble Lords. That paper is in its final stages of preparation and will shortly be submitted for review and publication. I repeat, Dr. Coker is closely involved in its publication. As to whether or not it is appropriate for the doctor to work in Washington, all I can say is that he has been back to this country. He had a meeting with my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. In addition, in July last year, he was asked whether or not he would prefer to return to the United Kingdom and replied at that time in the negative for both personal and professional reasons. At the moment he is doing sterling work in association with the medical services of the United States. I hope that not only your Lordships but also the veterans will be comforted by the news of his continuing involvement in the MAP review.
My noble friend Lord Morris said that there was a feeling of a lack of sympathy at some of the interviews when individuals were being assessed. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, repeated that point. It is not within my power to comment on what happened at individual interviews. All I can say is that if there have been such cases—I in no way impugn the noble Countess—they are to be deplored. I shall certainly bring her comments to the attention of my honourable friend.
I noted what was said again by my noble friend regarding the case of Gunner Ford, repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Gunner Ford is apparently suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue and chronic arthritis. Apparently he applied for a war pension as long ago as 1996. I shall certainly look into the question of whether or not interim payments would be appropriate or possible, but I cannot answer yea or nay from the Dispatch Box this evening. I shall obtain an answer for the noble Earl as soon as I can. The same applies in respect of the case of Mr. Parker, who was discharged in April 1997 and I shall also look
496
into the question of whether or not correct advice was given to members of the TA as to the eligibility of their spouses to receive the same benefits as regular servicemen.
My noble friend Lord Morris called for a veterans' register. The call was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and others. That is a matter already being looked at within the MoD and I hope to be able to reply one way or another before too long. I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that the issue has wider implications. There are difficulties in ascertaining exactly where veterans are; many may be abroad. There are also implications for the organisation of government in that respect.
With respect to the Khamisiyah—another question raised by my noble friend and others—we have been trying to identify exactly which units of Her Majesty's forces may have been under the plume of the explosion at the time. It is proving extremely difficult, though the evidence I have seen shows that few British personnel were likely to have been exposed to any toxic materials in those circumstances and, if there were any, those who were would have been exposed for an extremely brief period of time. Exposure for such a period would not normally be expected to affect them medically.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I was a little surprised to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reports of a chemical attack on a Royal Naval warship. I heard of no such incident during the course of the Gulf War. However, I shall be happy to look into the question of the six widows if she will let me have details of those to whom she referred.
The question of tented accommodation was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I have already given the House as detailed an explanation as I possibly can with respect to the contamination of some tents. We are not likely to be able to obtain further information on that subject in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked questions about confusion with the seven-year rule and the claim period being extended from three to six years. He believes that some clarification is necessary and that there are technical deficiencies in the regulations. I hold a detailed brief which I could read out, but it may detain your Lordships too long. I shall be happy to place on the record the answers to noble Lords' questions, but I ought to touch on other matters before I bring the debate to an end.
I was particularly struck by the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, regarding lessons for future conflict. However sad the events of the past seven years, they are matters to which we need seriously to address ourselves. What lessons have been learnt from the past? What are we doing about the future? What precautions should we take and what procedures are now in place?
The first thing which must be said with respect to any possible future conflict in the Gulf is that Ministers today, like previous Ministers, will be bound to take the

497
best medical advice available to them. They have a responsibility to see that British forces are protected, in so far as is humanly possible, against chemical and biological weapons. The advice will relate both to what is known about the weapons available to a hostile power and the degree, given military deployments and what has happened under the UNSCOM regime, which has been very helpful, of the threat.
The United Kingdom and the United States are co-operating closely with respect to research programmes but we do not necessarily accept that the procedures the United States is putting in place are appropriate for this country. For example, I think I am right in saying that the United States recently decided that it would embark upon a programme of compulsory vaccination, if that is the right word, against anthrax for every single member of its forces. British Ministers at the moment have no plans for compulsory medical treatment for anyone. This is a matter which, quite properly, has to be reviewed from time to time. The question is whether or not we have a moral right to require a member of one of our services to accept medical treatment in advance—for prophylactic purposes—if that service man or woman is reluctant to accept that treatment. There is also the question of whether or not in the judgment of senior officers the fighting capability of that man or woman might be impaired were they not to accept the treatment that is considered appropriate.
One of the difficulties we have in facing any future conflict is that we cannot know as of now the full range of the diabolical agents at the disposal of Mr. Saddam Hussein. Others may come to light at any moment which will produce new problems and will need new types of protective treatment. There is full co-operation between this country and the United States. The United States is funding two important research programmes in this country. As far as I know, we have full access to all their research. They are in a position to spend far more money than we are in these matters. We have at least one official over there in constant liaison with the work that the Americans are doing in their research programmes.
I understand full well what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, meant when she said that veterans do not want litigation; they want recognition of their illness, they want treatment for it and they want pensions for which they do not have to fight. That is a menu of requirements with which few of us would quarrel. The only problem is that we have not yet been able to get medical diagnosis of the causes of some of these symptoms. Recognition of the illness is easier said than done. If you cannot diagnose the illness, you have a problem with the treatment for it. With respect to fighting for pensions, I accept entirely that we need to look again at the interface between the Ministry of Defence and the War Pensions Agency. I shall certainly draw the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to the many remarks that have been made in this respect in today's debate.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, raised many questions which highlighted the complexities of this matter. He asked a question which I asked myself almost as soon as I arrived at the MoD this time. He asked why the French did not have any units that suffered from Gulf-related symptoms. This could be a matter of where the French forces were deployed during the Gulf War. I suspect that that may well be an answer to the noble Lord's question. I had not realised until he raised the point that most of the American forces who suffered were reservists and not front line forces. There may well be some significance in that which I am sure the Americans will be looking at diligently.
The noble Lord said that GPs need training. I do not know whether they need training. I certainly think there is a case for advisory circulars going out—I am sure that some already have gone out—but the numbers involved do not justify further training.
A point has not been made this evening but I think I should mention it. I am aware that certain of the veterans think that they should go to various institutions that could care for them but that their local health authorities do not think that the money would be properly or best invested in sending them to those institutions. All I can say is that at the end of the day that has to be a matter of judgment for the local health authority. I can only hope that the number of cases where veterans are dissatisfied with that aspect of these matters is greatly diminished over time.
It is a sad occasion to have to stand at the Dispatch Box to discuss these matters. I am immensely grateful for the moderate way your Lordships have put their points to me this evening. I undertake to study the debate again in tranquillity. If there are any points that I have failed to touch on while I have been on my feet I will of course, as is my practice, write to noble Lords about them.
In conclusion, I should like to say that with the arrival of my honourable friend in the post of Minister for the Armed Forces—this point has been widely recognised in the House—the Government have increased dramatically the funds available for trying to get to the bottom of these matters, have accelerated the procedures of the MAP so that the waiting lists are much reduced and have greatly enhanced consultation with the veterans and their organisations and individual Members of this House. We are in no sense complacent. I shall certainly take away the messages that were left with me by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of letting slip the momentum which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, was kind enough to acknowledge, we started last year.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his comments. Perhaps I may ask him to pay particular attention in the replies that he will give to the numbers involved. I believe that to be very confused.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to do so.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.